info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Spatial localisation in relativistic theory (part I : t'=t=0)
37 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 10:08:41 AM12/2/21
to
When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
basics.
What is needed, above all, is never to state words, notions, concepts
without a precise idea of what you are saying.
This is, unfortunately, what is most often done.
No relativistic physicist in the world (where they are hiding) is capable
of explaining the evolutions of the Langevin paradox (which remains
current and on which cranks and trolls of all kinds have a nice game to
come over). They do not understand what they are talking about, and drown
their fish under a haze of words like "when the reference frame is jumped,
the needles go crazy".
I have never used such words, nor been so vague in the terms. So the
question is: "Who is using the best principles?"
I take this opportunity to present here a very important transformation
that all students should know by heart, and which is that of the vision of
the universe by two (or more) momentarily joint observers.
This transformation is useful, beautiful, and true.
It is still necessary to understand, like me, who disseminated it, clearly
the meaning and the terms.
t and t 'are equal to 0. It is the moment when the two (or more) observers
cross each other and trigger their watch. x, y, z represent the universe
they are observing at this moment (it is exactly the same but the
specified spatial deformations).
To, To 'represent the instants when the events observed live by the
observers took place.
Be careful not to mislead the signs. To and To 'are always negative in the
present case of the crossing t' = t = 0.
In R, t=0, To=-sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c
In R', t'=0, To'=-sqrt(x'²+y²+z²)/c
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?xVSTkTZQ4dM3vG2uks28Oq1jIWQ@jntp/Data.Media:1>
basics.
What is needed, above all, is never to state words, notions, concepts
without a precise idea of what you are saying.
This is, unfortunately, what is most often done.
No relativistic physicist in the world (where they are hiding) is capable
of explaining the evolutions of the Langevin paradox (which remains
current and on which cranks and trolls of all kinds have a nice game to
come over). They do not understand what they are talking about, and drown
their fish under a haze of words like "when the reference frame is jumped,
the needles go crazy".
I have never used such words, nor been so vague in the terms. So the
question is: "Who is using the best principles?"
I take this opportunity to present here a very important transformation
that all students should know by heart, and which is that of the vision of
the universe by two (or more) momentarily joint observers.
This transformation is useful, beautiful, and true.
It is still necessary to understand, like me, who disseminated it, clearly
the meaning and the terms.
t and t 'are equal to 0. It is the moment when the two (or more) observers
cross each other and trigger their watch. x, y, z represent the universe
they are observing at this moment (it is exactly the same but the
specified spatial deformations).
To, To 'represent the instants when the events observed live by the
observers took place.
Be careful not to mislead the signs. To and To 'are always negative in the
present case of the crossing t' = t = 0.
In R, t=0, To=-sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c
In R', t'=0, To'=-sqrt(x'²+y²+z²)/c
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?xVSTkTZQ4dM3vG2uks28Oq1jIWQ@jntp/Data.Media:1>
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 10:09:11 AM12/2/21
to
--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Zz0V6g3eMCApr3qzLlcDc3weNXw@jntp>
Python
Dec 2, 2021, 10:19:35 AM12/2/21
to
Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote:
> When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
> basics.
Sure. Why haven't you ever done that?
> When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
> basics.
> I have never used such words, nor been so vague in the terms.
"simultaneous" by "happening at the same time" which is a pure
and meaningless tautology, Einstein defines *precisely* and
*operationally* what simultaneity means.
Hint: this is part I.1 of 1905 paper :
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Simultaneity.
It is quite amusing that another kind of crank of your
kind also completely missed the point of this part.
Thomas Heger is convinced (despite numerous explanation
from many people here) that Einstein is following your
broken definition of simultaneity...
You have NEVER understood what this part is about and what
it says, even when it was explained to you in details years
ago.
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 10:37:22 AM12/2/21
to
Le 02/12/2021 à 16:19, Jean-Pierre Messager, qui n'a toujours rien
compris de ce que je disais, a écrit :
> what simultaneity means.
The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist. Two
watches, even fixed, placed in different places will never agree on what
is called the notion of the present universe.
It's surprising, eh Jean-Pierre, and it gives you cold sureurs? Wait, you
haven't seen everything. Let me tell you, my criticisms of Einstein are
worse than that. Not only do I disagree on the fact that we can tune two
watches placed in different places, but also, I say that if we place them
in the same place and that we tune them, they will go out of tune.
systematically as soon as we separate them. Each will observe that the
other lags behind her by AB / c.
It's not over, Jean-Pierre, and stay there. Your ordeal has only just
begun.
I also say the opposite of Einstein when he says that the notion of
simultaneity is relative by change of frame of reference. This is wrong,
it is the chronotropy which is relative. NOT simultaneity. As I wrote in
the previous post, two observers (or as many as we want) who intersect in
an instant have exactly the same notion of the present universe. Their
universe is very distorted (I gave the simple equations) but they observe
the same universe present. Exactly the same. Hence the silly idea when
someone starts talking about the Andromeda paradox. Let him read Hachel.
Ditto when we talk about Langevin's traveler, without ever having read
Hachel. It's stupid, I alone clearly explain what happens when the
traveler who turns around and the immense SPATIAL zoom effect that he sees
(without the clocks being modified, and without him there is a
"gap-time"). The gap-time is dust under the taps to reframe clocks where
there is NOTHING to reframe. Everything happens in continuity for all the
observers.
R.H.
compris de ce que je disais, a écrit :
> what simultaneity means.
The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist. Two
watches, even fixed, placed in different places will never agree on what
is called the notion of the present universe.
It's surprising, eh Jean-Pierre, and it gives you cold sureurs? Wait, you
haven't seen everything. Let me tell you, my criticisms of Einstein are
worse than that. Not only do I disagree on the fact that we can tune two
watches placed in different places, but also, I say that if we place them
in the same place and that we tune them, they will go out of tune.
systematically as soon as we separate them. Each will observe that the
other lags behind her by AB / c.
It's not over, Jean-Pierre, and stay there. Your ordeal has only just
begun.
I also say the opposite of Einstein when he says that the notion of
simultaneity is relative by change of frame of reference. This is wrong,
it is the chronotropy which is relative. NOT simultaneity. As I wrote in
the previous post, two observers (or as many as we want) who intersect in
an instant have exactly the same notion of the present universe. Their
universe is very distorted (I gave the simple equations) but they observe
the same universe present. Exactly the same. Hence the silly idea when
someone starts talking about the Andromeda paradox. Let him read Hachel.
Ditto when we talk about Langevin's traveler, without ever having read
Hachel. It's stupid, I alone clearly explain what happens when the
traveler who turns around and the immense SPATIAL zoom effect that he sees
(without the clocks being modified, and without him there is a
"gap-time"). The gap-time is dust under the taps to reframe clocks where
there is NOTHING to reframe. Everything happens in continuity for all the
observers.
R.H.
Python
Dec 2, 2021, 10:44:47 AM12/2/21
to
Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote;
what paragraph I.1 of 1905 paper is stating.
Reminder (2007):
Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote;
>> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>> t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B. [quote from 1905 article]
>
> ?????
> Attends, je rêve, là...
> Cela veut dire qu'Einstein trouve que les montres sont
> synchronisées si elles battent à la même vitesse???
> C'est ça que tu veux dire???
> Parce que l'équation dite ici dessus, c'est ça.
No, the equation above absolutely doesn't mean that "both
clocks beat at the same rate". THIS IS A FACT.
If you are missing the main part of this section, you cannot
say ANYTHING about Einstein definition of simultaneity. PERIOD.
> Le 02/12/2021 à 16:19, Jean-Pierre Messager, qui n'a toujours rien
> compris de ce que je disais, a écrit :
>
>> what simultaneity means.
>
> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
Your opinion on this matter has no value a you've never understand
> compris de ce que je disais, a écrit :
>
>> what simultaneity means.
>
> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
what paragraph I.1 of 1905 paper is stating.
Reminder (2007):
Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote;
>> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>> t_B-t_A=t'_A-t_B. [quote from 1905 article]
>
> ?????
> Attends, je rêve, là...
> Cela veut dire qu'Einstein trouve que les montres sont
> synchronisées si elles battent à la même vitesse???
> C'est ça que tu veux dire???
> Parce que l'équation dite ici dessus, c'est ça.
No, the equation above absolutely doesn't mean that "both
clocks beat at the same rate". THIS IS A FACT.
If you are missing the main part of this section, you cannot
say ANYTHING about Einstein definition of simultaneity. PERIOD.
rotchm
Dec 2, 2021, 11:20:05 AM12/2/21
to
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:08:41 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
[ irrelevancies and cries snipped]
You seriously need to learn how to write.
Remove all unnecessary cries.
Be concise.
Like, your current post, can be greatly simplified just by saying:
" t and t 'are equal to 0. It is the moment when the two observers
[ irrelevancies and cries snipped]
You seriously need to learn how to write.
Remove all unnecessary cries.
Be concise.
Like, your current post, can be greatly simplified just by saying:
" t and t 'are equal to 0. It is the moment when the two observers
cross each other and trigger their watch.
To, To 'represent the instants when the events observed live by the
observers took place.
Be careful not to mislead the signs. To and To 'are always negative in the
present case of the crossing t' = t = 0.
In R, t=0, To=-sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c
In R', t'=0, To'=-sqrt(x'²+y²+z²)/c "
And all that can be even stated much simpler with less words. Again, learn to write.
observers took place.
Be careful not to mislead the signs. To and To 'are always negative in the
present case of the crossing t' = t = 0.
In R, t=0, To=-sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c
In R', t'=0, To'=-sqrt(x'²+y²+z²)/c "
rotchm
Dec 2, 2021, 11:26:53 AM12/2/21
to
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:37:22 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
Of course it does. A simple proof: You are talking about it, hence it exists.
> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
> Two
> watches, even fixed, placed in different places will never agree on what
> is called the notion of the present universe.
It is not "to the point". This shows your lack of writing and thinking skills.
> Not only do I disagree on the fact that we can tune two
> watches placed in different places, but also, I say that if we place them
> in the same place and that we tune them, they will go out of tune.
> systematically as soon as we separate them. Each will observe that the
> other lags behind her by AB / c.
> I also say the opposite of Einstein when he says that the notion of
> simultaneity is relative by change of frame of reference. This is wrong,
> it is the chronotropy which is relative. NOT simultaneity.
I will stop here since all that your write is rubbish. You do not know how to write clearly and concisely.
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 11:41:31 AM12/2/21
to
all the events occurring in
same time, or again, being characterized by the set of all the physical
phenomena taking place
at the same time, we should be able, at least by considering all the fixed
components found
in a given inertial system, to speak of "absolute simultaneity", of
"universal synchronization", or of
"common calendar" - these terms then being capable of acquiring a real
physical meaning - if
one could, without it varying, transpose the specific simultaneity of a
particular observer to all
other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
R.H.
Harif Kuloo
Dec 2, 2021, 11:47:11 AM12/2/21
to
impertinent troll, Stephane Baune, aka the "rotchm" pretentious ignorant,
wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:08:41 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel
> wrote:
>
> [ irrelevancies and cries snipped]
>
> You seriously need to learn how to write.
keep your stinking mouth shut, you stupid uneducated retard. You are
imbecile in everything. lol
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Stephane_Baune
2011 - "Superluminal and negative velocities according to ether theory"
(Read in full)
2009 - "Faster Than the Brighter-Light Beacon"
2009 - "Time for Another Paradox"
2006 - "[[Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame
Theory: A Theoretical Distinction: UPDATE]]" (Read in full)
2005 - "Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame Theory:
A Theoretical Distinction" (Read in full)
Music: Nurse With Wound, Current93, Skinny Puppy, The Residents, And One,
Vive la fete, Beruriuer Noir ...
Favorite online music channels: Doomed, Tormented radio...
Favorite TV stations: PBS.
Favorite TV shows: Cyberchase, Nova, Nature, Frontline, Simpsons, House,
WWE RAW, ...
Favorite Movies: ...
Extra interests: Wandering the streets, observing, interacting
and putting my nose where it does not belong...
( because it just smells so good
https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/activities
wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:08:41 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel
> wrote:
>
> [ irrelevancies and cries snipped]
>
> You seriously need to learn how to write.
imbecile in everything. lol
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Stephane_Baune
2011 - "Superluminal and negative velocities according to ether theory"
(Read in full)
2009 - "Faster Than the Brighter-Light Beacon"
2009 - "Time for Another Paradox"
2006 - "[[Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame
Theory: A Theoretical Distinction: UPDATE]]" (Read in full)
2005 - "Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame Theory:
A Theoretical Distinction" (Read in full)
Music: Nurse With Wound, Current93, Skinny Puppy, The Residents, And One,
Vive la fete, Beruriuer Noir ...
Favorite online music channels: Doomed, Tormented radio...
Favorite TV stations: PBS.
Favorite TV shows: Cyberchase, Nova, Nature, Frontline, Simpsons, House,
WWE RAW, ...
Favorite Movies: ...
Extra interests: Wandering the streets, observing, interacting
and putting my nose where it does not belong...
( because it just smells so good
https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/activities
Harif Kuloo
Dec 2, 2021, 11:49:09 AM12/2/21
to
mental retarded, uneducated sack of shit "rotchm" wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:37:22 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel
> wrote:
>
>> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
>
> Of course it does. A simple proof: You are talking about it, hence it
> exists.
shut the fuck up, you stupid baboon.
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:37:22 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel
> wrote:
>
>> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
>
> Of course it does. A simple proof: You are talking about it, hence it
> exists.
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 11:50:38 AM12/2/21
to
Le 02/12/2021 à 17:26, rotchm a écrit :
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:37:22 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
>
> Of course it does. A simple proof: You are talking about it, hence it exists.
Je peux aussi parler des chimères, des carrés entiers négatifs, ou de
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:37:22 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
>
> Of course it does. A simple proof: You are talking about it, hence it exists.
la Vierge Marie.
Ca ne les fait pas exister davantage pour autant.
R.H.
Harif Kuloo
Dec 2, 2021, 11:52:19 AM12/2/21
to
Richard Hachel wrote:
>> If you are missing the main part of this section, you cannot say
>> ANYTHING about Einstein definition of simultaneity. PERIOD.
>
> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
> all the events occurring in same time, or again, being characterized by
> the set of all the physical phenomena taking place
that's a single event. You can't have more than one event same time.
>> If you are missing the main part of this section, you cannot say
>> ANYTHING about Einstein definition of simultaneity. PERIOD.
>
> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
> all the events occurring in same time, or again, being characterized by
> the set of all the physical phenomena taking place
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 12:03:02 PM12/2/21
to
Le 02/12/2021 à 17:52, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
> that's a single event. You can't have more than one event same time.
Well if, obviously, this is called (for me) the notion of simultaneity.
> that's a single event. You can't have more than one event same time.
A terrestrial observer can simultaneously observe a hundred thousand
cosmic events if he has the telescopic means to do so.
He will say that "all these events took place simultaneously".
I don't see how that bothers you.
Now, I will go further, I will say that this simultaneity is ABSOLUTE for
one or more other observers who would come to cross in the surroundings of
the earth even at relativistic speeds. These hundred thousand events are
ALSO to be perceived simultaneously by all the other observers being at
this moment conjunct to the earth.
This is where I refute the Andromeda paradox (as I refuted Langevin's
paradox by other means).
I am simply asking the reader to fully understand what I am saying, and
the words I am using.
He will see that, in the end, everything is very obvious in what I am
explaining.
R.H.
Harif Kuloo
Dec 2, 2021, 12:07:06 PM12/2/21
to
Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 17:52, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
>> that's a single event. You can't have more than one event same time.
>
> Well if, obviously, this is called (for me) the notion of simultaneity.
> A terrestrial observer can simultaneously observe a hundred thousand
> cosmic events if he has the telescopic means to do so.
> He will say that "all these events took place simultaneously".
try it. You can't focus over more than one thing same time. Disregard the
> Le 02/12/2021 à 17:52, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
>> that's a single event. You can't have more than one event same time.
>
> Well if, obviously, this is called (for me) the notion of simultaneity.
> A terrestrial observer can simultaneously observe a hundred thousand
> cosmic events if he has the telescopic means to do so.
> He will say that "all these events took place simultaneously".
number of telescopes. You can come close on each observation, but never
same time.
Odd Bodkin
Dec 2, 2021, 12:28:15 PM12/2/21
to
Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 17:52, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
>> that's a single event. You can't have more than one event same time.
>
> Well if, obviously, this is called (for me) the notion of simultaneity.
>
> A terrestrial observer can simultaneously observe a hundred thousand
> cosmic events if he has the telescopic means to do so.
>
> He will say that "all these events took place simultaneously".
No, he will not say that. Not if he has any sense.
> Le 02/12/2021 à 17:52, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
>> that's a single event. You can't have more than one event same time.
>
> Well if, obviously, this is called (for me) the notion of simultaneity.
>
> A terrestrial observer can simultaneously observe a hundred thousand
> cosmic events if he has the telescopic means to do so.
>
> He will say that "all these events took place simultaneously".
If someone hears two claps of thunder at the same time, one from nearby and
one from 6 km away, he will NOT say that the strikes happened
simultaneously, because he has the common sense to know that the one from
further away happened earlier.
However, if there are two strikes that can be confirmed to have happened
both from 8 km away (just from different directions) AND someone hears them
at the same time, then it is common sense to say that the strikes happened
simultaneously — and that does make sense.
>
> I don't see how that bothers you.
>
> Now, I will go further, I will say that this simultaneity is ABSOLUTE for
> one or more other observers who would come to cross in the surroundings of
> the earth even at relativistic speeds. These hundred thousand events are
> ALSO to be perceived simultaneously by all the other observers being at
> this moment conjunct to the earth.
>
> This is where I refute the Andromeda paradox (as I refuted Langevin's
> paradox by other means).
>
> I am simply asking the reader to fully understand what I am saying, and
> the words I am using.
>
> He will see that, in the end, everything is very obvious in what I am
> explaining.
>
> R.H.
>
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 12:31:18 PM12/2/21
to
Le 02/12/2021 à 18:07, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
> try it. You can't focus over more than one thing same time. Disregard the
> number of telescopes. You can come close on each observation, but never
> same time.
You play with words, and, if you persist like that, you'll end up spoiling
> try it. You can't focus over more than one thing same time. Disregard the
> number of telescopes. You can come close on each observation, but never
> same time.
the discussion, and I don't think that's your goal (as Jean-Pierre
Messager always ends up doing).
I will take the example of the explosion of two supernovae, for example
one in the constellation Virgo, the other in the constellation Lyra.
In the usual use of words, if they happen by immense chance on the same
day, I would say that they happened simultaneously.
This is the meaning I give to the word "simultaneously".
I leave the various speakers the freedom to find another, and even to say
that seven joined to two makes eleven.
But I don't think it's interesting to practice like this.
Now what I'm saying is that when two observers pass each other (let's take
an alien rocket which passes that day near the earth at 0.8c (four hundred
and forty thousand km / s) and which is also observing that day - there
the explosion of the two supernovae) the notion of SIMULTANEITE is
invariant. Both terrestrial and extraterrestrial observers have the same
view of the universe.
Only the spatial distortions of the location of events will be very
different for the two. As in a relativistic distorting mirror.
But they will see the same universe, and will live (at this moment,
temporarily) in the same simultaneity.
The equations are simple, I gave them earlier for this very simple case
where the observers intersect and where t '= t = 0.
R.H.
Harif Kuloo
Dec 2, 2021, 12:42:12 PM12/2/21
to
Richard Hachel wrote:
> Only the spatial distortions of the location of events will be very
> different for the two. As in a relativistic distorting mirror.
>
> But they will see the same universe, and will live (at this moment,
> temporarily) in the same simultaneity.
>
> The equations are simple, I gave them earlier for this very simple case
> where the observers intersect and where t '= t = 0.
since you insist, but no. What are the t's, time stamps or passage of
> Only the spatial distortions of the location of events will be very
> different for the two. As in a relativistic distorting mirror.
>
> But they will see the same universe, and will live (at this moment,
> temporarily) in the same simultaneity.
>
> The equations are simple, I gave them earlier for this very simple case
> where the observers intersect and where t '= t = 0.
time? You have to be careful.
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 12:45:15 PM12/2/21
to
Le 02/12/2021 à 18:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> If someone hears two claps of thunder at the same time, one from nearby and
> one from 6 km away, he will NOT say that the strikes happened
> simultaneously, because he has the common sense to know that the one from
> further away happened earlier.
>
> However, if there are two strikes that can be confirmed to have happened
> both from 8 km away (just from different directions) AND someone hears them
> at the same time, then it is common sense to say that the strikes happened
> simultaneously — and that does make sense.
Do you really think I don't know these things?
> If someone hears two claps of thunder at the same time, one from nearby and
> one from 6 km away, he will NOT say that the strikes happened
> simultaneously, because he has the common sense to know that the one from
> further away happened earlier.
>
> However, if there are two strikes that can be confirmed to have happened
> both from 8 km away (just from different directions) AND someone hears them
> at the same time, then it is common sense to say that the strikes happened
> simultaneously — and that does make sense.
R.H.
Harif Kuloo
Dec 2, 2021, 12:51:33 PM12/2/21
to
(the audio sensing event). Their generation may be different, however.
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 12:59:30 PM12/2/21
to
Le 02/12/2021 à 18:42, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
> You have to be careful.
It's exactly what I said.
> You have to be careful.
x,y,z,t,To,x',y',z',t',To', simultaneity, chronotropy.
All of these terms should be understood by whoever reads or uses them.
I agree to say that it is not easy to understand.
Already the term t is difficult to understand, whereas it is only the time
displayed on the watch O of the observer.
The difficulty comes from the fact that I completely refute this abstract
notion which is the speed of light which is only an apparent speed for a
transverse observer. This means that we are always observing the universe
live. This concept, I already have a hard time explaining it to you.
As for To (ie the time which appears in the Lorentz transformations), it
is a very useful, but abstract "species of local time", and which is not
specific to any observer. Yet it is this time that we use, for
convenience.
But it does not represent the very nature of things, and its misuse even
leads to paradoxes which do not exist if one understands that it is only a
useful value, but abstract.
R.H.
Harif Kuloo
Dec 2, 2021, 1:08:26 PM12/2/21
to
Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:42, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
>> You have to be careful.
>
> It's exactly what I said.
> x,y,z,t,To,x',y',z',t',To', simultaneity, chronotropy.
>
> All of these terms should be understood by whoever reads or uses them.
>
> I agree to say that it is not easy to understand.
> Already the term t is difficult to understand, whereas it is only the
> time displayed on the watch O of the observer.
my friend, there's a huge difference between a *time_stamp* and a
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:42, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
>> You have to be careful.
>
> It's exactly what I said.
> x,y,z,t,To,x',y',z',t',To', simultaneity, chronotropy.
>
> All of these terms should be understood by whoever reads or uses them.
>
> I agree to say that it is not easy to understand.
> Already the term t is difficult to understand, whereas it is only the
> time displayed on the watch O of the observer.
*time_difference* (passage). A time_stamps tells almost nothing.
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 1:15:33 PM12/2/21
to
Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
> He is also wrong. Once you hear them both same time, it's a single event.
> (the audio sensing event). Their generation may be different, however.
No, their generation is no different.
> He is also wrong. Once you hear them both same time, it's a single event.
> (the audio sensing event). Their generation may be different, however.
And this is the immense incomprehension that exists between the
relativists and me.
As for the transport of sound, obviously everyone understood that there is
a certain time between the emission and the reception of the sound. I am
even surprised that one might think that I do not know it.
BUT precisely, it is not so in the matter of relativity where we do not
speak of sounds, but of electromagnetic interaction.
And there, the notions of space-time are completely different.
The speed of light then becomes an illusion. And although it is
transmitted instantly (not like sound), the theory of relativity (because
of the universal anisochrony) will make that I will not have the correct
times of the departure and arrival of the luminous message. . A shift will
appear which will distort all notions of speed.
We will have an observable speed Vo which will not be the real speed Vr of
things.
The equation is very simple: Vo = Vr / sqrt (1 + Vr² / c²).
We then understand why nothing can "seem" to go faster than c.
We therefore have Berkeley's aphorism, which applies to philosophy, which
also applies to physics.
"Esse is percipi". I see the world as it is (not like sounds). So two
events perceived simultaneously, since the reality of things means that Vr
= Oo for light, were therefore really emitted simultaneously (in the local
reference frame of the observer).
The rest is only an illusion, when we put Vo = c.
In short, a negation of spatial anisochrony, and the belief in an absolute
intra-referential simultaneity which does not exist.
R.H.
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 1:18:43 PM12/2/21
to
Le 02/12/2021 à 19:08, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
> my friend, there's a huge difference between a *time_stamp* and a
> *time_difference* (passage). A time_stamps tells almost nothing.
"time stamp" ----> simultaneity.
> my friend, there's a huge difference between a *time_stamp* and a
> *time_difference* (passage). A time_stamps tells almost nothing.
"time difference" ----> chronotropy.
Two different notions.
R.H.
Harif Kuloo
Dec 2, 2021, 1:28:55 PM12/2/21
to
Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>> He is also wrong. Once you hear them both same time, it's a single
>> event. (the audio sensing event). Their generation may be different,
>> however.
>
> No, their generation is no different.
> And this is the immense incomprehension that exists between the
> relativists and me.
> As for the transport of sound, obviously everyone understood that there
> is a certain time between the emission and the reception of the sound. I
> am even surprised that one might think that I do not know it.
> BUT precisely, it is not so in the matter of relativity where we do not
> speak of sounds, but of electromagnetic interaction.
> And there, the notions of space-time are completely different.
> The speed of light then becomes an illusion. And although it is
> transmitted instantly (not like sound), the theory of relativity
> (because of the universal anisochrony) will make that I will not have
> the correct
it takes different time for EM too (for a remote observer). See GPS.
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>> He is also wrong. Once you hear them both same time, it's a single
>> event. (the audio sensing event). Their generation may be different,
>> however.
>
> No, their generation is no different.
> And this is the immense incomprehension that exists between the
> relativists and me.
> As for the transport of sound, obviously everyone understood that there
> is a certain time between the emission and the reception of the sound. I
> am even surprised that one might think that I do not know it.
> BUT precisely, it is not so in the matter of relativity where we do not
> speak of sounds, but of electromagnetic interaction.
> And there, the notions of space-time are completely different.
> The speed of light then becomes an illusion. And although it is
> transmitted instantly (not like sound), the theory of relativity
> (because of the universal anisochrony) will make that I will not have
> the correct
Odd Bodkin
Dec 2, 2021, 1:50:45 PM12/2/21
to
the same day. You said YOU would call those simultaneous. But no sensible
person would, for the same reason that no sensible person would say that
strikes happened simultaneously just because the thunder happened at the
same time.
It’s the SAME thinking.
Odd Bodkin
Dec 2, 2021, 1:50:45 PM12/2/21
to
Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:07, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>> try it. You can't focus over more than one thing same time. Disregard the
>> number of telescopes. You can come close on each observation, but never
>> same time.
>
> You play with words, and, if you persist like that, you'll end up spoiling
> the discussion, and I don't think that's your goal (as Jean-Pierre
> Messager always ends up doing).
>
> I will take the example of the explosion of two supernovae, for example
> one in the constellation Virgo, the other in the constellation Lyra.
>
> In the usual use of words, if they happen by immense chance on the same
> day, I would say that they happened simultaneously.
That would be a mistake. That’s YOUR shortcoming.
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:07, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>> try it. You can't focus over more than one thing same time. Disregard the
>> number of telescopes. You can come close on each observation, but never
>> same time.
>
> You play with words, and, if you persist like that, you'll end up spoiling
> the discussion, and I don't think that's your goal (as Jean-Pierre
> Messager always ends up doing).
>
> I will take the example of the explosion of two supernovae, for example
> one in the constellation Virgo, the other in the constellation Lyra.
>
> In the usual use of words, if they happen by immense chance on the same
> day, I would say that they happened simultaneously.
Sensible people would not say that. They would say the light arrived at the
same time, not that the explosions happened at the same time.
>
> This is the meaning I give to the word "simultaneously".
>
> I leave the various speakers the freedom to find another, and even to say
> that seven joined to two makes eleven.
>
> But I don't think it's interesting to practice like this.
>
> Now what I'm saying is that when two observers pass each other (let's take
> an alien rocket which passes that day near the earth at 0.8c (four hundred
> and forty thousand km / s) and which is also observing that day - there
> the explosion of the two supernovae) the notion of SIMULTANEITE is
> invariant. Both terrestrial and extraterrestrial observers have the same
> view of the universe.
>
> Only the spatial distortions of the location of events will be very
> different for the two. As in a relativistic distorting mirror.
>
> But they will see the same universe, and will live (at this moment,
> temporarily) in the same simultaneity.
>
> The equations are simple, I gave them earlier for this very simple case
> where the observers intersect and where t '= t = 0.
>
> R.H.
>
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 2:00:14 PM12/2/21
to
It's NOT the same thinking. Absolutly not.
R.H.
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 2:02:45 PM12/2/21
to
Le 02/12/2021 à 19:28, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
> it takes different time for EM too (for a remote observer). See GPS.
J'ai déjà répondu plusieurs fois à cette histoire de GPS.
> it takes different time for EM too (for a remote observer). See GPS.
Je n'ai pas à répéter cent fois la même chose à des gens qui,
malheureusement, ne me lisent pas.
Ce qui leur permet de critiquer des notions qu'ils n'ont absolument pas
comprises.
R.H.
Harif Kuloo
Dec 2, 2021, 2:11:30 PM12/2/21
to
Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 19:28, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
>> it takes different time for EM too (for a remote observer). See GPS.
>
> J'ai déjà répondu plusieurs fois à cette histoire de GPS.
I'm not sure. If you are in europe you can't take FM canada, but you can
> Le 02/12/2021 à 19:28, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
>> it takes different time for EM too (for a remote observer). See GPS.
>
> J'ai déjà répondu plusieurs fois à cette histoire de GPS.
do Short Waves canada. Which suggest longer travelling time.
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 2:22:14 PM12/2/21
to
R.H.
mitchr...@gmail.com
Dec 2, 2021, 2:51:22 PM12/2/21
to
Expanding local space is incredibly small..
The larger the whole universe gets the larger it gets
by more distance expanding.
We see the universe size as it was.
Cosmology is a smaller appearance.
The larger the whole universe gets the larger it gets
by more distance expanding.
We see the universe size as it was.
Cosmology is a smaller appearance.
JanPB
Dec 2, 2021, 3:05:25 PM12/2/21
to
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:37:22 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 16:19, Jean-Pierre Messager, qui n'a toujours rien
> compris de ce que je disais, a écrit :
>
> > what simultaneity means.
>
> Le 02/12/2021 à 16:19, Jean-Pierre Messager, qui n'a toujours rien
> compris de ce que je disais, a écrit :
>
> > what simultaneity means.
>
> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
Non-sequitur. It's a *definition*.
> Two
> watches, even fixed, placed in different places will never agree on what
> is called the notion of the present universe.
> It's surprising, eh Jean-Pierre, and it gives you cold sureurs? Wait, you
> haven't seen everything. Let me tell you, my criticisms of Einstein are
> worse than that.
And also meaningless junk.
--
Jan
Odd Bodkin
Dec 2, 2021, 3:20:51 PM12/2/21
to
separate issue.
Python
Dec 2, 2021, 4:03:44 PM12/2/21
to
Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote:
...
> fixed components found
> in a given inertial system, to speak of "absolute simultaneity", of
> "universal synchronization", or of
> "common calendar" - these terms then being capable of acquiring a real
> physical meaning - if
> one could, without it varying, transpose the specific simultaneity of a
> particular observer to all
> other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
This is complete gibberish not defining ANYTHING.
...
> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
> all the events occurring in
> same time, or again, being characterized by the set of all the physical
> phenomena taking place
> at the same time, we should be able, at least by considering all the
> all the events occurring in
> same time, or again, being characterized by the set of all the physical
> phenomena taking place
> fixed components found
> in a given inertial system, to speak of "absolute simultaneity", of
> "universal synchronization", or of
> "common calendar" - these terms then being capable of acquiring a real
> physical meaning - if
> one could, without it varying, transpose the specific simultaneity of a
> particular observer to all
> other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
This is complete gibberish not defining ANYTHING.
Python
Dec 2, 2021, 4:34:24 PM12/2/21
to
decades of spouting nonsens it may be time for YOU to read
carefully part I.1 (I. Partie cinématique - 1. Définition de
la simultanéité) in 1905 Einstein's paper :
https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/De-l%C3%A9lectrodynamique-des-corps-en-mouvement.pdf
read it very slowly, one sentence at a time, do not go on
to the next one until you have understood all sentences
before.
This is the KEY part of Einstein's article, which is the real
breakthrough when compared to previous works of Poincaré or
Lorentz.
This is the part that you've always FAILED to understand, the
part that Thomas Heger (another crank down here) completely
overlooked (he sincerely think that Einstein consider simultaneity
in the way YOU do, go figure!)
When you'll (if ever, I'm not very optimistic) get it you'll
threw all your sh*t away and you'll realize you've lost most
of your life making a fool of yourself.
Richard Hachel
Dec 2, 2021, 4:56:16 PM12/2/21
to
C'est impossible.
Je définis ce que c'est, pour moi, que la notion d'événements
simultanés, comme je définis ce que c'est que la chronotropie.
Ensuite, on me comprend ou on ne me comprend pas.
Après, c'est plus mon problème.
R.H.
rotchm
Dec 2, 2021, 5:15:57 PM12/2/21
to
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:22:14 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 02/12/2021 à 19:28, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
Can you tell us why you responded to him?
>> Le 02/12/2021 à 19:28, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
Again, you got God. You responded to the troll and you did not even notice it.
Once again this shows that you do not have the brains to discuss intelligently.
rotchm
Dec 2, 2021, 5:18:27 PM12/2/21
to
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:15:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
Again, you got got.
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
You stroked the troll again and you didn't even notice it. Are you really that stupid and Clueless?
You should seriously take a long look at yourself.
rotchm
Dec 2, 2021, 5:20:18 PM12/2/21
to
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 12:45:15 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Do you really think I don't know these things?
Of course he knows. He just wants to make fun of you and you are falling for it every time.
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Do you really think I don't know these things?
You are such a sucker...
Python
Dec 2, 2021, 5:21:46 PM12/2/21
to
Richard - Lengrand - Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 22:03, Jean-Pierre Messager a écrit :
>
>>> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
>>> of all the events occurring in
>>> same time, or again, being characterized by the set of all the
>>> physical phenomena taking place
>>> at the same time, we should be able, at least by considering all the
>>> fixed components found
>>> in a given inertial system, to speak of "absolute simultaneity", of
>>> "universal synchronization", or of
>>> "common calendar" - these terms then being capable of acquiring a
>>> real physical meaning - if
>>> one could, without it varying, transpose the specific simultaneity of
>>> a particular observer to all
>>> other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
>>
>> This is complete gibberish not defining ANYTHING.
>
> Oui, mais là, je peux pas faire mieux,
Well, *you* cannot do better, because you are a fool and an idiot.
> Le 02/12/2021 à 22:03, Jean-Pierre Messager a écrit :
>
>>> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
>>> of all the events occurring in
>>> same time, or again, being characterized by the set of all the
>>> physical phenomena taking place
>>> at the same time, we should be able, at least by considering all the
>>> fixed components found
>>> in a given inertial system, to speak of "absolute simultaneity", of
>>> "universal synchronization", or of
>>> "common calendar" - these terms then being capable of acquiring a
>>> real physical meaning - if
>>> one could, without it varying, transpose the specific simultaneity of
>>> a particular observer to all
>>> other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
>>
>> This is complete gibberish not defining ANYTHING.
>
> Oui, mais là, je peux pas faire mieux,
> C'est impossible.
It can be done, it HAS been done.
> Je définis ce que c'est, pour moi, que la notion d'événements
> simultanés
Tautologie sans signification. Meaningless tautology.
Real definition follows, part I.1.
Une vraie définition est décrite, partie I.1.
FR:
https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/De-l%C3%A9lectrodynamique-des-corps-en-mouvement.pdf
EN:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Simultaneity.
rotchm
Dec 2, 2021, 5:22:19 PM12/2/21
to
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 12:31:18 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:07, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
> > try it. You can't focus over more than one thing same time. Disregard the
> > number of telescopes. You can come close on each observation, but never
> > same time.
> You play with words, and, if you persist like that, you'll end up spoiling
> the discussion, and I don't think that's your goal
You idiot, of course that is his goal. You responded to the troll again. Are you really that clueless and dumb?
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:07, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
> > try it. You can't focus over more than one thing same time. Disregard the
> > number of telescopes. You can come close on each observation, but never
> > same time.
> You play with words, and, if you persist like that, you'll end up spoiling
> the discussion, and I don't think that's your goal
You wrote a full page for him. He will not read it he will just pick up a few words and Bible about it and once again you will fall for it again and again and again. That is how dumb you are. I hope you do realize this. Once you're able to realize it, you can start correcting yourself.
Python
Dec 2, 2021, 5:23:28 PM12/2/21
to
"nym-shifting troll" even whan it is obvious that he's just making
fun of them (Lengrand/Hachel, Heger, etc.). This is definitely a sign
of mental illness not to be able to spot irony.
rotchm
Dec 2, 2021, 5:25:55 PM12/2/21
to
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 11:50:38 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 17:26, rotchm a écrit :
> > Of course it does. A simple proof: You are talking about it, hence it exists.
> Je peux aussi parler des chimères, des carrés entiers négatifs, ou de
> la Vierge Marie.
>
> Ca ne les fait pas exister davantage pour autant.
Of course those Notions exist. If you can talk about it, they exist.
Then again do you know at least what it means to "exist"?
> Le 02/12/2021 à 17:26, rotchm a écrit :
> > Of course it does. A simple proof: You are talking about it, hence it exists.
> Je peux aussi parler des chimères, des carrés entiers négatifs, ou de
> la Vierge Marie.
>
> Ca ne les fait pas exister davantage pour autant.
Of course those Notions exist. If you can talk about it, they exist.
Then again do you know at least what it means to "exist"?
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Dec 2, 2021, 8:05:33 PM12/2/21
to
Richard Hachel wrote:
> When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
> basics.
True.
> What is needed, above all, is never to state words, notions, concepts
> without a precise idea of what you are saying.
Also true.
> This is, unfortunately, what is most often done.
Not at all. You must have been reading mostly the bad popular-scientific
books instead of the good ones, or textbooks.
It would explain all the misconceptions that you have about the topic.
Now the strange and really *insane* thing about you is that instead of
understanding the theory, you make up fantasies about it and invent
concepts, and terms for it, that have no basis in fact.
PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)
> When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
> basics.
True.
> What is needed, above all, is never to state words, notions, concepts
> without a precise idea of what you are saying.
Also true.
> This is, unfortunately, what is most often done.
Not at all. You must have been reading mostly the bad popular-scientific
books instead of the good ones, or textbooks.
It would explain all the misconceptions that you have about the topic.
Now the strange and really *insane* thing about you is that instead of
understanding the theory, you make up fantasies about it and invent
concepts, and terms for it, that have no basis in fact.
PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Dec 2, 2021, 8:09:32 PM12/2/21
to
Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 16:19, Jean-Pierre Messager, qui n'a toujours rien
> compris de ce que je disais, a écrit :
>
>> what simultaneity means.
>
> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
It doees.
> Le 02/12/2021 à 16:19, Jean-Pierre Messager, qui n'a toujours rien
> compris de ce que je disais, a écrit :
>
>> what simultaneity means.
>
> The notion of simultaneity as described by Einstein does not exist.
> Two watches, even fixed, placed in different places will never agree on
> what is called the notion of the present universe.
sort. In fact, he said the exact opposite of what you claim that he said.
From your ignorance about the subject matter, you are making up things and
then argue against your own strawman. That approach is hopeless.
I guess that, consciously or subconsciously, you are merely seeking
attention because you are very lonely and are looking for some sort of
confirmation that you are still relevant.
PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.
(from: WolframAlpha)
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Dec 2, 2021, 8:13:29 PM12/2/21
to
Richard Hachel wrote:
> When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
> basics.
True.
> What is needed, above all, is never to state words, notions, concepts
> without a precise idea of what you are saying.
Also true.
> This is, unfortunately, what is most often done.
Not at all. You must have been reading mostly the bad popular-scientific
books instead of the good ones, or textbooks.
It would explain all the misconceptions that you have about the topic.
Now the strange and really *insane* thing about you is that instead of
trying to understand the theory and its concepts, and the meaning of the
> When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
> basics.
True.
> What is needed, above all, is never to state words, notions, concepts
> without a precise idea of what you are saying.
Also true.
> This is, unfortunately, what is most often done.
Not at all. You must have been reading mostly the bad popular-scientific
books instead of the good ones, or textbooks.
It would explain all the misconceptions that you have about the topic.
Now the strange and really *insane* thing about you is that instead of
terms that it introduces, you make up fantasies about it and invent ill-
defined concepts, and ill-defined terms for it (like “chronotropy”), that
have no basis in fact (or linguistics).
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Dec 3, 2021, 1:41:34 AM12/3/21
to
Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>> He is also wrong. Once you hear them both same time, it's a single event.
>> (the audio sensing event). Their generation may be different, however.
>
> No, their generation is no different.
> And this is the immense incomprehension that exists between the
> relativists and me.
You are the one not comprehending correctly even the basics of special
> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>> He is also wrong. Once you hear them both same time, it's a single event.
>> (the audio sensing event). Their generation may be different, however.
>
> No, their generation is no different.
> And this is the immense incomprehension that exists between the
> relativists and me.
relativity, and as a poor substitute you are making up fantasies that you
never explain properly, which are therefore incomprehensible to rationally-
thinking beings.
> As for the transport of sound, obviously everyone understood that there is
> a certain time between the emission and the reception of the sound.
that they were simultaneous.
A similar thing happens with light in the train-and-two-lightnings thought
experiment: what one observer describes as simultaneous the other does not
because they are moving relative to the first observer (and need not know
about that because they are at rest in their frame). That is (what Einstein
called) “the relativity of simultaneity”.
IOW, Einstein does NOT say what you claim that he said; he says the exact
opposite: Time is NOT absolute.
PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)
—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven
Maciej Wozniak
Dec 3, 2021, 3:06:51 AM12/3/21
to
On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 19:50:45 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 02/12/2021 à 18:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >
> >> If someone hears two claps of thunder at the same time, one from nearby and
> >> one from 6 km away, he will NOT say that the strikes happened
> >> simultaneously, because he has the common sense to know that the one from
> >> further away happened earlier.
> >>
> >> However, if there are two strikes that can be confirmed to have happened
> >> both from 8 km away (just from different directions) AND someone hears them
> >> at the same time, then it is common sense to say that the strikes happened
> >> simultaneously — and that does make sense.
> >
> > Do you really think I don't know these things?
> I just looked at your example of light from two supernovae showing up on
> the same day. You said YOU would call those simultaneous. But no sensible
> person would,
Samely as no sensibe person will agree on YOUR concept
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 02/12/2021 à 18:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >
> >> If someone hears two claps of thunder at the same time, one from nearby and
> >> one from 6 km away, he will NOT say that the strikes happened
> >> simultaneously, because he has the common sense to know that the one from
> >> further away happened earlier.
> >>
> >> However, if there are two strikes that can be confirmed to have happened
> >> both from 8 km away (just from different directions) AND someone hears them
> >> at the same time, then it is common sense to say that the strikes happened
> >> simultaneously — and that does make sense.
> >
> > Do you really think I don't know these things?
> I just looked at your example of light from two supernovae showing up on
> the same day. You said YOU would call those simultaneous. But no sensible
> person would,
of simultaneity.
Maciej Wozniak
Dec 3, 2021, 3:12:16 AM12/3/21
to
On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 02:13:29 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
> > basics.
>
> True.
>
> > What is needed, above all, is never to state words, notions, concepts
> > without a precise idea of what you are saying.
>
> Also true.
>
> > This is, unfortunately, what is most often done.
>
> Not at all. You must have been reading mostly the bad popular-scientific
> books instead of the good ones, or textbooks.
>
> It would explain all the misconceptions that you have about the topic.
>
> Now the strange and really *insane* thing about you is that instead of
> trying to understand the theory and its concepts, and the meaning of the
> terms that it introduces, you make up fantasies about it and invent ill-
> defined concepts, and ill-defined terms for it (like “chronotropy”), that
> have no basis in fact (or linguistics).
In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your insane cult
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > When you don't fully understand a theory, you have to start with its
> > basics.
>
> True.
>
> > What is needed, above all, is never to state words, notions, concepts
> > without a precise idea of what you are saying.
>
> Also true.
>
> > This is, unfortunately, what is most often done.
>
> Not at all. You must have been reading mostly the bad popular-scientific
> books instead of the good ones, or textbooks.
>
> It would explain all the misconceptions that you have about the topic.
>
> Now the strange and really *insane* thing about you is that instead of
> trying to understand the theory and its concepts, and the meaning of the
> terms that it introduces, you make up fantasies about it and invent ill-
> defined concepts, and ill-defined terms for it (like “chronotropy”), that
> have no basis in fact (or linguistics).
GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.
Maciej Wozniak
Dec 3, 2021, 3:12:49 AM12/3/21
to
On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 07:41:34 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> If you do not know the distance, then you have no choice but to conclude
> that they were simultaneous.
>
> A similar thing happens with light in the train-and-two-lightnings thought
> experiment: what one observer describes as simultaneous the other does not
> because they are moving relative to the first observer (and need not know
> about that because they are at rest in their frame). That is (what Einstein
> called) “the relativity of simultaneity”.
> If you do not know the distance, then you have no choice but to conclude
> that they were simultaneous.
>
> A similar thing happens with light in the train-and-two-lightnings thought
> experiment: what one observer describes as simultaneous the other does not
> because they are moving relative to the first observer (and need not know
> about that because they are at rest in their frame). That is (what Einstein
> called) “the relativity of simultaneity”.
Harif Kuloo
Dec 3, 2021, 7:09:59 AM12/3/21
to
the stupid uneducated wannabe "physicist" troll, former JPB, now Python
wrote:
> impertinent troll, Stephane Baune, aka the "rotchm" pretentious
known stupid crackpot "Stephane Baune, aka the "rotchm" pretentious
ignorant, makes you worse than him.
although, I met nice persons frogs. You two dumb asses, must be an
exception.
wrote:
> impertinent troll, Stephane Baune, aka the "rotchm" pretentious
> ignorant, wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:22:14 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel
>> wrote:
>>>> Le 02/12/2021 à 19:28, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>>
>> Can you tell us why you responded to him?
>>
>> Again, you got God. You responded to the troll and you did not even
>> notice it.
>> Once again this shows that you do not have the brains to discuss
>> intelligently.
>
> It is a common pattern amongst cranks that they take seriously the
wow, the frogs stick together. LOL, your attempt in support of the widely
>> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:22:14 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel
>> wrote:
>>>> Le 02/12/2021 à 19:28, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>>
>> Can you tell us why you responded to him?
>>
>> Again, you got God. You responded to the troll and you did not even
>> notice it.
>> Once again this shows that you do not have the brains to discuss
>> intelligently.
>
> It is a common pattern amongst cranks that they take seriously the
known stupid crackpot "Stephane Baune, aka the "rotchm" pretentious
ignorant, makes you worse than him.
although, I met nice persons frogs. You two dumb asses, must be an
exception.
Harif Kuloo
Dec 3, 2021, 7:25:26 AM12/3/21
to
mentally retarded troll, Stephane Baune, aka the "rotchm" pretentious
> http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Stephane_Baune
>
> 2011 - "Superluminal and negative velocities according to ether theory"
> (Read in full)
> 2009 - "Faster Than the Brighter-Light Beacon"
> 2009 - "Time for Another Paradox"
> 2006 - "[[Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame
> Theory: A Theoretical Distinction: UPDATE]]" (Read in full)
> 2005 - "Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame
> Theory:
> A Theoretical Distinction" (Read in full)
>
>
> Music: Nurse With Wound, Current93, Skinny Puppy, The Residents, And
> One, Vive la fete, Beruriuer Noir ...
> Favorite online music channels: Doomed, Tormented radio...
>
> Favorite TV stations: PBS.
> Favorite TV shows: Cyberchase, Nova, Nature, Frontline, Simpsons, House,
> WWE RAW, ...
> Favorite Movies: ...
>
> Extra interests: Wandering the streets, observing, interacting
> and putting my nose where it does not belong...
> ( because it just smells so good
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/activities
ignorant, wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:15:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
> Again, you got got.
talk engilsh, you stupid retarded troll.
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:15:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 02/12/2021 à 18:51, Harif Kuloo a écrit :
>
> Again, you got got.
> http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Stephane_Baune
>
> 2011 - "Superluminal and negative velocities according to ether theory"
> (Read in full)
> 2009 - "Faster Than the Brighter-Light Beacon"
> 2009 - "Time for Another Paradox"
> 2006 - "[[Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame
> Theory: A Theoretical Distinction: UPDATE]]" (Read in full)
> 2005 - "Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame
> Theory:
> A Theoretical Distinction" (Read in full)
>
>
> Music: Nurse With Wound, Current93, Skinny Puppy, The Residents, And
> One, Vive la fete, Beruriuer Noir ...
> Favorite online music channels: Doomed, Tormented radio...
>
> Favorite TV stations: PBS.
> Favorite TV shows: Cyberchase, Nova, Nature, Frontline, Simpsons, House,
> WWE RAW, ...
> Favorite Movies: ...
>
> Extra interests: Wandering the streets, observing, interacting
> and putting my nose where it does not belong...
> ( because it just smells so good
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/activities
0 new messages