Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Logic doesn't apply to the real world. -- Marvin Minsky


tech / sci.physics.relativity / Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

SubjectAuthor
* Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Richard Hachel
+* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Odd Bodkin
|`* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Ken Seto
| +- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Python
| `* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Odd Bodkin
|  `- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Maciej Wozniak
+* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Sylvia Else
|`* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Richard Hachel
| `- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Sylvia Else
+- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Sylvia Else
+* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Athel Cornish-Bowden
|+- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Maciej Wozniak
|`* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Richard Hachel
| `* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Odd Bodkin
|  +* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Maciej Wozniak
|  |+* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Python
|  ||`- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Maciej Wozniak
|  |`- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Odd Bodkin
|  +- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Python
|  `* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Richard Hachel
|   +- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Maciej Wozniak
|   `* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Odd Bodkin
|    `* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Maciej Wozniak
|     `* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Python
|      `* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Maciej Wozniak
|       `* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Python
|        `- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Maciej Wozniak
`* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Michael Moroney
 +- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Ross A. Finlayson
 `* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Richard Hachel
  +- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Coke Hishikawa
  +* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?J. J. Lodder
  |`- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Paul Alsing
  `* Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Michael Moroney
   `- Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?Maciej Wozniak

Pages:12
Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87112&group=sci.physics.relativity#87112

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: yJDp-_mqeRXfTKeSgKvXkJnZBG0
JNTP-ThreadID: V-198Zjvro6pDJovDeUoO9v5VD8
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 22 22:05:04 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.75 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="a89df8e4efa371a995eb611059c73734c878f2c7"; logging-data="2022-04-07T22:05:04Z/6784323"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@news2.nemoweb.net"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: r.hac...@tiscali.fr (Richard Hachel)
 by: Richard Hachel - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:05 UTC

One of the most important terms to redefine, in relativity, is the notion
of simultaneity.

To say that two events take place simultaneously means that they take
place, at least for a given observer, at the same moment, that they occur,
for him, at the same instant.

This I understand very well.

I then use the term isochrony. I say they are isochronous.

If they do not occur at the same instant, I say, on the contrary, that
they are anisochronous.

A second use of the term "simultaneous" is found in the idea: "both clocks
beat simultaneously".

Of course I understand what that means.

Among men in general, and among physicists in particular, this means that
watches have the same chronotropy.

That is to say that they beat at the same speed.

But it is not the same thing to say that two events are isochronous (ie
simultaneous) and to say that two watches have the same chronotropy (ie
beat at the same speed).

The two ideas should not be confused.

For example, by POSITIONAL change, I am on this bench and Mary is on this
other, we have the same chronotropy. There's no reason why our watches
can't beat at the same speed.
But we don't have the same simultaneity of universes, the same notion of
"present time". I lag behind her, and she lags behind me, and, in general,
two simultaneous events for her will no longer be so for me.

Now, if I move at high speed, a new phenomenon will occur.
The two watches (mine and his) will no longer beat at the same speed, each
will beat more slowly than the opposite watch (there is no paradox).
We will no longer have the same chronotropy, the same way of measuring
time.

One last point: if I cross Mary at high speed, our chronotropies will be
relative, as I just said, BUT our notion of simultaneity will be, in this
pure moment, the same.

We will observe exactly the same present universe.

Highly spatially distorted relative to each other (Lorentz
transformations) but with absolute perceptual simultaneity.

This is how you have to define and see things.

But I don't know, despite very clear words, if I'm making myself
understood.

I can't make it any clearer.

R.H.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<t2no01$15rs$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87113&group=sci.physics.relativity#87113

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!FF+VjjUmB7BrEY5dt93V+Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:18:41 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2no01$15rs$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="38780"; posting-host="FF+VjjUmB7BrEY5dt93V+Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4umXJQDgtIc/SQEuMa2JSkelCUo=
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Odd Bodkin - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:18 UTC

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> One of the most important terms to redefine, in relativity, is the notion
> of simultaneity.
>
> To say that two events take place simultaneously means that they take
> place, at least for a given observer, at the same moment, that they occur,
> for him, at the same instant.

There is no compelling reason to redefine simultaneity in this way. The
existing definition, which is shared and understood among the physics
community, serves very well.

You might as well ask zoologists to redefine mammals as being four legged,
warm-blooded animals with body hair. No zoologist is going to entertain
that idea seriously.

And no physicist is going to entertain your definition of simultaneity
seriously. Even if you like it or find it pretty.

>

>
> I can't make it any clearer.

Perhaps you could try to make it clearer why your suggested redefinition
should be considered at all.

Just to put a fine point on it, you explaining your idea very clearly is
not a good reason to adopt it.

>
> R.H.
>

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

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<jba4vrFge3iU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87129&group=sci.physics.relativity#87129

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:02:19 +1000
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <jba4vrFge3iU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net xKqRc7nFGuYQMDf8cd7D+wiBggE0YN9hosj1YrqMGPeU70rr54
Cancel-Lock: sha1:J0u3PUaSNpoL3s+pGX9D4oHUKq8=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
 by: Sylvia Else - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 07:02 UTC

On 08-Apr-22 8:05 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
> One of the most important terms to redefine, in relativity, is the
> notion of simultaneity.
>
> To say that two events take place simultaneously means that they take
> place, at least for a given observer, at the same moment, that they
> occur, for him, at the same instant.
>
> This I understand very well.
>
> I then use the term isochrony. I say they are isochronous.

Adopted terminology from an unrelated field -> Nutjob alert.

Sylvia.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<jba58fFgg1eU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87130&group=sci.physics.relativity#87130

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:06:54 +1000
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <jba58fFgg1eU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 034NVl4fRN4ZTtVLYoY5FwnKo6skFXcUY6xVZV0v24N+D3DzSW
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CNdEXSVmFe+LPQmi1WF4k7oJmC8=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
 by: Sylvia Else - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 07:06 UTC

On 08-Apr-22 8:05 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
> One of the most important terms to redefine, in relativity, is the
> notion of simultaneity.
>
> To say that two events take place simultaneously means that they take
> place, at least for a given observer, at the same moment, that they
> occur, for him, at the same instant.

This achieves nothing. All you're doing is saying that the expressions
"simultaneously", "same moment", and "same instant" are synonyms. You
offer no way to determine whether any two events are described by those
expressions.

Sylvia.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87131&group=sci.physics.relativity#87131

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: acorn...@imm.cnrs.fr (Athel Cornish-Bowden)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:32:40 +0200
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net mqt6mUj/ow+WC8PaH4LhJwjcxMNDcelf9pKnXO4ghZJvle628i
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6oO/aP8GZGtulAE1PeeNGguWmtw=
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
 by: Athel Cornish-Bowden - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 07:32 UTC

On 2022-04-07 22:05:04 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> One of the most important terms to redefine, in relativity, is the
> notion of simultaneity.
>
> To say that two events take place simultaneously means that they take
> place, at least for a given observer, at the same moment, that they
> occur, for him, at the same instant.
>
> This I understand very well.
>
> I then use the term isochrony. I say they are isochronous.
> [ … ]
>
Who is this "we" that appears in your subject line? Are you seriously
suggesting that real physicists will adopt a definition proposed in a
discussion group composed mainly of crackpots?

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<c8415758-e3ed-4c24-8a81-4a2a49e90345n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87132&group=sci.physics.relativity#87132

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:8e0b:0:b0:435:1779:7b22 with SMTP id v11-20020a0c8e0b000000b0043517797b22mr15316197qvb.63.1649404305350;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 00:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:921:b0:443:ce3d:577b with SMTP id
dk1-20020a056214092100b00443ce3d577bmr15141531qvb.122.1649404305178; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 00:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 00:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.25.27.58; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.25.27.58
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp> <jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c8415758-e3ed-4c24-8a81-4a2a49e90345n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 07:51:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 24
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 07:51 UTC

On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 09:32:45 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-04-07 22:05:04 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
> > One of the most important terms to redefine, in relativity, is the
> > notion of simultaneity.
> >
> > To say that two events take place simultaneously means that they take
> > place, at least for a given observer, at the same moment, that they
> > occur, for him, at the same instant.
> >
> > This I understand very well.
> >
> > I then use the term isochrony. I say they are isochronous.
> > [ … ]
> >
> Who is this "we" that appears in your subject line? Are you seriously
> suggesting that real physicists will adopt a definition proposed in a
> discussion group composed mainly of crackpots?

Poor maniacs surely won't and will never leave the world
of their pretty, warm, symmetrical delusions.
In the real world, of course, two events are simultaneous
when their TAI/UTC/GPS time coordinate is the same.
Your barking won't change it at all, poor halfbrain.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87142&group=sci.physics.relativity#87142

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp> <jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: hOyuJjPHeD7Vli_IQM7FSssWPSY
JNTP-ThreadID: V-198Zjvro6pDJovDeUoO9v5VD8
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 22 13:17:55 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.75 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="9f30331b3f26b293e9c7b8fbe8765cece4cc59d6"; logging-data="2022-04-08T13:17:55Z/6785961"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@news2.nemoweb.net"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: r.hac...@tiscali.fr (Richard Hachel)
 by: Richard Hachel - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:17 UTC

Le 08/04/2022 à 09:32, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> Who is this "we" that appears in your subject line? Are you seriously
> suggesting that real physicists will adopt a definition proposed in a
> discussion group composed mainly of crackpots?

I am serious in saying that they should adopt a clearer, more precise,
more refined terminology, and that they would benefit from reading authors
like me.

But I am also serious when I say that they are not interested.

And I am even more serious when I say that in human beings, for the most
part, narcissism and clan spirit always prevail over foreign thinking and
the general interest.

Of course yes, I'm serious.

R.H.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<QdhWzVitsxlKr4gU1t1zF9QwsOw@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87145&group=sci.physics.relativity#87145

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <QdhWzVitsxlKr4gU1t1zF9QwsOw@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp> <jba4vrFge3iU1@mid.individual.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: 2BV711AFggp21xCuAYd68WKSPww
JNTP-ThreadID: V-198Zjvro6pDJovDeUoO9v5VD8
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=QdhWzVitsxlKr4gU1t1zF9QwsOw@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 22 14:01:42 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.75 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="9f30331b3f26b293e9c7b8fbe8765cece4cc59d6"; logging-data="2022-04-08T14:01:42Z/6786052"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@news2.nemoweb.net"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: r.hac...@tiscali.fr (Richard Hachel)
 by: Richard Hachel - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 14:01 UTC

Le 08/04/2022 à 09:02, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> On 08-Apr-22 8:05 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> One of the most important terms to redefine, in relativity, is the
>> notion of simultaneity.
>>
>> To say that two events take place simultaneously means that they take
>> place, at least for a given observer, at the same moment, that they
>> occur, for him, at the same instant.
>>
>> This I understand very well.
>>
>> I then use the term isochrony. I say they are isochronous.
>
> Adopted terminology from an unrelated field -> Nutjob alert.
>
> Sylvia.

If you are another termonology for "anisochrony", I listen you.

I laugh at the word "anisochrony". What I want is for the CONCEPT to be
understood.

Change the word if you want.

R.H.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<jbaumbFl9biU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87147&group=sci.physics.relativity#87147

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 00:20:58 +1000
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <jbaumbFl9biU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
<jba4vrFge3iU1@mid.individual.net> <QdhWzVitsxlKr4gU1t1zF9QwsOw@jntp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 0ktEgLP5pWwDNxYzCFXHGQXmYyAzuPyEiiNhADZLNYlVJG2I33
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZI/L7sHWDmjQXsNhpX62kUlW8qc=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <QdhWzVitsxlKr4gU1t1zF9QwsOw@jntp>
 by: Sylvia Else - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 14:20 UTC

On 09-Apr-22 12:01 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 08/04/2022 à 09:02, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>> On 08-Apr-22 8:05 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> One of the most important terms to redefine, in relativity, is the
>>> notion of simultaneity.
>>>
>>> To say that two events take place simultaneously means that they take
>>> place, at least for a given observer, at the same moment, that they
>>> occur, for him, at the same instant.
>>>
>>> This I understand very well.
>>>
>>> I then use the term isochrony. I say they are isochronous.
>>
>> Adopted terminology from an unrelated field -> Nutjob alert.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> If you are another termonology for "anisochrony", I listen you.
>
> I laugh at the word "anisochrony". What I want is for the CONCEPT to be
> understood.
>
> Change the word if you want.
> R.H.

You're not offering a concept, you just think you are because you're
waving words around.

Sylvia.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<t2phgf$1ifi$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87148&group=sci.physics.relativity#87148

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 14:40:16 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2phgf$1ifi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
<jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net>
<aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="51698"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BswHLJxFALQTcUkCllbyvWPBCSU=
 by: Odd Bodkin - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 14:40 UTC

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 08/04/2022 à 09:32, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> Who is this "we" that appears in your subject line? Are you seriously
>> suggesting that real physicists will adopt a definition proposed in a
>> discussion group composed mainly of crackpots?
>
> I am serious in saying that they should adopt a clearer, more precise,
> more refined terminology, and that they would benefit from reading authors
> like me.

I’m not sure what you think needs refining. The definition of simultaneity
in physics is perfectly clear, very precise, and understood by the whole
physics community. It just does not agree with what you think simultaneity
means. In this case, the one that has to move is more likely you. It is not
reasonable to expect that the entire physics community should shift their
definition of simultaneity to accommodate a single person who has a
different definition. It is also perplexing to me why you think it is not
reasonable to ask you, the member outside the community, to learn to use
the physicists’ definition of simultaneity. It is customary for students
getting acquainted with a subject owned by others to learn the language and
definitions of critical terms in that subject, no?

>
> But I am also serious when I say that they are not interested.

Of *course* they’re not interested in adjusting a definition of
simultaneity to meet the alternative posed by a single individual outside
the community. Why would expect differently.

>
> And I am even more serious when I say that in human beings, for the most
> part, narcissism and clan spirit always prevail over foreign thinking and
> the general interest.
>
> Of course yes, I'm serious.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<5dba20a0-c077-47f2-8df0-1d530dce6fd0n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87151&group=sci.physics.relativity#87151

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4e88:0:b0:2e1:d573:325f with SMTP id 8-20020ac84e88000000b002e1d573325fmr16155987qtp.265.1649431882471;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 08:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:921:b0:443:ce3d:577b with SMTP id
dk1-20020a056214092100b00443ce3d577bmr16698842qvb.122.1649431882221; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 08:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 08:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t2phgf$1ifi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp> <jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net>
<aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp> <t2phgf$1ifi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5dba20a0-c077-47f2-8df0-1d530dce6fd0n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 15:31:22 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 20
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:31 UTC

On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 16:40:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 08/04/2022 à 09:32, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> >> Who is this "we" that appears in your subject line? Are you seriously
> >> suggesting that real physicists will adopt a definition proposed in a
> >> discussion group composed mainly of crackpots?
> >
> > I am serious in saying that they should adopt a clearer, more precise,
> > more refined terminology, and that they would benefit from reading authors
> > like me.
> I’m not sure what you think needs refining. The definition of simultaneity
> in physics is perfectly clear, very precise,

Get conscious, lady. The definition concocted
by Your insane gurus is valid only in inertial
frames. Nowhere.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<t2pkla$155i$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87152&group=sci.physics.relativity#87152

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:34:02 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2pkla$155i$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
<jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net> <aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp>
<t2phgf$1ifi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<5dba20a0-c077-47f2-8df0-1d530dce6fd0n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="38066"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Python - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:34 UTC

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> The definition concocted by [phycisists] is valid only in inertial
> frames.

As far as I can tell this is the first and only correct statement
you've ever posted here Maciej. Congratulations!

Unfortunately the following statement:

> Nowhere.

.... is asinine.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<t2plci$1j35$2@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87156&group=sci.physics.relativity#87156

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:46:26 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2plci$1j35$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
<jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net>
<aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp>
<t2phgf$1ifi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<5dba20a0-c077-47f2-8df0-1d530dce6fd0n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="52325"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lYjhCL2EucO0esAbbkm1D5QYTWQ=
 by: Odd Bodkin - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:46 UTC

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 16:40:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 08/04/2022 à 09:32, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>>>> Who is this "we" that appears in your subject line? Are you seriously
>>>> suggesting that real physicists will adopt a definition proposed in a
>>>> discussion group composed mainly of crackpots?
>>>
>>> I am serious in saying that they should adopt a clearer, more precise,
>>> more refined terminology, and that they would benefit from reading authors
>>> like me.
>> I’m not sure what you think needs refining. The definition of simultaneity
>> in physics is perfectly clear, very precise,
>
> Get conscious, lady. The definition concocted
> by Your insane gurus is valid only in inertial
> frames. Nowhere.
>

Inertial reference frames are all over the place, despite your
misconceptions about that.
And yes, it is a very clear definition.

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

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<t2pmkt$96u$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87162&group=sci.physics.relativity#87162

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:07:57 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2pmkt$96u$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
<jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net> <aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp>
<t2phgf$1ifi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="9438"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Python - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:07 UTC

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 08/04/2022 à 09:32, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>>> Who is this "we" that appears in your subject line? Are you seriously
>>> suggesting that real physicists will adopt a definition proposed in a
>>> discussion group composed mainly of crackpots?
>>
>> I am serious in saying that they should adopt a clearer, more precise,
>> more refined terminology, and that they would benefit from reading authors
>> like me.
>
> I’m not sure what you think needs refining. The definition of simultaneity
> in physics is perfectly clear, very precise, and understood by the whole
> physics community. It just does not agree with what you think simultaneity
> means. In this case, the one that has to move is more likely you. It is not
> reasonable to expect that the entire physics community should shift their
> definition of simultaneity to accommodate a single person who has a
> different definition. It is also perplexing to me why you think it is not
> reasonable to ask you, the member outside the community, to learn to use
> the physicists’ definition of simultaneity. It is customary for students
> getting acquainted with a subject owned by others to learn the language and
> definitions of critical terms in that subject, no?
>
>>
>> But I am also serious when I say that they are not interested.
>
> Of *course* they’re not interested in adjusting a definition of
> simultaneity to meet the alternative posed by a single individual outside
> the community. Why would expect differently.
>
>>
>> And I am even more serious when I say that in human beings, for the most
>> part, narcissism and clan spirit always prevail over foreign thinking and
>> the general interest.
>>
>> Of course yes, I'm serious.
>>
>> R.H.

If you think about it there is a another glitch in Lengrand's idea.

I told him once when I asked him to properly derive the formula for
what he calls "apparent speeds" instead of throwing it out of his
hat (what he refuse to do by the way). His idea of "anisochrony"
IMPLIES the consistency of Einstein-Poincaré synchronization
procedure.

I'll take time to write it down properly eventually.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<e63aff67-aedf-4447-82e5-6af5c9bb3f54n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87163&group=sci.physics.relativity#87163

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4512:b0:67d:52fc:4792 with SMTP id t18-20020a05620a451200b0067d52fc4792mr13498203qkp.458.1649434346593;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 09:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:488e:0:b0:2ed:ea5:2fae with SMTP id
i14-20020ac8488e000000b002ed0ea52faemr376935qtq.604.1649434346390; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 09:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t2no01$15rs$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.213.24.112; posting-account=W7gfVQoAAACRq_zh4C6vXoE20aUFnnXp
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.213.24.112
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp> <t2no01$15rs$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e63aff67-aedf-4447-82e5-6af5c9bb3f54n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
From: setoke...@gmail.com (Ken Seto)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 16:12:26 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 53
 by: Ken Seto - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:12 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:18:43 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > One of the most important terms to redefine, in relativity, is the notion
> > of simultaneity.
> >
> > To say that two events take place simultaneously means that they take
> > place, at least for a given observer, at the same moment, that they occur,
> > for him, at the same instant.
> There is no compelling reason to redefine simultaneity in this way. The
> existing definition, which is shared and understood among the physics
> community, serves very well.

Simultaneity of two events can only be determined at the rest frame of the events and at the mid point between the events.
In any case, Simultaneity of two event have no effect on the physical outcome of the events. Einstein invented relativity of simultaneity (RoS) to save his faulty postulate that the speed of light is constant and incentive to motion. If we get rid of Einstein's constant light speed we can open up a new way of doing physics.

>
> You might as well ask zoologists to redefine mammals as being four legged,
> warm-blooded animals with body hair. No zoologist is going to entertain
> that idea seriously.
>
> And no physicist is going to entertain your definition of simultaneity
> seriously. Even if you like it or find it pretty.
> >
>
> >
> > I can't make it any clearer.
> Perhaps you could try to make it clearer why your suggested redefinition
> should be considered at all.
>
> Just to put a fine point on it, you explaining your idea very clearly is
> not a good reason to adopt it.
>
> >
> > R.H.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<t2pn9n$i9v$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87164&group=sci.physics.relativity#87164

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:19:03 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2pn9n$i9v$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp> <t2no01$15rs$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<e63aff67-aedf-4447-82e5-6af5c9bb3f54n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="18751"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Python - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:19 UTC

Ken Seto wrote:
....
> Simultaneity of two events can only be determined at the rest frame of the events
> and at the mid point between the events.

Neither "rest frame of the events" nor "midpoint of the events" are
meaningful expressions.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<9e221ccb-48f5-437b-b44b-f0d134d6aa73n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87166&group=sci.physics.relativity#87166

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5754:0:b0:2e1:eee8:be0b with SMTP id 20-20020ac85754000000b002e1eee8be0bmr16362244qtx.349.1649435745036;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 09:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5715:0:b0:2e1:cdf9:e846 with SMTP id
21-20020ac85715000000b002e1cdf9e846mr16929618qtw.213.1649435744713; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 09:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t2pkla$155i$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp> <jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net>
<aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp> <t2phgf$1ifi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<5dba20a0-c077-47f2-8df0-1d530dce6fd0n@googlegroups.com> <t2pkla$155i$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9e221ccb-48f5-437b-b44b-f0d134d6aa73n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 16:35:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 18
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:35 UTC

On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 17:34:14 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > The definition concocted by [phycisists] is valid only in inertial
> > frames.
>
> As far as I can tell this is the first and only correct statement

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?

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<t2poer$16nk$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87167&group=sci.physics.relativity#87167

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:38:52 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2poer$16nk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
<t2no01$15rs$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<e63aff67-aedf-4447-82e5-6af5c9bb3f54n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="39668"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kD9Uj75VEIwMNoDbLBOU5gRYuBE=
 by: Odd Bodkin - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:38 UTC

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:18:43 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> One of the most important terms to redefine, in relativity, is the notion
>>> of simultaneity.
>>>
>>> To say that two events take place simultaneously means that they take
>>> place, at least for a given observer, at the same moment, that they occur,
>>> for him, at the same instant.
>> There is no compelling reason to redefine simultaneity in this way. The
>> existing definition, which is shared and understood among the physics
>> community, serves very well.
>
> Simultaneity of two events can only be determined at the rest frame of
> the events and at the mid point between the events.

Events don’t have rest frames because they don’t have duration, which is
need to define motion or rest.

I can’t stress enough how important it is to learn what words like “event”
mean in physics, so that you don’t stick your foot in mud by saying things
like “rest frame of the events”.

And no, the observer does not need to be at the midpoint between the
events. Simultaneity is routinely established between real events in real
labs from vantage points that aren’t in the middle. A simple example are
the massive detector systems, which are all sending information 100,000
times a second to computers in a building next door and down the road a
bit. And the computers have to know which data from detector A is
simultaneous with which data from detector B — and they do that
successfully now.

> In any case, Simultaneity of two event have no effect on the physical
> outcome of the events. Einstein invented relativity of simultaneity (RoS)
> to save his faulty postulate that the speed of light is constant and
> incentive to motion. If we get rid of Einstein's constant light speed we
> can open up a new way of doing physics.
>
>
>>
>> You might as well ask zoologists to redefine mammals as being four legged,
>> warm-blooded animals with body hair. No zoologist is going to entertain
>> that idea seriously.
>>
>> And no physicist is going to entertain your definition of simultaneity
>> seriously. Even if you like it or find it pretty.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> I can't make it any clearer.
>> Perhaps you could try to make it clearer why your suggested redefinition
>> should be considered at all.
>>
>> Just to put a fine point on it, you explaining your idea very clearly is
>> not a good reason to adopt it.
>>
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<ad13aad6-1460-4b01-9361-b0ec28651548n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87170&group=sci.physics.relativity#87170

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:308:0:b0:69b:37b8:6381 with SMTP id 8-20020a370308000000b0069b37b86381mr3315194qkd.367.1649437276004;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6708:0:b0:69a:88a4:82d0 with SMTP id
b8-20020a376708000000b0069a88a482d0mr3625810qkc.169.1649437275827; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 10:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t2poer$16nk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp> <t2no01$15rs$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<e63aff67-aedf-4447-82e5-6af5c9bb3f54n@googlegroups.com> <t2poer$16nk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ad13aad6-1460-4b01-9361-b0ec28651548n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 17:01:15 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 10
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:01 UTC

On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 18:38:55 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> And no, the observer does not need to be at the midpoint between the
> events. Simultaneity is routinely established between real events in real
> labs from vantage points that aren’t in the middle.

And, of course, 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.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<LrzRZovNobbWj8Tooi1wlrVn56w@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87177&group=sci.physics.relativity#87177

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <LrzRZovNobbWj8Tooi1wlrVn56w@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp> <jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net> <aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp>
<t2phgf$1ifi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: cIUSQlO0oMhYlfs502Yw_i0T6yg
JNTP-ThreadID: V-198Zjvro6pDJovDeUoO9v5VD8
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=LrzRZovNobbWj8Tooi1wlrVn56w@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 22 18:05:23 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.75 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="9f30331b3f26b293e9c7b8fbe8765cece4cc59d6"; logging-data="2022-04-08T18:05:23Z/6786966"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@news2.nemoweb.net"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: r.hac...@tiscali.fr (Richard Hachel)
 by: Richard Hachel - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:05 UTC

Le 08/04/2022 à 16:40, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 08/04/2022 à 09:32, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>>> Who is this "we" that appears in your subject line? Are you seriously
>>> suggesting that real physicists will adopt a definition proposed in a
>>> discussion group composed mainly of crackpots?
>>
>> I am serious in saying that they should adopt a clearer, more precise,
>> more refined terminology, and that they would benefit from reading authors
>> like me.
>
> I’m not sure what you think needs refining. The definition of simultaneity
> in physics is perfectly clear, very precise, and understood by the whole
> physics community. It just does not agree with what you think simultaneity
> means. In this case, the one that has to move is more likely you. It is not
> reasonable to expect that the entire physics community should shift their
> definition of simultaneity to accommodate a single person who has a
> different definition. It is also perplexing to me why you think it is not
> reasonable to ask you, the member outside the community, to learn to use
> the physicists’ definition of simultaneity. It is customary for students
> getting acquainted with a subject owned by others to learn the language and
> definitions of critical terms in that subject, no?
>
>>
>> But I am also serious when I say that they are not interested.
>
> Of *course* they’re not interested in adjusting a definition of
> simultaneity to meet the alternative posed by a single individual outside
> the community. Why would expect differently.
>
>>
>> And I am even more serious when I say that in human beings, for the most
>> part, narcissism and clan spirit always prevail over foreign thinking and
>> the general interest.
>>
>> Of course yes, I'm serious.
>>
>> R.H.
>>

Yes of course.

But suppose we are in the second century BC, and everyone thinks the earth
is flat.

The greatest mathematicians of the time then say that Euclidean geometry
is perfect.

And that we can calculate, by an infinity of Pythagoreanism, the distance
between all the cities of the universe.

If someone comes and says to them, "Everything you say about Euclidean
geometry is right, but the problem is that the universe is not made like
that. The earth is not flat, but round, and a geometry different from flat
space must be adopted".

It's obvious, absolutely obvious that the guy is going to get killed.

Who will defend him?

Who will only try to understand his position?

Aren't we going to say that there is a madman who claims that Euclidean
geometry is false?

But that's not what he said.

He just said: "Euclidean geometry is irrelevant if we consider that the
earth is round".

Likewise, the absolute synchronization of watches is irrelevant in the
universe. They cannot be synchronized "absolutely" because of position
(which relativists don't understand), this is called anisochrony.

If the watches move at high speed a second phenomenon appears, they no
longer beat at the same speed (negative chronotropy). Each watch seeing
all the other mobile watches in the universe beat reciprocally less
quickly than its own.

What is maddening is that this second effect, everyone accepts it and uses
it for more than 120 years.

But we don't seem to understand that if this effect were unique, and if
there was no anisotropy as Richard Hachel asserts, it would be absurd.

It is only the anisotropy that explains why there is NO absurdity, no
Langevin paradox, no Andromeda paradox, no train paradox, and why
everything remains remarkably coherent.

R.H.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<c71896bb-5f32-411e-ab08-e9369d0ac039n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87180&group=sci.physics.relativity#87180

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:190c:b0:2e1:ef94:63f6 with SMTP id w12-20020a05622a190c00b002e1ef9463f6mr17253410qtc.197.1649442607452;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 11:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:298c:b0:680:9f2a:c213 with SMTP id
r12-20020a05620a298c00b006809f2ac213mr13904613qkp.11.1649442607244; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 11:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <LrzRZovNobbWj8Tooi1wlrVn56w@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp> <jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net>
<aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp> <t2phgf$1ifi$1@gioia.aioe.org> <LrzRZovNobbWj8Tooi1wlrVn56w@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c71896bb-5f32-411e-ab08-e9369d0ac039n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 18:30:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 8
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:30 UTC

On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 20:05:26 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:

> If someone comes and says to them, "Everything you say about Euclidean
> geometry is right, but the problem is that the universe is not made like
> that. The earth is not flat, but round, and a geometry different from flat
> space must be adopted".

Richard, poor idiot, do you really think that round
Earth was discovered by Riemann?

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<t2q8um$p6b$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87189&group=sci.physics.relativity#87189

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 21:20:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2q8um$p6b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
<jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net>
<aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp>
<t2phgf$1ifi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<LrzRZovNobbWj8Tooi1wlrVn56w@jntp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="25803"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M6o1tsTi2u7ffBTfRkO/aEmtEsc=
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Odd Bodkin - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 21:20 UTC

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 08/04/2022 à 16:40, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 08/04/2022 à 09:32, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>>>> Who is this "we" that appears in your subject line? Are you seriously
>>>> suggesting that real physicists will adopt a definition proposed in a
>>>> discussion group composed mainly of crackpots?
>>>
>>> I am serious in saying that they should adopt a clearer, more precise,
>>> more refined terminology, and that they would benefit from reading authors
>>> like me.
>>
>> I’m not sure what you think needs refining. The definition of simultaneity
>> in physics is perfectly clear, very precise, and understood by the whole
>> physics community. It just does not agree with what you think simultaneity
>> means. In this case, the one that has to move is more likely you. It is not
>> reasonable to expect that the entire physics community should shift their
>> definition of simultaneity to accommodate a single person who has a
>> different definition. It is also perplexing to me why you think it is not
>> reasonable to ask you, the member outside the community, to learn to use
>> the physicists’ definition of simultaneity. It is customary for students
>> getting acquainted with a subject owned by others to learn the language and
>> definitions of critical terms in that subject, no?
>>
>>>
>>> But I am also serious when I say that they are not interested.
>>
>> Of *course* they’re not interested in adjusting a definition of
>> simultaneity to meet the alternative posed by a single individual outside
>> the community. Why would expect differently.
>>
>>>
>>> And I am even more serious when I say that in human beings, for the most
>>> part, narcissism and clan spirit always prevail over foreign thinking and
>>> the general interest.
>>>
>>> Of course yes, I'm serious.
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>
> Yes of course.
>
> But suppose we are in the second century BC, and everyone thinks the earth
> is flat.
>
> The greatest mathematicians of the time then say that Euclidean geometry
> is perfect.
>
> And that we can calculate, by an infinity of Pythagoreanism, the distance
> between all the cities of the universe.
>
> If someone comes and says to them, "Everything you say about Euclidean
> geometry is right, but the problem is that the universe is not made like
> that. The earth is not flat, but round, and a geometry different from flat
> space must be adopted".

This does not result in a redefinition of “flat”.

You are asking for a redefinition of “simultaneity” — what the word
actually means.

There is nothing wrong with the definition of simultaneity as physicists
use that word. There is no reason to redefine it.

>
> It's obvious, absolutely obvious that the guy is going to get killed.
>
> Who will defend him?
>
> Who will only try to understand his position?
>
> Aren't we going to say that there is a madman who claims that Euclidean
> geometry is false?
>
> But that's not what he said.
>
> He just said: "Euclidean geometry is irrelevant if we consider that the
> earth is round".
>
> Likewise, the absolute synchronization of watches is irrelevant in the
> universe. They cannot be synchronized "absolutely" because of position
> (which relativists don't understand), this is called anisochrony.
>
> If the watches move at high speed a second phenomenon appears, they no
> longer beat at the same speed (negative chronotropy). Each watch seeing
> all the other mobile watches in the universe beat reciprocally less
> quickly than its own.
>
> What is maddening is that this second effect, everyone accepts it and uses
> it for more than 120 years.
>
> But we don't seem to understand that if this effect were unique, and if
> there was no anisotropy as Richard Hachel asserts, it would be absurd.
>
> It is only the anisotropy that explains why there is NO absurdity, no
> Langevin paradox, no Andromeda paradox, no train paradox, and why
> everything remains remarkably coherent.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<t2qmn1$18vf$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87209&group=sci.physics.relativity#87209

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Uh3cGLv3BUP05xA/L7flqA.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 21:15:23 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2qmn1$18vf$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="41967"; posting-host="Uh3cGLv3BUP05xA/L7flqA.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Michael Moroney - Sat, 9 Apr 2022 01:15 UTC

On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

> I can't make it any clearer.
>
Yes you can. You can quit using words like "isochronous" and
"chronotropy" which have completely different meanings.

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<e5aa738b-68e3-46cf-b40e-214721282f1bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87210&group=sci.physics.relativity#87210

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5e50:0:b0:2eb:871f:be31 with SMTP id i16-20020ac85e50000000b002eb871fbe31mr18171125qtx.382.1649467102880;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 18:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5715:0:b0:2e1:cdf9:e846 with SMTP id
21-20020ac85715000000b002e1cdf9e846mr18556019qtw.213.1649467102688; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 18:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t2qmn1$18vf$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=75.172.97.72; posting-account=_-PQygoAAAAciOn_89sZIlnxfb74FzXU
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.172.97.72
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp> <t2qmn1$18vf$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e5aa738b-68e3-46cf-b40e-214721282f1bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
From: ross.fin...@gmail.com (Ross A. Finlayson)
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2022 01:18:22 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 9
 by: Ross A. Finlayson - Sat, 9 Apr 2022 01:18 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 6:05 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > I can't make it any clearer.
> >
> Yes you can. You can quit using words like "isochronous" and
> "chronotropy" which have completely different meanings.

No it's "tautauchrony".

Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?

<e2b6ecb4-3f9c-4235-9faa-3c15eca1d59fn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87220&group=sci.physics.relativity#87220

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:21a7:b0:441:1434:eafd with SMTP id t7-20020a05621421a700b004411434eafdmr18351879qvc.77.1649480949902;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 22:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5a55:0:b0:2e1:ce7f:2702 with SMTP id
o21-20020ac85a55000000b002e1ce7f2702mr18529932qta.37.1649480949692; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 22:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 22:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t2q8um$p6b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <Y6oD6896mGhyEzwe5bX214IU5Mc@jntp> <jba6oqFgpj9U1@mid.individual.net>
<aV-bAmDn9p7d8n67ymZQN0cYusA@jntp> <t2phgf$1ifi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<LrzRZovNobbWj8Tooi1wlrVn56w@jntp> <t2q8um$p6b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e2b6ecb4-3f9c-4235-9faa-3c15eca1d59fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Should we redefine the WHOLE theory of relativity?
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2022 05:09:09 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 89
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Sat, 9 Apr 2022 05:09 UTC

On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 23:20:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 08/04/2022 à 16:40, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>> Le 08/04/2022 à 09:32, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> >>>> Who is this "we" that appears in your subject line? Are you seriously
> >>>> suggesting that real physicists will adopt a definition proposed in a
> >>>> discussion group composed mainly of crackpots?
> >>>
> >>> I am serious in saying that they should adopt a clearer, more precise,
> >>> more refined terminology, and that they would benefit from reading authors
> >>> like me.
> >>
> >> I’m not sure what you think needs refining. The definition of simultaneity
> >> in physics is perfectly clear, very precise, and understood by the whole
> >> physics community. It just does not agree with what you think simultaneity
> >> means. In this case, the one that has to move is more likely you. It is not
> >> reasonable to expect that the entire physics community should shift their
> >> definition of simultaneity to accommodate a single person who has a
> >> different definition. It is also perplexing to me why you think it is not
> >> reasonable to ask you, the member outside the community, to learn to use
> >> the physicists’ definition of simultaneity. It is customary for students
> >> getting acquainted with a subject owned by others to learn the language and
> >> definitions of critical terms in that subject, no?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> But I am also serious when I say that they are not interested.
> >>
> >> Of *course* they’re not interested in adjusting a definition of
> >> simultaneity to meet the alternative posed by a single individual outside
> >> the community. Why would expect differently.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> And I am even more serious when I say that in human beings, for the most
> >>> part, narcissism and clan spirit always prevail over foreign thinking and
> >>> the general interest.
> >>>
> >>> Of course yes, I'm serious.
> >>>
> >>> R.H.
> >>>
> >
> > Yes of course.
> >
> > But suppose we are in the second century BC, and everyone thinks the earth
> > is flat.
> >
> > The greatest mathematicians of the time then say that Euclidean geometry
> > is perfect.
> >
> > And that we can calculate, by an infinity of Pythagoreanism, the distance
> > between all the cities of the universe.
> >
> > If someone comes and says to them, "Everything you say about Euclidean
> > geometry is right, but the problem is that the universe is not made like
> > that. The earth is not flat, but round, and a geometry different from flat
> > space must be adopted".
> This does not result in a redefinition of “flat”.
>
> You are asking for a redefinition of “simultaneity” — what the word
> actually means.

Of course, its meaning is: two events are simuyltaneous
when their TAI/GPS/UTC coordinate is equal. Your
bunch of fanatics can scream "NOOOOOOOO!!!!" as
much as you want, it's not going to change anyhthing.

Pages:12
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor