Simultaneity - reminder

[Maciej Wozniak]

Two events are simultaneous when they have the same
TAI time coordinate. That's how things are in the world
we inhabit. Your bunch of idiots can die hard screaming
"IMPROPER!!! IMPROPER!!!!" - it won't change anything.

[Richard Hachel]

I think you are wrong.
But the problem is not only that you are wrong, the problem is also that
everyone is wrong.
If the theory of relativity was clear and well explained, without
paradoxes or gimmicks that sound bad, it would be known.

But we have to start with you, and show you where you are wrong in
criticizing this flawed theory, of course, but in criticizing it badly.

For you, it's all wrong.

Well, no.

Not everything is wrong in the theory of relativity, but everything is
extremely (EXTREMELY) poorly explained.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 06/02/2023 à 08:52, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

> Two events are simultaneous when they have the same

> time coordinate.

Only in a Newtonian world.

But the world is NOT Newtonian.

There are certain inescapable properties in the world such as universal
gravitation.

For example, the moon revolves around the earth, and it is not by saying
"it does not exist" that we will be able to understand why.

What I would like people to understand, and what I have been trying to get
across for years, is that there is no absolute duration (certainly, what
everyone learns about banns des faculties), but there is no instant,
present, absolute simultaneity either.

Very strangely, for 40 years that I teach that, I see that everyone loses
the pedals, and I don't know why.

How is it that you, who are an intelligent and curious critic, cannot be
among the first to say:
"I don't know if Hachel is right, but I admit that his explanations are a
matter of profound genius".

What is blocking you in my explanations?

What has blocked everyone for 40 years, as soon as I speak of spatial
anisochrony and the relativity of punctual simultaneity.

It is all the more strange that one admits it for the solar hour.

When it is noon in Paris, it is not noon in San Francisco.

There is not a single man on earth to contradict that there is no solar
simultaneity.

However, if we transpose this to "global" physical simultaneity, everyone
loses the pedal.

The fact of saying that two watches separated by a distance x will ALWAYS
mean that in this benchmark, the two watches will be INACCORDABLE by
nature, drives everyone crazy.

But why? ? ?

FOR WHAT?

R.H.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-02-06 16:21:50 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 06/02/2023 Ă  08:52, Maciej Wozniak a ĂŠcrit :

>> Two events are simultaneous when they have the same
>> time coordinate.
>
> Only in a Newtonian world.
>
> But the world is NOT Newtonian.
>
> There are certain inescapable properties in the world such as universal
> gravitation.
>
> For example, the moon revolves around the earth, and it is not by
> saying "it does not exist" that we will be able to understand why.
>
> What I would like people to understand, and what I have been trying to
> get across for years, is that there is no absolute duration (certainly,
> what everyone learns about banns des faculties), but there is no
> instant, present, absolute simultaneity either.
>
> Very strangely, for 40 years that I teach that, I see that everyone
> loses the pedals, and I don't know why.

Let me ask again, as you haven't answered previously: whom do you teach
and where do you teach them? The Sorbonne and the Collčge de France
don't seem to have heard of you.

>
> How is it that you, who are an intelligent and curious critic, cannot
> be among the first to say:
> "I don't know if Hachel is right, but I admit that his explanations are
> a matter of profound genius".
>
> What is blocking you in my explanations?
>
> What has blocked everyone for 40 years, as soon as I speak of spatial
> anisochrony and the relativity of punctual simultaneity.
>
> It is all the more strange that one admits it for the solar hour.
>
> When it is noon in Paris, it is not noon in San Francisco.
>
> There is not a single man on earth to contradict that there is no solar
> simultaneity.
>
> However, if we transpose this to "global" physical simultaneity,
> everyone loses the pedal.
>
> The fact of saying that two watches separated by a distance x will
> ALWAYS mean that in this benchmark, the two watches will be
> INACCORDABLE by nature, drives everyone crazy.
>
> But why? ? ?
>
> FOR WHAT?
>
> R.H.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 17:21:53 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 06/02/2023 à 08:52, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > Two events are simultaneous when they have the same
> > time coordinate.

I didn't write it, instead I wrote

Two events are simultaneous when they have the same

TAI time coordinate.

>
> Only in a Newtonian world.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 06/02/2023 à 17:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> I didn't write it, instead I wrote
> Two events are simultaneous when they have the same
> TAI time coordinate.
>
>>
>> Only in a Newtonian world.
>
> Your bunch of idiots can die hard screaming
> "IMPROPER!!! IMPROPER!!!!" - it won't change anything.

I don't quite understand your answer.

You seem to be saying that the notions of proper or improper time have no
interest.

In short, for example, the equation t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) used by
relativists and which I consider valid for the notion of chronotropy
(proper speed at which watches beat) is false.

It is badly explained, but it is correct.

You also want to say that if an astronaut leaves in the universe with a
speed of 0.8c (two hundred and forty thousand km/s) and that for thirty
years of terrestrial time, he will not come back aged 18?

Is that what you mean?

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 18:05:08 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 06/02/2023 à 17:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > I didn't write it, instead I wrote
> > Two events are simultaneous when they have the same
> > TAI time coordinate.
> >
> >>
> >> Only in a Newtonian world.
> >
> > Your bunch of idiots can die hard screaming
> > "IMPROPER!!! IMPROPER!!!!" - it won't change anything.
> I don't quite understand your answer.

I'm simply not interested in discussion. Your delusions
have nothing in common with the real clocks and
their real indications.

> You also want to say that if an astronaut leaves in the universe with a
> speed of 0.8c (two hundred and forty thousand km/s) and that for thirty
> years of terrestrial time, he will not come back aged 18?

How do you determine someone's age? Demonstrate:
my clock is indicating 08:30. Is that enough or - maybe -
for determining my age you need some other data?

[Richard Hachel]

Le 07/02/2023 à 08:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> I'm simply not interested in discussion. Your delusions
> have nothing in common with the real clocks and
> their real indications.
>
>> You also want to say that if an astronaut leaves in the universe with a
>> speed of 0.8c (two hundred and forty thousand km/s) and that for thirty
>> years of terrestrial time, he will not come back aged 18?
>
> How do you determine someone's age? Demonstrate:
> my clock is indicating 08:30. Is that enough or - maybe -
> for determining my age you need some other data?

I don't mind admitting it, it's 8:30 on your clock, and it's 8:30 on mine.

Tonight it will be 7:30 p.m. on yours, and 7:30 p.m. on mine.

I conclude that we both have good watches, and a good watchmaker.

But suppose that night, at midnight, I set off into the stars for a space
trip at 0.8c (two hundred and forty thousand kilometers per second) and
that for thirty minutes on your watch.

If you saw me leave at midnight, it's midnight and thirty minutes on your
watch.

But surprise, my watch only shows midnight and 18 minutes.

In the rocket that I borrowed (thanks to a technology capable of making me
go instantly to fantastic speeds), I was able to listen to 18 minutes of a
Beatles compilation, but no more.

Do you dispute that?

I don't think you can dispute that.

There are also lots of experiments in the world and in particular relating
to the half-life of particles moving at relativistic speeds which proves
that this notion of elasticity of time is correct.

Attention, I used the term elasticity of time, and not that of dilation of
time which I find very unsuitable.

Moreover, for the one who comes out of the rocket, and whose opinion can
also be asked, there is a contraction of the time of the other.

Where the other should also have 18 minutes, we contract 30.

I think this you can easily understand.

I don't think you can contradict that.

Now, watch out again, I didn't say the theory of relativity smelled good.

There are quite nauseous hints in some cases (Langevin's misunderstood
paradox, complete forgetfulness of the notion of anisotropy, confusion
between chronotropy and durations, badly calculated observable speeds in
accelerated frames of reference, proper time calculated haphazardly,
etc...).

This is where you have to step in and explain things to all the physicists
in the world.

The task is terrible: they all take your intelligence of things as
arrogance, whereas the blind people who fall into ditches are them.

This problem is human, but it is no less terrible.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 12:31:27 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 07/02/2023 à 08:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > I'm simply not interested in discussion. Your delusions
> > have nothing in common with the real clocks and
> > their real indications.
> >
> >> You also want to say that if an astronaut leaves in the universe with a
> >> speed of 0.8c (two hundred and forty thousand km/s) and that for thirty
> >> years of terrestrial time, he will not come back aged 18?
> >
> > How do you determine someone's age? Demonstrate:
> > my clock is indicating 08:30. Is that enough or - maybe -
> > for determining my age you need some other data?
> I don't mind admitting it, it's 8:30 on your clock, and it's 8:30 on mine.

And - do you have enough data to determine my age?
If you don't - what do you need for that?

> There are also lots of experiments in the world and in particular relating
> to the half-life of particles moving at relativistic speeds which proves

It proves - what, precisely?
"The half-life of particles moving at relativistic speeds" - according
to what these experiments say (or maybe according to what you say these
experiments say) is - the same, lesser or bigger than the half life of
stationary particles?

[rotchm]

The definition of simultaneous or simultaneity is:

Two events are simultaneous if the clocks there indicate the same value.
(you are free to use whatever you want as 'clocks' and free to Define 'time' as you wish. You used TAI time coordinate in ur above example)

[rotchm]

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 11:09:43 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:

> If the theory of relativity was clear and well explained,

Irrelevant. Do not parrot what others say about relativity dot do not interpret what they mean and do not interpret relativity.
If you want to analyze relativity, use only relativity and what IT says.

> without paradoxes

It has no paradoxes.

> or gimmicks that sound bad,

It has no gimmicks and has nothing that sounds bad; those are all of the realm of authors not relativity.
Stick to relativity, not the authors.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 14:31:59 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 2:52:09 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Two events are simultaneous when they have the same
> > TAI time coordinate. That's how things are in the world
> > we inhabit. Your bunch of idiots can die hard screaming
> > "IMPROPER!!! IMPROPER!!!!" - it won't change anything.
> The definition of simultaneous or simultaneity is:
>
> Two events are simultaneous if the clocks there indicate the same value.

It's strange to hear something like that
from a Giant Guru's worshipper. Well.
strange things happen.

[Richard Hachel]

If we take the half-life of a particle (let's say that this particle, if I
create it, it will have a half-life of 5 microseconds).

Let's admit that this one, precisely, "lives"
5 microseconds.

In the lab, I look in my test tube, and I note 5 microseconds.

Now imagine that I launch this particle at 0.9995c as soon as it is
created.

If it "lives" 5 microseconds, it will travel a distance x=Vo.To

However, the distance covered will be much greater than expected.

This is experimental proof that the things I say are right.

Obviously, everything physicists say is correct.

But what I'm saying is right.

We must criticize relativity as it is taught to us, I agree.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 07/02/2023 à 14:31, rotchm a écrit :
> The definition of simultaneous or simultaneity is:
>
> Two events are simultaneous if the clocks there indicate the same value.
> (you are free to use whatever you want as 'clocks' and free to Define 'time' as
> you wish. You used TAI time coordinate in ur above example)

What clocks?

WHAAAAAT CLOCKS ? ? ?

Pfff...


R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

What clocks ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 14:38:44 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 07/02/2023 à 13:33, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 12:31:27 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 07/02/2023 à 08:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >> > I'm simply not interested in discussion. Your delusions
> >> > have nothing in common with the real clocks and
> >> > their real indications.
> >> >
> >> >> You also want to say that if an astronaut leaves in the universe with a
> >> >> speed of 0.8c (two hundred and forty thousand km/s) and that for thirty
> >> >> years of terrestrial time, he will not come back aged 18?
> >> >
> >> > How do you determine someone's age? Demonstrate:
> >> > my clock is indicating 08:30. Is that enough or - maybe -
> >> > for determining my age you need some other data?
> >> I don't mind admitting it, it's 8:30 on your clock, and it's 8:30 on mine.
> >
> > And - do you have enough data to determine my age?
> > If you don't - what do you need for that?
> >
> >> There are also lots of experiments in the world and in particular relating
> >> to the half-life of particles moving at relativistic speeds which proves
> >
> > It proves - what, precisely?
> > "The half-life of particles moving at relativistic speeds" - according
> > to what these experiments say (or maybe according to what you say these
> > experiments say) is - the same, lesser or bigger than the half life of
> > stationary particles?

> In the lab, I look in my test tube, and I note 5 microseconds.

Stop mumbling. The same, lesser or bigger ?

> If it "lives" 5 microseconds, it will travel a distance x=Vo.To
>
> However, the distance covered will be much greater than expected.

if it lives 5us -> P. And not P. so - it doesn't live 5us. Right?
Bigger?

[rotchm]

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 11:21:53 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 06/02/2023 à 08:52, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > Two events are simultaneous when they have the same
> > time coordinate.
>
> Only in a Newtonian world.

Newtonian world are not is irrelevant.

The definition of simultaneous or simultaneity is:

Two events are simultaneous if the clocks there indicate the same value.

(you are free to use whatever you want as 'clocks' and free to Define 'time' as you wish. )

For example, say that I and my daughter by a watch at the dollar store.
We synchronize them together indicating noon.
Sometime passes, I sneeze and my watch indicates 3:22pm.
We continue to walk, and a few minutes later she sneezes and her watch indicates 3:22pm.
Are those two events simultaneous? YES, as per the definition of simultaneous.

> When it is noon in Paris, it is not noon in San Francisco.

Yes it is [ if your time coordinate procedure involves using e-sinc, say].

No its not [ if your time coordinate procedure involves " seeing the sun overhead"].
Note in this case, the events "sun overhead in Paris" and "sun overhead in SF" are simultaneous
As per definition of simultaneous.

All this was thoroughly discussed, analyzed, and addressed, hundreds of years ago.
You are quite late in the game.

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:31:04 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 18:05:08 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:

> > You also want to say that if an astronaut leaves in the universe with a
> > speed of 0.8c (two hundred and forty thousand km/s) and that for thirty
> > years of terrestrial time, he will not come back aged 18?

> How do you determine someone's age?

Exactly. You are free to determine 'age' any way you want.
However, if you are in a certain group, the group must predefine their words first.
If you belong to this group or wish to, you must use their definitions. That's how language Works, that is how 'respect' works.

If someone were to do that experiment above and come back "age 18",
Lawyers would have a field day with this. SR predicts that his watch will indicate 18 on arrival and that his biological features will be 18. But TAI says he will be 30+ years old... Hence the Hefty debate amongst lawyers.

[rotchm]

Irrelevant.
If you have no clocks you cannot determine the time or the simultaneity.
This is synonym too if you have no brains if you are in a coma, you cannot determine if two events are simultaneous.
If you want to actually verify something,. You must... Actually verify it! DuH.

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:38:18 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> > The definition of simultaneous or simultaneity is:
> >
> > Two events are simultaneous if the clocks there indicate the same value.

> It's strange to hear something like that
> from a Giant Guru's

You obviously mistake me for someone else, since I have no such 'guru' ...

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 14:54:08 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:31:04 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 18:05:08 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > > You also want to say that if an astronaut leaves in the universe with a
> > > speed of 0.8c (two hundred and forty thousand km/s) and that for thirty
> > > years of terrestrial time, he will not come back aged 18?
>
> > How do you determine someone's age?
> Exactly. You are free to determine 'age' any way you want.

Sure. You can for instance use Holy Bible and
determine Adam had 600 years (or something alike)
when he died. You can - it;s just that it's going to
be pretty stupid.

> However, if you are in a certain group, the group must predefine their words first.

Please, do. How do you define age?
How do you determine a human age?
What do you need to determine mine?

[Richard Hachel]

Le 07/02/2023 à 14:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

> Stop mumbling. The same, lesser or bigger ?

Maciej,

You have to understand something.

That is to say, already, the notion of chronotropy.

Time is relative.

Thus, the two twins we were talking about will no longer be the same age.

The one who comes back is YOUNGER.

The one who remained on earth is 30 years old, the other 18.

It's the same for particles.

Take the well-known case of the pi meson.

At rest, the pi meson has an average lifetime of 0.255 nanoseconds.

We will then provide them with a speed of 0.9995c.

We set (Hachel notation) Tr=0.255ns
Vo=0.9995c

We will therefore have an expected distance traveled value of:
x=Tr.Vo= 7.5m

However, it is 242m experimentally.

So something is happening and the answer becomes simple if you understand
what I have been trying to explain for 35 years.

But that's only part of it.

Once what I am saying has been understood, my listener has not left the
inn, because I still have many things to say and to explain.

Time is relative, simultaneity is relative, durations are relative, the
very concept of anteriority and posteriority is realtive, lengths,
distances and speeds are relative.


But not as the scintifics explain.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 07/02/2023 à 14:56, rotchm a écrit :
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:41:00 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 07/02/2023 à 14:31, rotchm a écrit :
>> > The definition of simultaneous or simultaneity is:
>> >
>> > Two events are simultaneous if the clocks there indicate the same value.
>> > (you are free to use whatever you want as 'clocks' and free to Define 'time'
>> as
>> > you wish. You used TAI time coordinate in ur above example)
>> What clocks?
>>
>> WHAAAAAT CLOCKS ? ? ?
>
> Irrelevant.
> If you have no clocks you cannot determine the time or the simultaneity.

Sure.

But irrelevant.

WHAAAAAT CLOCKS?


R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 15:27:57 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 07/02/2023 à 14:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>
> > Stop mumbling. The same, lesser or bigger ?
> Maciej,
>
> You have to understand something.

Well, wrong. No, I don't have to.

> So something is happening and the answer becomes simple

Sure, a simple answer is good, why not provide it?

The half-life of particles moving at relativistic speeds" - according
to what these experiments say (or maybe according to what you say these
experiments say) is - the same, lesser or bigger than the half life of
stationary particles?

And, of course - what do you need to determine
my age?

Somehow, it seems you're avoiding these simple answers
you allegedly have.....

[Richard Hachel]

Le 07/02/2023 à 14:31, rotchm a écrit :

> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 2:52:09 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Two events are simultaneous when they have the same
>> TAI time coordinate. That's how things are in the world
>> we inhabit. Your bunch of idiots can die hard screaming
>> "IMPROPER!!! IMPROPER!!!!" - it won't change anything.
>
> The definition of simultaneous or simultaneity is:
>
> Two events are simultaneous if the clocks there indicate the same value.

Ce qui est drôle, c'est que cela peut être vrai.

Mais dans ce cas, elles n'ont pas été accordées au même endroit.

C'est par exemple le cas d'une montre placée à une année lumière de
moi.

Je vais lui demandé d'accorder sa montre avec la mienne, et, le 18
février 2023, je vais lui envoyer
un flash.

Je vais lui demander de noter, quand il recevra le flash, que nous
sommes, elle est moi,
au 18 février 2023.

Déjà là, mon lecteur bloque, et ne peut pas s'élever au niveau de
cette simple pensée, parce qu'il croit, en abruti qu'il est, qu'il faut
un temps pour que la lumière se propage, et me prend pour un con.

Pauvre abruti, et pauvre cerveau de singe arrogant!

Pffff...

Mais je continue.

Les deux montres sont simultanées, je l'admets, elles marquent la même
heure.

Mieux que ça, elles sont dans le même temps présent. Réellement
présent. Physiquement présent.

MAIS...

cette notion de temps présent, de simultanéité n'est PAS réciproque.

Quand nous sommes le 18 février 2025 ici sur terre, nous sommes le 18
février 2023 là-bas, en direct-live.

Le présent de l'un n'est pas le présent de l'autre.

Parlons peu, parlons bien : existe-t-il quelqu'un de comprendre cela, et
sans me répondre : "J'ai pas compris, et la vitesse de la lumière,
etc...."

Pouvez vous vous élever jusqu'à moi, sans me cracher à la gueule ou me
regarder avec des yeux de poisson frit quand je parle?

R.H.

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:10:13 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > How do you determine someone's age?
> > Exactly. You are free to determine 'age' any way you want.
> Sure. You can for instance use Holy Bible and
> determine Adam had 600 years (or something alike)
> when he died. You can - it;s just that it's going to
> be pretty stupid.

Exactly. We thus try to use definitions that are useful.

> > However, if you are in a certain group, the group must predefine their words first.
> Please, do. How do you define age?
> How do you determine a human age?
> What do you need to determine mine?

I dont define it since its not useful to me.
The common/social/gvnt law defines it one way.
Physics defines it another way
Dr's define it another way....

In SR, in simple terms, its the *value* on the wristwatch (or interval of time, having started it at some predetermined value). In the case of the spacetraveler, he comes back and his watch indicates 18 (yrs), whereas the watch on the ground (earth, a clock) indicates 30. No need of the superfluous and ambiguous word 'age'.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 07/02/2023 à 15:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

> Well, wrong. No, I don't have to.

Of course if you MUST understand what I'm telling you before rebutting.

R.H.

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:56:30 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 07/02/2023 à 14:31, rotchm a écrit :

> > The definition of simultaneous or simultaneity is:
> >
> > Two events are simultaneous if the clocks there indicate the same value.
> Ce qui est drôle, c'est que cela peut être vrai.

Why did you change the language of discussion? Is it because you are stumped and trying to weasel out?
Be honest & respectful of the conversation and restate your post in english as we started.

[rotchm]

He is a coward. You will rarely get an honest & direct answer from him.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 07/02/2023 à 15:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 15:27:57 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:

> And, of course - what do you need to determine
> my age?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=bwlq6VV5QDlXJSbkOwLf0vyDe9k@jntp>

To determine your age, I must first clearly understand the theory of
Poincaré and Hachel.

Not that of Minkowski and Einstein which does not appear correct to me.

Once the basic theory understood, and the Poincaré transformations
understood PHYSICALLY (ie without this "thing" invented by Minkowski) we
can then write the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, and the consequences
that go with them.

For your age, just inquire here.

This is what we can easily deduce once things are clear.

You can then understand why I don't really like the words "contraction" of
lengths and the words "dilation" of times.

I prefer to speak of elasticity of lengths and distances.

Elasticity of durations, and wavelengths.

I find these words truer and more precise.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?bwlq6VV5QDlXJSbkOwLf0vyDe9k@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 16:34:15 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:10:13 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > How do you determine someone's age?
> > > Exactly. You are free to determine 'age' any way you want.
> > Sure. You can for instance use Holy Bible and
> > determine Adam had 600 years (or something alike)
> > when he died. You can - it;s just that it's going to
> > be pretty stupid.
> Exactly. We thus try to use definitions that are useful.

Sure. What a pity that physics doesn't
know what this term mean...

> > > However, if you are in a certain group, the group must predefine their words first.
> > Please, do. How do you define age?
> > How do you determine a human age?
> > What do you need to determine mine?
> I dont define it since its not useful to me.
> The common/social/gvnt law defines it one way.
> Physics defines it another way
> Dr's define it another way....
>
> In SR, in simple terms, its the *value* on the wristwatch

It's 16:55 for me. Is this my age according to your
idiot guru?
Can't really guess how you imagined my travelling
twins would have to have this *value* lower.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 16:45:51 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 07/02/2023 à 15:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 15:27:57 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > And, of course - what do you need to determine
> > my age?
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=bwlq6VV5QDlXJSbkOwLf0vyDe9k@jntp>
>
> To determine your age, I must first clearly understand the theory of
> Poincaré and Hachel.

Well, I guess you do. Now detrmine it. So, my
age is?

[Richard Hachel]

Don't you agree that if your twin leaves for 30 years in the stars (from
my point of view), he will come back aged 18 (if his speed is constant at
0.8c)?

This is one of the few things with which I agree with the relativists (for
the rest their theory is full of errors).

It's a pity that you contradict, because then we can't move forward, and
denounce why (and in what) there is a paradox, and in what the resolution
of this paradox consists.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 07/02/2023 à 17:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>
> Well, I guess you do. Now detrmine it. So, my
> age is?

State your problem, Maciej, specifying the distance covered, the proper
time in the rocket, the speed of the rocket, etc... and I will tell you
how old you are.

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Of course, not. See: we, sane people, define
and determine age as the difference between
current date and the birth date. So, for us
he will age 30.

> > Well, I guess you do. Now detrmine it. So, my
> > age is?
> State your problem, Maciej, specifying the distance covered, the proper
> time in the rocket, the speed of the rocket

How the hell could I know? Even if I was driving this
damned rocket just myself, and I wasn't - I wouldn't
remember all that.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-02-07 16:01:10 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 16:45:51 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:

>> Le 07/02/2023 ŕ 15:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 15:27:57 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:>>
>>> > And, of course - what do you need to determine> > my age?
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=bwlq6VV5QDlXJSbkOwLf0vyDe9k@jntp>>>
>> To determine your age, I must first clearly understand the theory of>
>> Poincaré and Hachel.
> Well, I guess you do. Now detrmine it. So, my
> age is?

Mental age about ten. Physical age a bit more. Am I right?
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 10:59:41 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 16:34:15 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:

> > Exactly. We thus try to use definitions that are useful.
> Sure. What a pity that physics doesn't
> know what this term mean...

So you claim. Can you back that up?

> > In SR, in simple terms, its the *value* on the wristwatch
> It's 16:55 for me. Is this my age according to your
> idiot guru?

I do not have any guru, so who are you reefing to?

According to your *definition* of 'age', how old are you?
According to 'SR' definition of 'age', how old are you?
According to a legal definition of 'age', how old are you?
(this last one is interesting and tricky; consider people with certain type of metal disorders, or
with premature ageing (Progeria type, say), how is their age legally defined? Biologically defined?)

In each of these cases, YOU need to know the meaning of the word
'age' to answer 'how old are you/they'.

> Can't really guess how you imagined my travelling
> twins would have to have this *value* lower.

I can imagine it, but thats irrelevant.
Empirical tests show that that a returning clock, device, organic matter, etc all indicate a lesser value upon return.

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:29:08 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 17:06:26 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Of course, not. See: we, sane people, define
> and determine age as the difference between
> current date and the birth date. So, for us
> he will age 30.

Why do you lie? That is not *the* definition of 'age' as used in the legal system.
Consider this, 2yr old kid stays home and the other sent on a relativistic trip and come back.
The home twin is 30 yrs old, the other 4 yrs old upon return (his wristwatch indicates 4, his size, bodyand cries are that of a 4 yr old kid).

This '4 yr old' stumbles on a gun plays with it and it discharges and kills a bystander. Will this kid be prosecuted as a 4yr old or a 30 yr old?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 17:38:54 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-02-07 16:01:10 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
>
> > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 16:45:51 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 07/02/2023 ŕ 15:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >>> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 15:27:57 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:>>
> >>> > And, of course - what do you need to determine> > my age?
> >> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=bwlq6VV5QDlXJSbkOwLf0vyDe9k@jntp>>>
> >> To determine your age, I must first clearly understand the theory of>
> >> Poincaré and Hachel.
> > Well, I guess you do. Now detrmine it. So, my
> > age is?
> Mental age about ten. Physical age a bit more. Am I right?

Partially.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 18:08:28 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:29:08 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 17:06:26 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > Of course, not. See: we, sane people, define
> > and determine age as the difference between
> > current date and the birth date. So, for us
> > he will age 30.
> Why do you lie? That is not *the* definition of 'age' as used in the legal system.

Is that "definition of 'age' as used in the legal system"
making me 18:57 old?

> Consider this, 2yr old kid stays home and the other sent on a relativistic trip and come back.
> The home twin is 30 yrs old, the other 4 yrs old upon return (his wristwatch indicates 4

My wristwatch indicates 18:57. Is it my age
according to SR of your idiot guru?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 17:59:57 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 10:59:41 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 16:34:15 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > Exactly. We thus try to use definitions that are useful.
> > Sure. What a pity that physics doesn't
> > know what this term mean...
> So you claim. Can you back that up?
> > > In SR, in simple terms, its the *value* on the wristwatch
> > It's 16:55 for me. Is this my age according to your
> > idiot guru?
> I do not have any guru, so who are you reefing to?

I'm reefing to poor idiot Einstein and his SR shit.
So, the *value* on my wristwatch was 16:55.
Was it my age according to them?

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 12:58:49 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> Is that "definition of 'age' as used in the legal system"
> making me 18:57 old?

That is what im asking you: What definition of 'age' are YOU using?
Note that I did not invoke the concept, YOU did. So, explai/define what you meant by 'age'.
Noate that *I* used the unambiguous expression 'value on the device'.

> > Consider this, 2yr old kid stays home and the other sent on a relativistic trip and come back.
> > The home twin is 30 yrs old, the other 4 yrs old upon return (his wristwatch indicates 4

No answer? How will the 4 yr old kid be prosecuted?
Stumped?

> My wristwatch indicates 18:57. Is it my age
> according to SR of your idiot guru?

As I said, the definition of 'age' in SR is either the value, or the time interval.
Which one do you want to use?
If you choose 'value' then your age is 18:57 .
If you are using the interval from its initial value when you were born till now (18.57 today, this date)
then you are what ever age you are now. See, applying a definition is simple.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 19:08:10 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 12:58:49 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Is that "definition of 'age' as used in the legal system"
> > making me 18:57 old?
> That is what im asking you: What definition of 'age' are YOU using?

I told you.

> Note that I did not invoke the concept, YOU did. So, explai/define what you meant by 'age'.

The difference between the current date and the birth date.

> > > Consider this, 2yr old kid stays home and the other sent on a relativistic trip and come back.
> > > The home twin is 30 yrs old, the other 4 yrs old upon return (his wristwatch indicates 4
> No answer? How will the 4 yr old kid be prosecuted?
> Stumped?

It's your gedankenwelt, not mine. How can I know how
cruel it is?

> > My wristwatch indicates 18:57. Is it my age
> > according to SR of your idiot guru?
> As I said, the definition of 'age' in SR is either the value, or the time interval.
> Which one do you want to use?

Why would I? It's your SR, not mine. I'm just asking
how you define an age, and the answer "either 18:57
or something else" - sounds quite idiotic as
for a definition.
Not that I was expecting something better, of course.

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:01:21 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:


> I'm reefing to poor idiot Einstein

Ignore what that idiot said. We are discussing the definition of 'age'.

> and his SR shit.

SR did not define the word 'age'.

The context defines the meaning of that word, just as any other word.

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:25:07 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> It's your gedankenwelt, not mine. How can I know how
> cruel it is?

Exactly my point. So you agree that words have meaning in contexts.
In the legal context, the legal system will will specify the 'age' of the kid, and prosecute accordingly.

> The difference between the current date and the birth date.

Then thats your definition of 'age'. Just apply it to your bday and current date.
Compute the difference and you have your answer!

> > Which one do you want to use?
> Why would I? It's your SR, not mine.

Again, SR did not invent nor define the word 'age'.
Some authors use that word with a specific meaning in context.

> I'm just asking
> how you define an age, and the answer "either 18:57
> or something else" -

As I said, I did not define 'age'.
In the context of SR, some authors use that word with a specific meaning.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 19:29:40 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:01:21 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > I'm reefing to poor idiot Einstein
> Ignore what that idiot said. We are discussing the definition of 'age'.
>
> > and his SR shit.
>
> SR did not define the word 'age'.

Quoting:
"As I said, the definition of 'age' in SR is either the value, or the time interval."

Is there another rotchm around?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 19:36:32 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:25:07 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > It's your gedankenwelt, not mine. How can I know how
> > cruel it is?
> Exactly my point. So you agree that words have meaning in contexts.
> In the legal context, the legal system will will specify the 'age' of the kid

Do you know many little kids having a
watch, BTW?

> As I said, I did not define 'age'.
> In the context of SR, some authors use that word with a specific meaning.

And this specific meaning is?

[rotchm]

Correct. SR did not define 'age'.
The context/authors define 'age' , be it when discussing SR or some other context.
In SR, what is usually meant by 'age' is either the value or interval of...
But this is NOT a definition given by SR, its by the author/context.
And you agreed to the in a previous post, so why are you still debating it?

Do you agree that the meaning of words depend on the context?

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:


> > In the context of SR, some authors use that word with a specific meaning.
> And this specific meaning is?

Well, ask THEM, DuH!
Or, deduce it from their context, DuH!

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 19:52:52 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
>
> > > In the context of SR, some authors use that word with a specific meaning.
> > And this specific meaning is?
> Well, ask THEM, DuH!

Well, I'm just asking one of THEM, DuH!

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:58:23 PM UTC-5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> > > And this specific meaning is?
> > Well, ask THEM, DuH!
> Well, I'm just asking one of THEM, DuH!

No you are not, for I am not one of them.
I did not invoke 'age'.

If you want to know what *they* meant by it, ask them.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 20:55:29 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:58:23 PM UTC-5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > > > And this specific meaning is?
> > > Well, ask THEM, DuH!
> > Well, I'm just asking one of THEM, DuH!
> No you are not, for I am not one of them.
> I did not invoke 'age'.

Well, I know you're lying, you know you're
lying. No surprise.

[rotchm]

Nope, you are. Google kept a record, and google says that you spoke of 'age' before me in this thread.
So you are the liar.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Two events are simultaneous when they have the same
TAI time coordinate. That's how things are in the world
we inhabit. Your bunch of idiots can die hard screaming
"IMPROPER!!! IMPROPER!!!!" - it won't change anything.