The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
all events
occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized by the set of all
physical phenomena taking place at the same instant, we should be able, at
least
by considering all the fixed components found in a given inertial system,
talk about “absolute simultaneity”, “universal synchronization”,
“common calendar”
- these terms then being capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if
we
could, without it varying, transpose the simultaneity specific to a
particular observer to
all other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
It would be enough to find some infinitely fast signal, capable of
propagating from
A to B, or to go back and forth between A and B such that t(AA') = 0, and
the notion of
absolute simultaneity would be immediately proven.
However, this proof does not exist.

R.H.

On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 17:09:17 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
> all events
> occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized by the set of all
> physical phenomena taking place at the same instant, we should be able, at
> least
> by considering all the fixed components found in a given inertial system,
> talk about “absolute simultaneity”, “universal synchronization”,
> “common calendar”
> - these terms then being capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if
> we
> could, without it varying, transpose the simultaneity specific to a
> particular observer to
> all other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
> It would be enough to find some infinitely fast signal, capable of
> propagating from
> A to B, or to go back and forth between A and B such that t(AA') = 0, and
> the notion of
> absolute simultaneity would be immediately proven.
> However, this proof does not exist.

Neither a proof you're not a camel exists.
Still., you're not, I guess?
Anyway , in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiot improper clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all the serious clocks always did.

On 2023-11-30 16:09:13 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
> of all events occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized
> by the set of all physical phenomena taking place at the same instant,

The definition of simultaneity being defined in terms of "at the same
time" or "taking place at the same instant", the latter should be
defined first.

> we should be able, at least by considering all the fixed components
> found in a given inertial system, talk about “absolute simultaneity”,
> “universal synchronization”, “common calendar” - these terms then being
> capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if we could, without it
> varying, transpose the simultaneity specific to a particular observer to
> all other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.

The words "absolute", "universal", "common" are not correct when the
simultaneity and related terms are restricted to one inertial frame of
reference.

> It would be enough to find some infinitely fast signal, capable of
> propagating from A to B, or to go back and forth between A and B such
> that t(AA') = 0, and the notion of absolute simultaneity would be
> immediately proven.

There is no known way to create any such signal and no idea about
how to look for one. And anyway, if it is not infinitely fase in
every frame it will not provide absolute simultaneity.

> However, this proof does not exist.

And probably never will.

Mikko

Le 01/12/2023 à 10:22, Mikko a écrit :
> On 2023-11-30 16:09:13 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
>> of all events occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized
>> by the set of all physical phenomena taking place at the same instant,
>
> The definition of simultaneity being defined in terms of "at the same
> time" or "taking place at the same instant", the latter should be
> defined first.
>
>> we should be able, at least by considering all the fixed components
>> found in a given inertial system, talk about “absolute simultaneity”,
>> “universal synchronization”, “common calendar” - these terms then being
>> capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if we could, without it
>> varying, transpose the simultaneity specific to a particular observer to
>> all other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
>
> The words "absolute", "universal", "common" are not correct when the
> simultaneity and related terms are restricted to one inertial frame of
> reference.
>
>> It would be enough to find some infinitely fast signal, capable of
>> propagating from A to B, or to go back and forth between A and B such
>> that t(AA') = 0, and the notion of absolute simultaneity would be
>> immediately proven.
>
> There is no known way to create any such signal and no idea about
> how to look for one. And anyway, if it is not infinitely fase in
> every frame it will not provide absolute simultaneity.
>
>> However, this proof does not exist.
>
> And probably never will.
>
> Mikko

I'm not sure you understood correctly what I wrote.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 01/12/2023 à 10:22, Mikko a écrit :
>> There is no known way to create any such signal and no idea about how
>> to look for one. And anyway, if it is not infinitely fase in every
>> frame it will not provide absolute simultaneity.
>>> However, this proof does not exist.
>> And probably never will. Mikko
>
> I'm not sure you understood correctly what I wrote.

you two guys don't undrestand what you are talking about in relativity. In
SR the speed is constant, and the effects are different from GR, where the
speed changes under constant gravity and curvature gradient.

two completely different things with different approach in mathematics and
applied signal transfer procedures. Read my lips. Concluded by

𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆'𝘀_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝗰𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
https://bit%63%68ute.com/video/Z4SqEM016q8O

𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗮𝘀𝗸𝘀_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗵_𝗼𝗻_𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁
https://r%74.com/ru%73%73ia/588332-zelensky-western-loans-defense/
Zelensky stressed his nation’s dire financial state in an interview with
NBC in early November. He pleaded: “If you can’t support us financially,
please give us a loan and we’ll pay you back.”

Call Sean Penn and Ben Stiller, for a donation, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗧𝗪𝗢 $75 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻
𝗱𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝘆𝗮𝗰𝗵𝘁𝘀

Arent they already for credit ? 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗴𝗶𝗳𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 ? There is
not even one single reason for him to worry one moment about that.

Does Zelenskys 𝘄𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝘆 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁 ? Or does she pay
cash with western taxpayers money ?

How will this lying repulsive idiot pay it back？He won't. After fat
skimming, he 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆, which he also 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝘀
𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘁𝗼.

OH we are long past stupidity , long past idiocy, we are now into the
𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗱.

Of a 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗱, 𝗹𝗲𝗳𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗼𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 still alive

Do his wife plan to shop in New York again ? Last time she spent plenty of
western taxpayers money on diamonds, Cartier clocks...

> OH we are long past stupidity , long past idiocy, we are now into the
> 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗱.
>

Correct. Do you want to help Russians? Tell them to stop learning
English, French, and German in their schools and instead learn Persian
and Chinese.

And that's just the first step towards developing some sort of root.

First it was the French you sucked up to.

Then it was the Germans you sucked up to.

And now it is the entire "West" you're sucking up to.

You don't have roots of your own! Are you not dumb, Hanson? You're dumb
indeed.

In sci.physics Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OH we are long past stupidity , long past idiocy, we are now into the
>> 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗱.
>>
>
>
> Correct. Do you want to help Russians? Tell them to stop learning
> English, French, and German in their schools and instead learn Persian
> and Chinese.
>
> And that's just the first step towards developing some sort of root.
>
> First it was the French you sucked up to.
>
> Then it was the Germans you sucked up to.
>
> And now it is the entire "West" you're sucking up to.
>
> You don't have roots of your own! Are you not dumb, Hanson? You're dumb
> indeed.

However not as dumb as the Dunning-Kruger poster boy that believes
that Hanson is still posting here.

On 2023-12-01 15:01:41 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 01/12/2023 à 10:22, Mikko a écrit :
>> On 2023-11-30 16:09:13 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>>
>>> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence
>>> of all events occurring at the same time, or even, being characterized
>>> by the set of all physical phenomena taking place at the same instant,
>>
>> The definition of simultaneity being defined in terms of "at the same
>> time" or "taking place at the same instant", the latter should be
>> defined first.
>>
>>> we should be able, at least by considering all the fixed components
>>> found in a given inertial system, talk about “absolute simultaneity”,
>>> “universal synchronization”, “common calendar” - these terms then being
>>> capable of acquiring a real physical meaning - if we could, without it
>>> varying, transpose the simultaneity specific to a particular observer to
>>> all other inertial observers present in the same frame of reference.
>>
>> The words "absolute", "universal", "common" are not correct when the
>> simultaneity and related terms are restricted to one inertial frame of
>> reference.
>>
>>> It would be enough to find some infinitely fast signal, capable of
>>> propagating from A to B, or to go back and forth between A and B such
>>> that t(AA') = 0, and the notion of absolute simultaneity would be
>>> immediately proven.
>>
>> There is no known way to create any such signal and no idea about
>> how to look for one. And anyway, if it is not infinitely fase in
>> every frame it will not provide absolute simultaneity.
>>
>>> However, this proof does not exist.
>>
>> And probably never will.
>>
>> Mikko
>
> I'm not sure you understood correctly what I wrote.

More likely you didin't understand what you wrote
and I didn't understand what you failed to write.

Mikko