It seems that no one has clearly understood the "relativistic problem",Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used
and what a "relativistic synchronization method" is.
On 16-Dec-24 8:22 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
It seems that no one has clearly understood the "relativisticEinstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used
problem", and what a "relativistic synchronization method" is.
it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.
Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used
it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.
As it happens, his definition is very easy to understand, though nothing turns on that.
Sylvia.
Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used
it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.
As it happens, his definition is very easy to understand, though nothing turns on that.
Sylvia.
And here, well - a problem arises:(
It can only be applied where no gravity
is present, on the distant clocks somehow
secured to have 0 of relative speed.
Both requirements are unfortunately
utterly idiotic.
Considering also the fact that nobody needs
"synchronization differently" as defined
by Your insane guru - the method is not
going to have a lot of applications, I'm
afraid.
Le 16/12/2024 à 16:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
And here, well - a problem arises:(
It can only be applied where no gravity
is present, on the distant clocks somehow
secured to have 0 of relative speed.
Both requirements are unfortunately
utterly idiotic.
Considering also the fact that nobody needs
"synchronization differently" as defined
by Your insane guru - the method is not
going to have a lot of applications, I'm
afraid.
It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even stationary ones).
Le 16/12/2024 à 15:59, Sylvia Else a écrit :
Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used
it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.
As it happens, his definition is very easy to understand, though
nothing turns on that.
Sylvia.
Einstein does not define anything at all. For the speed of light,
Einstein postulates that it is invariant, but
W dniu 16.12.2024 o 17:06, Richard Hachel pisze:
It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even
stationary ones).
Maybe for you. Anyone can check GPS, the
professionals manage.
Le 16/12/2024 à 17:43, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 16.12.2024 o 17:06, Richard Hachel pisze:
It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even
stationary ones).
Maybe for you. Anyone can check GPS, the
professionals manage.
Tu ne peux pas synchroniser deux montres ENTRE ELLES.
Ce n'est pas PHYSIQUE.
W dniu 16.12.2024 o 18:02, Richard Hachel pisze:
Le 16/12/2024 à 17:43, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 16.12.2024 o 17:06, Richard Hachel pisze:
It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even
stationary ones).
Maybe for you. Anyone can check GPS, the
professionals manage.
Tu ne peux pas synchroniser deux montres ENTRE ELLES.
Ce n'est pas PHYSIQUE.
Take your precious PHYSIQUE and put it
straight into your dumb ass, where it belongs.
The clocks, their synchronization, time - have
nothing to do with it.
Le 16/12/2024 à 15:59, Sylvia Else a écrit :
Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used
it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.
As it happens, his definition is very easy to understand, though
nothing turns on that.
Sylvia.
Einstein does not define anything at all. For the speed of light,
Einstein postulates that it is invariant, but he does not explain WHY.
That was a quick segue from synchronisation. I wonder why.
Einstein postulates that it is invariant, but he does not explain WHY.
That's how things run with postulates.
Le 17/12/2024 à 05:33, Sylvia Else a écrit :
That was a quick segue from synchronisation. I wonder why.
Einstein postulates that it is invariant, but he does not explain WHY. >>That's how things run with postulates.
I hear you.
That's why it's called a postulate.
For example: we can postulate that a wooden ball falls at the same speed
as an iron ball, and that in a vacuum, a feather falls as fast as a lead ball.
That's a postulate.
But it doesn't explain WHY.
Einstein doesn't know why, nor does Poincaré for that matter, the speed
of light is constant by change of frame of reference. He just POSTULATES.
It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even stationary ones).
It seems that no one has clearly understood the "relativistic problem",
and what a "relativistic synchronization method" is.
If we say that both "relativistic problem" and "relativistic synchronization method" are expressions that are intended to sound profoundly meaningful but don't actually mean anything, isn't that close enough of understanding?
Mikko
stationary ones).
Your wristwatch and my wristwatch are both showing UTC + 1 hour.
To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this: https://time.is/clock
How did you synchronise your wristwatch to show UTC + 1 hour, Richard?
You will ignore this, but I will ask you again.
Den 16.12.2024 17:06, skrev Richard Hachel:
To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this: https://time.is/clock
Le 17/12/2024 à 11:45, Richard Hachel a écrit :
..
As for his method of synchronization, it is just two lines to explain
that tA'-tA=2AB/c (which is true) and therefore that tB-tA=tA'-tB=AB/c
but by omitting to say WHO takes the measurement of that, that is to
say by believing that it is everyone.
Not at all. There is NO ambiguity. tA and t'A are measured by clock A
Tu dis que tA'-tA=2AB/c et tu as raison.
I didn't say that. It can be the case or not. The POINT is that if it is the case, it is the case. Everyone agrees on that. And that if is not the case then
everyone agrees on that.
Same for tB - tA = t'A - tB it is either true or false for everyone.
Not at all. There is NO ambiguity. tA and t'A are measured by clock A (for events that happen there), tB is measured by clock B (for an event that happens
there too).
And, obvisously, the fact that "clock X measure tX for an event happening there"
is the same fact for everyone. Only fools of your kind can pretend that 1 + 1 = 3
for some observers.
2. Tu travestis ma pensée en me faisant dire ce que je n'ai pas dit. Je n'ai
jamais dit que ce que marquait une montre lors d'un événement conjoint était
relatif par changement d'observateur.
It is your words : "but by omitting to say WHO takes the measurement of that".
There is no admission : an observer at A measures time shown on clock A for two
events, an observer at B measures time shown on another clock at another event.
Clocks can show any values, nothing is supposed than they tick at the same rate.
Le 17/12/2024 à 18:19, Richard Hachel a écrit :
You missed the point that the procedure is not supposing that the clock are synchronized in any way, as my application illustrates. Then if the checking procedure involving ONLY tA, tB, t'A concludes that clocks A and B are NOT synchronized you can compute the offset to apply, at your choice, to A, to B or to
both.
This is necessarily true
So why don't you stop suggesting otherwise by claiming that it is not said for
who "A marks tA/t'A" or "B marks tB"?
Are you playing being an idiot or are really an idiot? (I know the answer).
Le 17/12/2024 à 18:32, Python a écrit :
2. Tu travestis ma pensée en me faisant dire ce que je n'ai pas dit. Je n'ai
jamais dit que ce que marquait une montre lors d'un événement conjoint était
relatif par changement d'observateur.
It is your words : "but by omitting to say WHO takes the measurement of that".
There is no admission : an observer at A measures time shown on clock A for two
events, an observer at B measures time shown on another clock at another event.
Clocks can show any values, nothing is supposed than they tick at the same rate.
But both evolve at the same rate!
Le 17/12/2024 à 18:57, Python a écrit :
This is necessarily true
So why don't you stop suggesting otherwise by claiming that it is not
said for who "A marks tA/t'A" or "B marks tB"?
Are you playing being an idiot or are really an idiot? (I know the
answer).
But that's not true, damn it...
He still hasn't understood.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER watch.
If when my watch says NOON when I hit that tree on the side of the road,
it's obvious that all observers in the universe will understand that MY
watch says noon at that moment of impact.
Le 17/12/2024 à 18:19, Richard Hachel a écrit :
[snip remaining demented bullshit]
Le 17/12/2024 à 14:31, Mikko a écrit :
If we say that both "relativistic problem" and "relativistic synchronization >> method" are expressions that are intended to sound profoundly meaningful but >> don't actually mean anything, isn't that close enough of understanding?
Mikko
If you want to be understood, you have to say clear things and fair things.
But with Dr. Richard Hachel, the problem is human, not semantic. "We do
not want this man to reign over us".
Thus, if I talk about anisochrony, dilation of chronotropies, radial contraction of disks, immediately, I am told that I am not understood.
On 2024-12-17 14:16:07 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
You are not understood because you can't talk about them in Common Language.
Le 17/12/2024 à 14:49, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
stationary ones).
Your wristwatch and my wristwatch are both showing UTC + 1 hour.
To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this: https://time.is/clock
How did you synchronise your wristwatch to show UTC + 1 hour, Richard?
You will ignore this, but I will ask you again.
Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand something.
There is no absolute simultaneity. To say that two events occurred at
the same time only makes sense locally and for ONE given observer.
I beg you (vain hope) to understand this before criticizing something
that you have not previously understood.
R.H.
Den 17.12.2024 15:31, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 17/12/2024 à 14:49, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
stationary ones).
Your wristwatch and my wristwatch are both showing UTC + 1 hour.
To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this: https://time.is/clock
How did you synchronise your wristwatch to show UTC + 1 hour, Richard?
You will ignore this, but I will ask you again.
You ignored my question, so I will ask again.
Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand something.
There is no absolute simultaneity. To say that two events occurred at
the same time only makes sense locally and for ONE given observer.
Richard, I an not criticising you or your theory.
I am only asking simple questions I would like you to answer,
So please do.
Richard, you have a watch of some kind, haven't you?
How did you set your clock to show what it shows, so
that you can reach your bus or train at the right time?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock
on the wall of the railway station (within a minute or so)?
I beg you (vain hope) to understand this before criticizing something
that you have not previously understood.
R.H.
I do neither.
Please answer my simple questions.
If you ignore them yet again, I will ask you again.
Le 21/12/2024 à 15:21, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Richard, I an not criticising you or your theory.
I am only asking simple questions I would like you to answer,
So please do.
Richard, you have a watch of some kind, haven't you?
How did you set your clock to show what it shows, so
that you can reach your bus or train at the right time?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock
on the wall of the railway station (within a minute or so)?
If you ignore them yet again, I will ask you again.
I have already answered all these questions, except that you do not read
my answers.
So we are in an insurmountable problem.
Especially since my posts are in French, and my pdfs in French.
There are of course French people, who should love Henri Poincaré and Richard Hachel.
No! They love Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Why? Because they are
not French.
Those are the race below the race of toads. They hate their own culture
out of a desire to hate their own culture.
We have a good example here with the idiot "Python".
Who hates France and would love a cession of France into various
entities, must have a Breton entity.
So as soon as the scent of France is felt a little, he goes crazy.
I have already answered your questions many times. When you post pdfs, I
ask readers to read them carefully.
When I think I see inaccuracies, I explain them, and I try to correct it (even the notion of integration which is incorrect in one of your pdf).
What more do you want to ask me?
Den 21.12.2024 18:26, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 21/12/2024 à 15:21, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Richard, I an not criticising you or your theory.
I am only asking simple questions I would like you to answer,
So please do.
Richard, you have a watch of some kind, haven't you?
How did you set your clock to show what it shows, so
that you can reach your bus or train at the right time?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock
on the wall of the railway station (within a minute or so)?
If you ignore them yet again, I will ask you again.
You have still not answered my questions, so I will ask again.
I have already answered all these questions, except that you do not read
my answers.
The answers you repeat below?
So we are in an insurmountable problem.
Especially since my posts are in French, and my pdfs in French.
There are of course French people, who should love Henri Poincaré and
Richard Hachel.
No! They love Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Why? Because they are
not French.
Those are the race below the race of toads. They hate their own culture
out of a desire to hate their own culture.
We have a good example here with the idiot "Python".
Who hates France and would love a cession of France into various
entities, must have a Breton entity.
So as soon as the scent of France is felt a little, he goes crazy.
I have already answered your questions many times. When you post pdfs, I
ask readers to read them carefully.
When I think I see inaccuracies, I explain them, and I try to correct it
(even the notion of integration which is incorrect in one of your pdf).
I don't understand your answers to my questions.
What more do you want to ask me?
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Here we go:
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
'yes' or 'no', please
To understand, you have to reread what I wrote, calmly, neither too slowly nor too quickly.
It is absolutely abnormal that I am told that we do not understand what is said, when everything is clearly defined, even defined several times with
the most precise words possible.
Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Here we go:
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
'yes' or 'no', please
Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given
place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
the cosmos).
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
and will always remain so,
Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Here we go:
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
'yes' or 'no', please
Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 � 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Here we go:
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your� watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
� 'yes' or 'no', please
Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
the cosmos).
Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
Richard, I am in the real world.
I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
https://time.is/clock
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed time will be correct
within a second.
You answered yes to these questions:
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
and will always remain so,
You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
Merry Christmas Richard.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Here we go:
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
'yes' or 'no', please
Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a
synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given
place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
the cosmos).
Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
Richard, I am in the real world.
I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
https://time.is/clock
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed time will be correct
within a second.
You answered yes to these questions:
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
and will always remain so,
You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
Merry Christmas Richard.
Le 22/12/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Here we go:
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
'yes' or 'no', please
Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and
what a synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on
a single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a
given place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative
speed in the cosmos).
Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-
Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all
the watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
Richard, I am in the real world.
I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
https://time.is/clock
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed time will be correct
within a second.
You answered yes to these questions:
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by
nature, and will always remain so,
You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
Merry Christmas Richard.
You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four decades).
We breathe, we blow.
We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.
WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it
is physically impossible.
This is like saying: "draw me a round square".
We must therefore synchronize the two watches on a third virtual watch
for which the two events watch A marks noon, and watch B marks noon are SIMULTANEOUS.
It is on the universal simultaneity of this abstract watch that
physicists build their usable universe.
This watch does not exist, it is virtual, although very useful.
I repeat it again and again, watches A and B cannot be tuned to each
other. If I agree A on B (I say that the two events A1 and B1 are simultaneous) for A, but they will no longer be for B.
Am Sonntag000022, 22.12.2024 um 22:15 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
The problem:
if you have more than two points to compare, this does not work, because
the midpoint of a triangle is not lying uopn its edjes.
IaW: the mid-point of a triangle ABC is not in the middle between any
two of the end-points.
This would exclude the possibility to generallize the mid-point-time
from M (in the middle between A and B) from above.
TH
On 12/22/2024 12:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 � 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Here we go:
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your� watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)? >>>> � 'yes' or 'no', please
Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a >>> synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a >>> single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given >>> place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in >>> the cosmos).
Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the >>> watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
Richard, I am in the real world.
I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
https://time.is/clock
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed time will be correct
within a second.
You answered yes to these questions:
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you >> expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature, >>> and will always remain so,
You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
Merry Christmas Richard.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
I synchronise my clock to the first 3 seconds of the big bang...
Well that's ignorant, both Big Bang and Steady State
are neither falsifiable, neither "scientific",
both merely exercises in tuning, furthermore
now it's stopped.
The JWST has roundly paint-canned expansion theory
and most of inflationary theory since it was already
for decades and decades that astronomy just has
only one variable "redshift" that redshift bias
is removable because of optical effects and now
all the old Cold Lambda have a sort of speculative
way of reading them.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 12/22/2024 12:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 � 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand. >>>>
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Here we go:
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your� watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)? >>>> � 'yes' or 'no', please
Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a
synchronization process consists of in our universe.
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a >>> single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given >>> place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in >>> the cosmos).
Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the >>> watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
Richard, I am in the real world.
I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
https://time.is/clock
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed time will be correct
within a second.
You answered yes to these questions:
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you >> expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so. >> (I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature, >>> and will always remain so,
You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune? >>
Merry Christmas Richard.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
I synchronise my clock to the first 3 seconds of the big bang...
Well that's ignorant, both Big Bang and Steady State
are neither falsifiable, neither "scientific",
both merely exercises in tuning, furthermore
now it's stopped.
The JWST has roundly paint-canned expansion theory
and most of inflationary theory since it was already
for decades and decades that astronomy just has
only one variable "redshift" that redshift bias
is removable because of optical effects and now
all the old Cold Lambda have a sort of speculative
way of reading them.
You have to understand..
Time (as you know it) had it's beginging with space and time.
The first 3 seconds is universal time.
Local time is Einstien's Time.
In other words, you have your clock synchronized to a
Cuckoo clock that sits outside looking out of
Einstein'ts window.
Just take the first 3 seconds and add additional seconds until
you reach...Now. That would be the correct time...now.
Richard Hachel wrote:
To understand, you have to reread what I wrote, calmly, neither too slowly nor too quickly.
The O'l Great One has spoken.
It is absolutely abnormal that I am told that we do not understand what is said, when everything is clearly defined, even defined several times with the most precise words possible.
You have to 'watch out' wit dis guy Richard Hachel, [WHISPER] He's a religious fanatic.
When Richard Hachel ses "... I am told that we do not understand..."
dats gangster religion. Religious scientists trying to indoctrinate the sciences with their gangster religion.
https://biblehub.com/luke/18-34.htm
"I am Oz, the Great and Terrible. Why do you seek me?"
'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.'
If I go to France, do you think dat Hachel Wizard will give me a brain???
With the thoughts you'd be thinkin' You could be another Lincoln If you only had a brain.
Hooray! We're off to see a Wizard!
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Le 22/12/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Here we go:
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
'yes' or 'no', please
Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four decades).
We breathe, we blow.
We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.
WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it
is physically impossible.
We must therefore synchronize the two watches on a third virtual watch
for which the two events watch A marks noon, and watch B marks noon are SIMULTANEOUS.
Den 22.12.2024 22:15, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 � 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 � 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Here we go:
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
� 'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your� watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)? >>>> � 'yes' or 'no', please
Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four decades).
Yes, your clear answer to my question was easy to understand.
My question was:
"Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport?"
Your answer was 'yes'.
So you expect the clock on the railway station to be synchronous with
your clock.
We breathe, we blow.
We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.
WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it
is physically impossible.
Right.
There is no such thing as "absolute synchronisation".
It is meaningless because it is no "absolute time".
Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference (ECI-frame).
We must therefore synchronize the two watches on a third virtual watch
for which the two events watch A marks noon, and watch B marks noon are SIMULTANEOUS.
My question was:
"Do you use the internet to set your watch?"
Your answer was 'yes'.
So you know you can synchronise your clock to all the millions
of other synchronous clocks showing UTC+1h, to within a second
via internet:
https://time.is/clock
You may call the 'clock' you see on your screen "a virtual clock".
But you don't have to do it at noon, you can do it any time.
<snip>
Happy new year!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Yes, your clear answer to my question was easy to understand.
My question was:
"Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport?"
Your answer was 'yes'.
So you expect the clock on the railway station to be synchronous with
your clock.
Right.
There is no such thing as "absolute synchronisation".
It is meaningless because it is no "absolute time".
Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference (ECI-frame).
I've been begging you for months to differentiate between anisochronia
and chronotropia.
A seven-year-old kid understands the difference.
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.
Den 29.12.2024 19:04, skrev Richard Hachel:
I've been begging you for months to differentiate between anisochronia
and chronotropia.
A seven-year-old kid understands the difference.
So please explain the difference to me.
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.
R.H.
Le 30/12/2024 à 21:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 29.12.2024 19:04, skrev Richard Hachel:
I've been begging you for months to differentiate between
anisochronia and chronotropia.
A seven-year-old kid understands the difference.
So please explain the difference to me.
I explained all this very well.
Den 30.12.2024 21:59, skrev Richard Hachel:
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
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.
R.H.
So you finally resign.
Den 30.12.2024 22:06, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 30/12/2024 à 21:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 29.12.2024 19:04, skrev Richard Hachel:
I've been begging you for months to differentiate between
anisochronia and chronotropia.
A seven-year-old kid understands the difference.
So please explain the difference to me.
I explained all this very well.
No, you didn't.
But don't bother, it is settled now.
You have admitted to know what "synchronous" is,
so we can forget your "anisochronia and chronotropia"
which only exists in your confused mind.
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.
R.H.
So you finally resign.
At home you set your clock to UTC+1h.
You know the station clock shows UTC+1h.
Only Dr. Hachel (that's me) does not make either of these two mistakes.
The first mistake of Newtonians is to consider that time is ubiquitous.
They consider that when it is December 31, 2024, it is December 31, 2024 everywhere in the universe
And you may be absolutely sure it's never
going to show "local time" absurd invented
by your idiot guru.
W dniu 31.12.2024 o 12:26, Richard Hachel pisze:
Only Dr. Hachel (that's me) does not make either of these two mistakes.
The first mistake of Newtonians is to consider that time is ubiquitous.
They consider that when it is December 31, 2024, it is December 31, 2024
everywhere in the universe
Oh oh, that's what that moronic religion called
physics doing to the brains of its victims;
everybody sane knows that when it's December
31, 2024 in Warsaw it's not necessary at all
that it's also December 31, 2024 in Beijing.
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 22.12.2024 22:15, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand. >>>>>>
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Here we go:
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)? >>>>>> 'yes' or 'no', please
Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four
decades).
Yes, your clear answer to my question was easy to understand.
My question was:
"Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport?"
Your answer was 'yes'.
So you expect the clock on the railway station to be synchronous with
your clock.
We breathe, we blow.
We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.
WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it >>> is physically impossible.
Right.
There is no such thing as "absolute synchronisation".
It is meaningless because it is no "absolute time".
Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference (ECI-frame).
You keep repeating this mistake.
TAI, hence UTC, is defined as time on the rotating geoid,
Den 22.12.2024 22:15, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 � 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a �crit :
Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 22/12/2024 � 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a �crit :
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
Here we go:
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
'yes' or 'no', please!
Do you use public radio or TV to set your watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)? >>>> 'yes' or 'no', please
Everything you say is true.
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four decades).
Yes, your clear answer to my question was easy to understand.
My question was:
"Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport?"
Your answer was 'yes'.
So you expect the clock on the railway station to be synchronous with
your clock.
We breathe, we blow.
We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.
WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it
is physically impossible.
Right.
There is no such thing as "absolute synchronisation".
It is meaningless because it is no "absolute time".
Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference (ECI-frame).
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.
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.
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.
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference (ECI-frame).
You keep repeating this mistake.
TAI, hence UTC, is defined as time on the rotating geoid,
Jan
W dniu 01.01.2025 o 12:37, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
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.
I do, but [Albert Einstein] didn't. In his madness
he imagined that synchronization is evil and
well "tuned" clocks shouldn't keep sync.
Sure. It is soooo evil that the whole paragraph I.1 in his 1905 article is entirely deticated to synchronization.
Another year of demented kooks posts again and again: Wozniak, Hachel/Lengrand,
"bertie taylor", Hertz, ... is on its way. You idiots are boring.
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:
Den 31.12.2024 11:58, skrev Richard Hachel:
At home you "tune" your clock to show UTC+1h.
Le 01/01/2025 à 12:35, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 31.12.2024 11:58, skrev Richard Hachel:
At home you "tune" your clock to show UTC+1h.
Absolutely not.
This is not what I do.
When I set my watch, as strange as it may seem, I am setting not mine, but the
watch M placed over there, abstract, virtual, in a fourth dimension at an equal
distance from all the points of the 3D universe to +1h.
That is to say what it must perceive from my watch when its own marks +1h.
The billions of observers in our universe will then do the same.
They will all set themselves to 1h so that the universal and abstract watch M will mark 1h WHEN IT OBSERVES that all the watches in the universe have been set
to 1h at the very moment when it perceives them all, simultaneously in its own
hyperplane of simultaneity, as marking +1h.
We then obtain a notion of abstract, virtual simultaneity, written on the watch
M, which does not exist in the universe, which has never existed in the universe,
but which is infinitely useful for regulating all the watches in the universe and
speaking of a universal time that does not exist in reality.
Now, neither Einstein, nor Poincaré, nor physicists explain things like that,
and worse, if we ask them "What is the notion of anisochrony hidden by Hachel?"
they answer that they do not know, that they do not understand, that it is Chinese.
Yet not only do I explain everything, with simple words and understandable concepts for 40 years.
People tell me: we do not understand you.
This is false, we are in fact in theological and miraculous territory: it is quite miraculous, in the sense of "sign given to men" that one can tell me "we do
not understand you". It is obvious that it is voluntary.
Jesus Christ had understood this magnificent and miraculous problem.
To the question "perform a miracle and we will believe in you", he has this magnificent answer: "Truly I say to you, you will not believe me, even if I raise
someone from the dead".
He knew the power of human arrogance.
We have been in the same problem for 40 years with Hachel synchronization and his M watch, yet explained and detailed, then his notion of universal anisochrony.
"We do not want this man to reign over us" even if for 40 years he told us things that we have never been able to refute.
R.H.
Le 01/01/2025 à 14:53, Python a écrit :
Sure. It is soooo evil that the whole paragraph I.1 in his 1905 article is >> entirely dedicated to synchronization.
Three lines written in a hurry.
Le 01/01/2025 à 13:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 01.01.2025 o 12:37, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
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.
I do, but [Albert Einstein] didn't. In his madness
he imagined that synchronization is evil and
well "tuned" clocks shouldn't keep sync.
Sure. It is soooo evil that the whole paragraph I.1 in his 1905 article
Since your clock and the station clock are well "tuned",
you expect the clocks will show the same when you arrive
at the station.
Den 31.12.2024 16:29, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference (ECI-frame).
You keep repeating this mistake.
TAI, hence UTC, is defined as time on the rotating geoid,
Jan
I keep repeating the fact that the TAI and UTC are synchronous
in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).
You are good for mental asylum, Richard.
Et une tarte en pleine gueule pour les étrennes.
Why haven't you during those 40 years discovered that what you call
"well tuned" is what physicists call "synchronised"?
Le 01/01/2025 à 12:35, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :>
Den 31.12.2024 11:58, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 31/12/2024 à 11:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
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.
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.
No, what I say is not ridiculous at all.
It is you who do not understand what I have been saying for several
years now.
I was already saying the same thing forty years ago, and I have never
changed an inch.
Le 01/01/2025 à 12:35, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
At home you "tune" your clock to show UTC+1h.
Absolutely not.
This is not what I do.
When I set my watch, as strange as it may seem, I am setting not mine,
but the watch M placed over there, abstract, virtual, in a fourth
dimension at an equal distance from all the points of the 3D universe to
+1h.
That is to say what it must perceive from my watch when its own marks +1h.
The billions of observers in our universe will then do the same.
They will all set themselves to 1h so that the universal and abstract
watch M will mark 1h WHEN IT OBSERVES that all the watches in the
universe have been set to 1h at the very moment when it perceives them
all, simultaneously in its own hyperplane of simultaneity, as marking +1h.
We then obtain a notion of abstract, virtual simultaneity, written on
the watch M, which does not exist in the universe, which has never
existed in the universe, but which is infinitely useful for regulating
all the watches in the universe and speaking of a universal time that
does not exist in reality.
Now, neither Einstein, nor Poincaré, nor physicists explain things like that, and worse, if we ask them "What is the notion of anisochrony
hidden by Hachel?" they answer that they do not know, that they do not understand, that it is Chinese.
Yet not only do I explain everything, with simple words and
understandable concepts for 40 years.
People tell me: we do not understand you.
This is false, we are in fact in theological and miraculous territory:
it is quite miraculous, in the sense of "sign given to men" that one can
tell me "we do not understand you". It is obvious that it is voluntary.
Jesus Christ had understood this magnificent and miraculous problem.
To the question "perform a miracle and we will believe in you", he has
this magnificent answer: "Truly I say to you, you will not believe me,
even if I raise someone from the dead".
He knew the power of human arrogance.
We have been in the same problem for 40 years with Hachel
synchronization and his M watch, yet explained and detailed, then his
notion of universal anisochrony.
"We do not want this man to reign over us" even if for 40 years he told
us things that we have never been able to refute.
R.H.
W dniu 01.01.2025 o 14:53, Python pisze:
Le 01/01/2025 à 13:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 01.01.2025 o 12:37, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
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.
I do, but [Albert Einstein] didn't. In his madness
he imagined that synchronization is evil and
well "tuned" clocks shouldn't keep sync.
Sure. It is soooo evil that the whole paragraph I.1 in his 1905 article
Stop, the clocks [called]
"proper" by [SR] won't keep
synchronization
fucking, poor trash, mad religious
Le 01/01/2025 à 19:22, Python a écrit :
You are good for mental asylum, Richard.
Et une tarte en pleine gueule pour les étrennes.
Abruti je fus en 2024, bouffon je resterai en 2025.
Paul B. Andersen:
Den 31.12.2024 16:29, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference (ECI-frame).
You keep repeating this mistake.
TAI, hence UTC, is defined as time on the rotating geoid,
Jan
I keep repeating the fact that the TAI and UTC are synchronous
in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).
Le 01/01/2025 à 19:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 01.01.2025 o 14:53, Python pisze:
Le 01/01/2025 à 13:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 01.01.2025 o 12:37, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
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.
I do, but [Albert Einstein] didn't. In his madness
he imagined that synchronization is evil and
well "tuned" clocks shouldn't keep sync.
Sure. It is soooo evil that the whole paragraph I.1 in his 1905 article
Stop, the clocks [called]
"proper" by [SR] won't keep
synchronization
They would.
I keep repeating the fact that the TAI and UTC are synchronous
in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).
Right of course,
Den 01.01.2025 18:55, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 01/01/2025 à 12:35, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :>
Den 31.12.2024 11:58, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 31/12/2024 à 11:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
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.
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.
No, what I say is not ridiculous at all.
"Being well tuned" is obviously the same as "being synchronous",
so what you say is OK.
But why do you use a different word than what is common in physics?
It is you who do not understand what I have been saying for several
years now.
I understand that you have called synchronised clocks for "well tuned"
for several years.
I was already saying the same thing forty years ago, and I have never
changed an inch.
Why haven't you during those 40 years discovered that what you call
"well tuned" is what physicists call "synchronised"?
I will stop teasing you.
I understand that irony is wasted on your disturbed mind.
I am sad to say that it has been fun, but this posting of yours did it.
I can't keep pestering a mentally ill person.
Have a happy new year in your abstract virtual world!
Paul
The point is that clocks showing UTC (or TAI) are _not_
synchronous in the Earth fixed frame.
UTC is based on TAI and has the same second.
Paul B. Andersen:
Den 31.12.2024 16:29, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference (ECI-frame).
You keep repeating this mistake.
TAI, hence UTC, is defined as time on the rotating geoid,
Jan
I keep repeating the fact that the TAI and UTC are synchronous
in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).
Right of course, but silly, if you rephrase it in this way.
They are the same time, by definition.
(up to a defined offset of a whole number of seconds)
So no frame comes into it.
It is impossible to synchronise clocks in the rotating
Earth fixed frame of reference.
Your original formulation is still wrong.
Perhaps you should have a look at BIPM bulletin CCTF/09-27,
or some other source on the definition of TAI.
Summary: TAI is the (best possible) realisation of the SI second,
on the rotating geoid, at mean sea level, [1]
But the rate of UTC is defined such that clocks on the geoid
will be synchronous with UTC.
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 32:34:24 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,298 |