Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2025 17:28:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Relativistic synchronisation method
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <4-GlI_h7vkz4Ndsd_KixgDLS7Gg@jntp> <vk92ht$kijv$1@dont-email.me>
 <HQFxpJvcwIpLhNIeMKqLNQ292YE@jntp> <vk9qtr$p308$1@dont-email.me>
 <6s8YJGP42H0C-4FoL8dk0ahw7GU@jntp> <vkrfq7$vgn7$1@dont-email.me>
 <aPHxGjD_dpkbBzSp5qyOiHozthM@jntp> <vkv0i5$1pqpi$1@dont-email.me>
 <_CYXv7AxHmksXdC3qC_LVC1ERDY@jntp> <vl0g4p$26cgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <MY2rAPs--8tACK2xmT07V_aMmMI@jntp> <vl39ac$2opud$1@dont-email.me>
 <shycnSvI3KSG6-j6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <eaOcnZy_AJ3t5-j6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2025 09:28:09 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <eaOcnZy_AJ3t5-j6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <eaOcnZ-_AJ3O5uj6nZ2dnZfqnPUAAAAA@giganews.com>
Lines: 160
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3pdH8baUFctYVdOBCfhwLS6YBtXQI/zL8Rx9hrNVW/8YROhNsx5+UiQk2kMNbC0I8nVfkALDCr2xYdg!INThgOhIz8q0wjTdIG8IaTGzr8rjtMzROaNVJHOTbbaEfeohY2OQh7tnxooEHoX8Q1L7pkiVO88=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 7731

On 01/01/2025 09:24 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 01/01/2025 09:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 01/01/2025 03:37 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 31.12.2024 11:58, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>> Le 31/12/2024 à 11:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>> Den 30.12.2024 21:59, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>
>>>>>> Le 30/12/2024 à 21:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In physics "synchronous" means that two clocks simultaneously
>>>>>>> show the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When two clocks are side by side and show the same,
>>>>>>> they are synchronous by definition.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> At home you set your clock to  UTC+1h.
>>>>> You know the station clock shows UTC+1h.
>>>>> You expect the clocks will be synchronous within a second
>>>>> when you arrive at the station.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be ridiculous to claim that the clocks were not
>>>>> synchronous when you were at home, but in some mysterious
>>>>> way became synchronous when you arrived at the station.
>>>>> Or wouldn't it? :-D
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the watches are well tuned, it is logical that when I find myself
>>>> in the presence of the station clock, my watch will note the same time.
>>>> The opposite would also be absurd, since by definition they must be
>>>> tuned.
>>>
>>> OK. So we can sum it up:
>>>
>>> At home you "tune" your clock to show UTC+1h.
>>> You know the station clock is "tuned" to show UTC+1h.
>>> Since your clock and the station clock are well "tuned",
>>> you expect the clocks will show the same when you arrive
>>> at the station.
>>>
>>> It would be ridiculous to claim that the clocks were not
>>> "tuned" to show the same when you were at home, but in some
>>> mysterious way became "tuned" to show the same when you arrived
>>> at the station. The clocks which side by side show the same
>>> must by definition be "tuned".
>>>
>>>
>>> If the reader thinks that "being tuned" is the same as
>>> "being synchronous", he is wrong, as Richard will explain below:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you still do not seem to have understood something about the
>>>> nature of time (the notion of anisochrony).
>>>>
>>>> I remind you and those who read: "Paul B. Andersen is not an idiot, he
>>>> understood very well what the concept of chronotropy is, which is the
>>>> study of the relativity of the internal beats of watches. He knows
>>>> that by permutation of reference, it is the opposite watch that beats
>>>> less quickly and that t'(its time for me) = tau (its time, for it) /
>>>> sqrt (1- Vo² / c²).
>>>>
>>>> But to this is added ANOTHER concept, the concept of anisochrony, that
>>>> no one (not Paul any more than the others WANTS to understand).
>>>>
>>>> It is not a question of mental capacity, I understood that at the age
>>>> of seven by reading the Superman books, it is a question of will.
>>>>
>>>> I explained everything in my pdf (for those who read French, and in my
>>>> posts on usenet).
>>>>
>>>> The rest is just discriminatory will: "We do not want Dr. Hachel to
>>>> reign over us", and this does not only affect theoretical physics, it
>>>> also affects theology, sociology, medicine and politics.
>>>>
>>>> Man does not WANT new data.
>>>>
>>>> We have the same thing in religion.
>>>>
>>>> What is the most widespread prayer in the world?
>>>>
>>>> You will faint, I give it to you, the true, the real one:
>>>> "Our Father.
>>>> Who art in heaven.
>>>> Above all, stay there".
>>>>
>>>> Note that when you say: "I tune my watch to the universal watch" you
>>>> are making a conceptual error. You do not tune your watch to it, but
>>>> it is it that tunes to you.
>>>>
>>>> All the synchronizations of the universe that are done on it, it is
>>>> just it that agrees on all these watches by specifying that FOR HER,
>>>> everything that is agreed on it at this moment constitutes HER present
>>>> moment, HER hyperplane of universal simultaneity.
>>>>
>>>> I implore you to have three cups of coffee and to think about what I
>>>> have just said, which seems very simple and very logical to me.
>>>>
>>>> This is the primum movens of the theory of relativity, and if we do
>>>> not understand that, we teach a theory that can still be interesting,
>>>> but whose basis is lame.
>>>>
>>>> If you do not understand why the synchronization of physicists
>>>> (universal time) is an infinitely useful creation, but abstract,
>>>> virtual, and representing nothing in itself (this watch is nowhere in
>>>> our 3D universe), you still have not understood the theory of
>>>> relativity.
>>>>
>>>> R.H.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actual clocks always observe remote clocks
>> in a "range" of time.
>>
>> It's kind of like sonons, photons,
>> about instantons being solitons,
>> they're extended bodies.
>> ("Measurements of time.")
>>
>>
>> Clocks either slow, or meet.  Clocks
>> are mostly according to Doppler.
>>
>>
>> Particles as point particles and
>> instants as distinct, are not classical
>> quantities, though they are mathematical.
>>
>> "Chronons"
>>
>>
>
> Of course in the theory it's a continuum mechanics,
> yet how we observe or measure or sample events
> that are "sharp" sounds or "sharp" images, as with
> regards to theories of particles or discrete theories,
> have that particles in un-like dimensions are
> always extended, i.e. _not_ particles.
>
> Then, these _are_ the usual words, of course,
> about the sharpness of definition of extended
> bodies as distinct, about the real continuum
> mechanics and the real mathematics of continuity,
> as with regards to that being about real mathematics
> of infinity.
>
> So, before losing your head in time, where there's
> time dilation about SR but really in GR it's always
> space contraction which combines length contraction
> and time dilation, so it's "spacetime contraction",
> it'll help to have mathematical continuity and
> infinity in a proper sort of form.
>
>

("Phonons" if not "sonons", acoustic phonons.)