Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Python <python@invalid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Space-time interval (2)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:29:40 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 184
Message-ID: <v9ksbk$trev$2@dont-email.me>
References: <YqTjbAPdSf8P-veYFHQCI8eskLU@jntp> <v9g6ij$3vsfg$1@dont-email.me>
 <AVa827R_LOez7mc5Ad3CT6GyhiA@jntp>
 <327c4ebc77dc16239ac38f00b508451b@www.novabbs.com>
 <ZmtVAt4HhKe0jdT-a3px1duKdmw@jntp> <v9i8c5$bvnu$9@dont-email.me>
 <VOohu46_lYfs6YEQG8qZQKYepNw@jntp> <v9ia7k$bvnu$11@dont-email.me>
 <FxxcAtB-BaU4TzfE-6Txlbo_gEA@jntp> <v9kiq7$tput$1@dont-email.me>
 <EtDoDs0BPVkZJTF9Hcr7blKk9p0@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:29:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bb99e0d8757e7fde2ac17fffb9b51d81";
	logging-data="978399"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/KEOuJ837tHmUzsx7nDoaC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rwfmdDl/yKn0hNm5UIwWBsb/dDo=
In-Reply-To: <EtDoDs0BPVkZJTF9Hcr7blKk9p0@jntp>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9282

Le 15/08/2024 à 14:10, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> Le 15/08/2024 à 11:46, Mikko a écrit :
>>
>>> The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag 
>>> behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon 
>>> that will affect all the watches in the universe.
>>
>> No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and
>> it shows as it was set.
> 
> That's not what I'm talking about.
> For 40 years now, I've been getting answers that miss the point.

Nope. Most people who dared to read your claims perfectly understood
what it is about and how and why it is garbage leading you to
contradictory claims. On the other hand, you never understand anything
about Relativity, not even the Galilean version, what coordinates are,
what synchronization is, and how this relates to experimental
confirmation.

You drowned yourself in an ocean of misconceptions and lies.

> Breathe, blow, and for goodness sake, at least try to understand what 
> I'm saying.
> I'm saying that the notion of a flat earth was a logical notion for the 
> first men, because "if it weren't flat, the water would fall on the 
> edges, and those at the bottom would fall into the void".
> The thought is logical in appearance, but it's wrong, the earth is not 
> flat.

This analogy is a complete failure. You are a complete failure.

> For 40 years, I've been begging physicist speakers to get a new idea in 
> their heads: the earth is round, and it's the principle of universal 
> gravitation that makes it so that water doesn't fall, and that the 
> Chinese don't fall into the "void".
> BUT still, it's not hard to understand!
> What's happening to you men, to be so timid, in front of Hachel's 
> immense thought? ? ?

There is no timidity in *proving* your claims to be wrong and to
*demonstrated*, black on white that they are contradictory.

> I beg you to believe me, it is not that difficult to understand.
> You just have to abandon your a priori which do not rhyme with anything.
> You idealize a flat and abstract "present time", a universal 
> simultaneity, it is a false and ridiculous a priori, but so anchored in 
> the jaw of men like a dental abscess, that they have difficulty getting 
> rid of it, and that they end up accommodating it.
> You cannot "absolutely" tune all the watches of a given frame of 
> reference. Each will always lag behind the other in the best case of 
> synchronizations. If I send an electromagnetic message to A and B, 
> coming from the center M of a given segment,
> for M the impulses leave together (breathe, blow), but also for M, the 
> impulses will arrive together.
> We agree.
> For M the events A and B will be simultaneous. They will occur in the 
> same present moment.
> This is a method that can be used to synchronize all the capitals of the 
> world, except that where do I place my point M?

You are using a broken synchronization scheme. Read Poincaré or Einstein
to get a proper one. Synchronization verification do not rely on a
specific point. Only readings at both (or more) clocks for specific,
precisely defined, events. I tried to explain that to you in 2007 and
you failed miserably:

https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

While I was explaining the meaning of these equations:

t_B - t_A=t'_A - t_B
(2AB)/(t'_A-t_A) = c

You answered:

«  Eisntein est en train de dire que deux montres sont synchronisées si
    elles battent à la même vitesse (en se contrefoutant de voir si elles
    marquent la même heure). »

Translation : « Eisntein (sic) is claiming that two clocks are
synchronized if they beat at the same speed (without caring at all if
they look showing the same hour). »

This is utterly asinine on your part. You probably never think about it
a single second, you just pulled out the first idiocy (and they are
many) that goes on your silly mind.

Later (recently) you pretended that you "forgot to put a question mark
at the end of your sentence". This is 100% unrealistic given the whole
content of your posts in that thread. This is a typical childish
trumpian, hypocrite, insincere, deceptive and shameful reaction.


> Let's say, at the center of the earth, for example, but that's not 
> correct. Mexico and Amsterdam will not be at the same height.
> To synchronize them, I need an abstract point, ideally placed in an 
> abstract 4th spatial dimension, and at an equal distance from any point 
> in our universe (including a point placed on the moon).

Engineers are synchronizing clocks on a daily basis (so to speak)
without relying on any kind of this absurd stuff like "abstract
point" and "abstract 4th spacial dimension".


> We will have perfect synchronization for this point.

Synchronization is a property of a set of clocks. It does not
depend on any specific position.

> All the events that 
> occur when it sends a beep will be simultaneous for it and will be part 
> of its present moment.
> As for M between A and B.
> But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated for M, 
> we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always receive the 
> beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present for M. But ONLY for M.
> Breathe, blow.
> If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and will say 
> B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps, reaches me 
> late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my future, and not at my 
> present moment, because when I beep, his beep does not exist FOR me, it 
> will only exist in t=AB/c.

You are using a broken synchronization scheme. Read Poincaré or Einstein
to get a proper one.

> This is what we call universal anisochrony.

You didn't define anything sensible in the previous paragraph.

> Are you finally starting to understand?
> 
> We can then try to synchronize B, and A sends a message,
> I perceive you as late, advance your watch by AB/c.
> 
> Which is what B will do and this time, A and B live in the same present 
> moment, there is no more anisochrony.
> 
> Except that this time, it is B who looks at A with astonishment and 
> says, it is worse, for me. You no longer exist in the same present time 
> as me when you beep simultaneously with me (seen by you),
> it is I who perceive you in reart and this time of 2 AB/c.

You are using a broken synchronization scheme. Read Poincaré or Einstein
to get a proper one.

> And so on for all the watches of the universe.

You are using a broken synchronization scheme. Read Poincaré or Einstein
to get a proper one.

> The solution is therefore to create a universal abstract time, and to 
> agree on this point, ideally placed at the same universal distance from 
> all the world capitals (and even that of the moon), this is what we call 
> universal time.

No, this not how it is done.

> It is this time that is used today, and which "simulates" a global 
> present time which, by nature, does not exist, and has never existed in 
> the whole universe.

Incoherent babbling.

> The speed of light is not a photon moving at speed c in a universal 
> present moment. It is for the observer an instantaneous transaction FOR 
> HIM in his own present moment, the two events (the supernova bursts, I 
> see the supernova bursting) being part of his own present.

You are using a broken synchronization scheme. Read Poincaré or Einstein
to get a proper one.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========