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> <6s8YJGP42H0C-4FoL8dk0ahw7GU@jntp> <_CYXv7AxHmksXdC3qC_LVC1ERDY@jntp> From: Ross Finlayson 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: 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.)