Am 08.01.2024 um 21:07 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 06/01/2024 à 08:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am 05.01.2024 um 13:33 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>>
>>>> I assume a system behind this phenomenon.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not quite sure, but would guess, that a world exists, where time
>>>> runs backbards (from our perspective).
>>>>
>>>> This world is inhabited by intelligent beeings and our (earthly)
>>>> 'Elite' has managed to connect with these beings.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now they exchange knowledge, what makes our elite superrich and also
>>>> the elite of this 'otherworld'.
>>>>
>>>> In exchange for knowledge about future events, the locals had to
>>>> immitate the behaviour of these otherworldly leaders.
>>>>
>>>> Since they have a time, which runs into the opposite direction, their
>>>> behaviour is totally illogic, because they constantly create bad out
>>>> of good.
>>>>
>>>> This behaviour is called 'satanism' and means, that the adepts have to
>>>> create mess out of order.
>>>>
>>>> The ortherwordly leaders want this, because our world is nice, but
>>>> toxic for beings from a world, where time runs backwards.
>>>>
>>>> They want this world (our Earth) to become gradually more inhabitable,
>>>> hence more and more satanic.
>>>>
>>>> So, satanism is actually meant good, but time-reverted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> We enter metaphysics.
>>> And so we are off topic.
>>> I have described quite a bit about the nature of space-time, and
>>> whatever anyone says, I remain one of the most rational theorists of
>>> physics.
>>> Many “pundits” as they say, say absolutely anything, and imagine
>>> “Minkowski spaces”, “time travel”, “spatio-temporal wormholes”.
>>> You have to stay serious.
>>> I have already given the equations.
>>> Furthermore, this abstract physics is ridiculous and contradictory, and
>>> involves hellish paradoxes.
>>> Suppose we go back in time to kill a dictator. But as the years go by,
>>> we realize that the damage would have been even worse if the
>>> dictatorship had not existed. So we send someone back to make sure we
>>> kill this dictator. But ten years later, we realize that it is not. It
>>> was better to kill the dictator, and someone was sent to prevent the
>>> dictator from being killed, and so on ad infinitum.
>>
>> It is easy to overcome this problem and I have found a method to do this.
>>
>> It is relatively simple and is more effective, the more people use it.
>>
>> The idea is, that any future is good for you, but for the bad guys
>> with reverted time only the predictable future is good.
>>
>> So: make future more unpredictable!
>>
>> E.g. you could decide to make almost everything you do better than
>> required.
>>
>> This would cut causality relations, because if you have no reasons to
>> make things better than you have to, you have no predictable cause to
>> do something useful.
>>
>> Everybody will most liekly applaude and you brake absolutely no law,
>> but will make timetravel harder than it already is.
>>
>> Another method is even simpler:
>>
>> in case you cannot decide something yourself, you can flip a coin and
>> regard the result as order of God.
>>
>> Or you could help people (also: animals, plants or even things) who do
>> not really deserve that.
>>
>> This would bring an additional element of unpredicability into the
>> world, which would disallow timetravel.
>>
>> Extreme cleanness is a good method, too, because it lowers entropy in
>> your realm.
>>
>>
>>> This is obviously a huge causality problem.
>>> All these problems do not exist in my physics.
>>
>> Sure, but timetravelers care about them.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> In fact, I gave the relativistic transformations which seemed correct to
> me for the resolution of the paradox, and we see that precisely, with
> these transformations the paradox does not exist.
>
> I see with semi-surprise that no one denies or confirms these
> transformations.
>
> Could it be false?
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?xVWFx0j8enEmyTfxa5f0R-lFg-M@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
I personally regard euclidean coordinates as 'unphysical'.

I recommend spherical coordinates instead, which are based on spherical
angels and distance.

Now, rotation changes -obviously- the angles, while leaving distance
constant.

So I have no real incentive to mess with euclidean coordinates in the
way you do.

Eventually I would apply SRT/Lorentz transformation upon the distance.
But the spherical angles change anyhow with rotation.

Possibly the circumference can also shrink, as Eherenfest assumed, if
tangetial velocity near c is reached.

But no observer could measure the shrinking of a - say- planet, roating
at such a pace, because he would be shot into space long before such a
speed is reached.

TH

Le 09/01/2024 à 07:16, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>
> But no observer could measure the shrinking of a - say- planet, roating
> at such a pace, because he would be shot into space long before such a
> speed is reached.
>
> TH

You are right, and although I am certain of my entire theory (it holds
together too well from A to Z, without paradoxes, and always
experimentally proven on what it was possible to do, we cannot run a disk
at such speeds, nor even a planet.
BUT...
You can make a planet rotate very quickly around its sun, and this is the
case with Mercury.
The circumference of the orbit of Mercury, and the contraction of C and R
of this orbit present in my equations must be verified.
I'm not an astrophysicist, but they can do it easily.

R.H.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> But no observer could measure the shrinking of a - say- planet, roating
> at such a pace, because he would be shot into space long before such a
> speed is reached.

See 'Mission of Gravity', by Hal Clement,
for the best you can do, planet-wise,
(a mere 300g)

Jan

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 4:18:04 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Am 27.12.2023 um 03:21 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> > > Le 25/12/2023 à 17:26, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> > >> Le 24/12/2023 à 13:18, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> > >>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi NG
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
> > >>>> Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
> > >>>> encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates..
> > >>>
> > >>> It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
> > >>> is that special relativity by itself
> > >>> is not adequate to deal with the situation.
> > >>> That's all there is to it,
> > >>>
> > >>> Jan
> > >>
> > >> Coward, coward!
> > >>
> > >> R.H.
> > >
> > > For me, no matter how many times I tossed the problem around for
> > > decades, it always ended up that both the circumference AND the radius
> > > contracted.
> > >
> > > Let's take for example a point A which passes at the top of the record
> > > at 12 o'clock position.
> > >
> > > It has practically zero velocity in "y" at this instant, and its
> > > entire velocity vector is practically in "x".
> > >
> > > But we are in a rotating frame of reference, and not in a purely
> > > Galilean frame of reference.
> >
> >
> > Sure, a rotating frame of reference is not inertial.
> >
> > The reason: rotation is causing acceleration and that is measurable
> > without any reference.
> >
> > So, rotation is 'absolute', while inertial movement is 'relative'.
> >
> > We know this 'absoluteness' from the realm of missile guidence or
> > satelite control.
> >
> > They use laser gyroscopes, which can detect very small rotations.
> >
> > For rotation you don't need to see a reference point, because rotation
> > causes acceleration. And acceleration is not inertial.
> >
> > > This mini component in y still exists, and it should be noted that
> > > this small ?y does not undergo any obvious contraction, as its speed is
> > > low compared to the tangential speed.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
> > has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
> >
> > That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
> >
> > You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
> >
> > Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
> > observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.
> >
> >
> > > If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y does
> > > not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts greatly at
> > > relativistic speed.
> >
> > If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
> > high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
> >
> > This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
> > are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
> >
> > But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
> >
> > (more likely: that disk will break)
> >
> >
> > > The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviated inwards..
> > >
> > > This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the
> > > radius, and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in this
> > > case.
> >
> > I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
> > to say.
> Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.
> It makes it obvious that you can not deal with the situation
> in simple-minded and ad-hoc ways.
> (not even with extreme idealisations)
>
> To Einstein it pointed the way to the need for non-Euclidean geometry.
>
> Jan
So non-Euclidean geometry is not ad hoc? You're a lunatic. GR is "for this": SR. GR is an exception to the rules of SR, which is an exception to the rules of physics. GR can't save SR in the minds of anyone but lunatics.

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 4:18:04 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>>
>> > Am 27.12.2023 um 03:21 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>> > > Le 25/12/2023 à 17:26, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> > >> Le 24/12/2023 à 13:18, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
>> > >>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Hi NG
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
>> > >>>> Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
>> > >>>> encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates..
>> > >>>
>> > >>> It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
>> > >>> is that special relativity by itself
>> > >>> is not adequate to deal with the situation.
>> > >>> That's all there is to it,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Jan
>> > >>
>> > >> Coward, coward!
>> > >>
>> > >> R.H.
>> > >
>> > > For me, no matter how many times I tossed the problem around for
>> > > decades, it always ended up that both the circumference AND the radius
>> > > contracted.
>> > >
>> > > Let's take for example a point A which passes at the top of the record
>> > > at 12 o'clock position.
>> > >
>> > > It has practically zero velocity in "y" at this instant, and its
>> > > entire velocity vector is practically in "x".
>> > >
>> > > But we are in a rotating frame of reference, and not in a purely
>> > > Galilean frame of reference.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sure, a rotating frame of reference is not inertial.
>> >
>> > The reason: rotation is causing acceleration and that is measurable
>> > without any reference.
>> >
>> > So, rotation is 'absolute', while inertial movement is 'relative'.
>> >
>> > We know this 'absoluteness' from the realm of missile guidence or
>> > satelite control.
>> >
>> > They use laser gyroscopes, which can detect very small rotations.
>> >
>> > For rotation you don't need to see a reference point, because rotation
>> > causes acceleration. And acceleration is not inertial.
>> >
>> > > This mini component in y still exists, and it should be noted that
>> > > this small ?y does not undergo any obvious contraction, as its speed is
>> > > low compared to the tangential speed.
>> >
>> > Sure.
>> >
>> > But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
>> > has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
>> >
>> > That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
>> >
>> > You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
>> >
>> > Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
>> > observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.
>> >
>> >
>> > > If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y does
>> > > not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts greatly at
>> > > relativistic speed.
>> >
>> > If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
>> > high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
>> >
>> > This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
>> > are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
>> >
>> > But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
>> >
>> > (more likely: that disk will break)
>> >
>> >
>> > > The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviated inwards..
>> > >
>> > > This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the
>> > > radius, and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in this
>> > > case.
>> >
>> > I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
>> > to say.
>> Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.
>> It makes it obvious that you can not deal with the situation
>> in simple-minded and ad-hoc ways.
>> (not even with extreme idealisations)
>>
>> To Einstein it pointed the way to the need for non-Euclidean geometry.
>>
>> Jan

> So non-Euclidean geometry is not ad hoc? You're a lunatic. GR is "for this": SR. GR is an exception to the rules of SR, which is an exception to the rules of physics. GR can't save SR in the minds of anyone but lunatics.

I'm confident that Jan is not the lunatic here, Larry.

You, on the other hand, remain clueless...

On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 06:17:13 UTC+1, palsing wrote:

> I'm confident that Jan is not the lunatic here, Larry.

Any experiments confirming that, Al?
Just a mistake of yours.

Am 09.01.2024 um 13:28 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 09/01/2024 à 07:16, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>
>> But no observer could measure the shrinking of a - say- planet,
>> roating at such a pace, because he would be shot into space long
>> before such a speed is reached.
>>
>> TH
>
> You are right, and although I am certain of my entire theory (it holds
> together too well from A to Z, without paradoxes, and always
> experimentally proven on what it was possible to do, we cannot run a
> disk at such speeds, nor even a planet.
> BUT...
> You can make a planet rotate very quickly around its sun, and this is
> the case with Mercury.
> The circumference of the orbit of Mercury, and the contraction of C and
> R of this orbit present in my equations must be verified.
> I'm not an astrophysicist, but they can do it easily.

I'm not attacking relativity per se.

Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and eventually
the predicted effect do in fact occur.

I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
non-rotating FoRs.

Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
that is measurable without external refence points.

(Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but contains
no accelerations.)

As evidence I quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_optic_gyroscope

Quote

"A FOG provides extremely precise rotational rate information, ..."

TH

Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> I'm not attacking relativity per se.
>
> Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and eventually
> the predicted effect do in fact occur.
>
> I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
> non-rotating FoRs.
>
> Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
> that is measurable without external refence points.
>
> (Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but contains
> no accelerations.)
>
> As evidence I quote:

For inertial movements, you simply need to have two points O and O' which
intersect, and you trigger the watches.

For rotating movements, you need to have a ray that crosses another, and
you trigger the watches.

The best is to take the trigonometric rotation (counterclockwise
direction) and trigger the watches when the two axes are conjoined at 0°.

The first idea leads to the four transformations that I gave and which are
the same as those of Poincaré.

The second idea (toruant reference) leads to these equations:

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?j8z-rzth3GJonLarx54xAWraGa8@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

Am 10.01.2024 um 15:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> I'm not attacking relativity per se.
>>
>> Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and
>> eventually the predicted effect do in fact occur.
>>
>> I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
>> non-rotating FoRs.
>>
>> Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
>> that is measurable without external refence points.
>>
>> (Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but
>> contains no accelerations.)
>>
>> As evidence I quote:
>
> For inertial movements, you simply need to have two points O and O'
> which intersect, and you trigger the watches.
>
> For rotating movements, you need to have a ray that crosses another, and
> you trigger the watches.

A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.

The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very fast.

But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel from
the watch to the observer).

Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this difference
and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no deleay.

Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at the
remote clock.

But Einstein didn't do that (or even mentioned the delay!).

....

TH

Le 14/01/2024 à 07:19, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 10.01.2024 um 15:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>> Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> I'm not attacking relativity per se.
>>>
>>> Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and
>>> eventually the predicted effect do in fact occur.
>>>
>>> I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
>>> non-rotating FoRs.
>>>
>>> Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
>>> that is measurable without external refence points.
>>>
>>> (Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but
>>> contains no accelerations.)
>>>
>>> As evidence I quote:
>>
>> For inertial movements, you simply need to have two points O and O'
>> which intersect, and you trigger the watches.
>>
>> For rotating movements, you need to have a ray that crosses another, and
>> you trigger the watches.
>
> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>
> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very fast.
>
> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel from
> the watch to the observer).
>
> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this difference
> and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no deleay.
>
> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at the
> remote clock.
>
> But Einstein didn't do that (or even mentioned the delay!).
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
> TH

Vous parlez trop d'Einstein. Ce n'est plus de la science, c'est de la
religiosité.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 14/01/2024 à 07:19, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at the
>> remote clock. But Einstein didn't do that (or even mentioned the
>> delay!). ... TH
>
> Vous parlez 𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽_𝗱'𝗘𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗶𝗻. Ce n'est plus de la science, 𝗰'𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗱𝗲_𝗹𝗮
>_𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁é.

so true indeed, my friend. The year is 2024 and amrica is still
capitalist. Defies my undrestanding. More over, in frankerich, a male gay
puts his fucking former male gay in power, saying now he wants to kill
Russia. Fuck them, my friend. These stinking gay capitalists, defies my
undrestanding. How people allow these gays, shitting on their family.

𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗮_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗻𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿_𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹_𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹
Germany has failed to “draw lessons from its horrific history,” President
Hage Geingob said
https://r%74.com/africa/590628-namibia-germany-israel-genocide/

𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱’𝘀_𝗣𝗠_𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁_𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲_‘𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁’
Every Polish patriot must understand the importance of backing Kiev in its
conflict with Moscow, Donald Tusk said
https://r%74.com/news/590607-poland-tusk-ukraine-eu/

On 1/14/2024 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.01.2024 um 15:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>> Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> I'm not attacking relativity per se.
>>>
>>> Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and
>>> eventually the predicted effect do in fact occur.
>>>
>>> I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
>>> non-rotating FoRs.
>>>
>>> Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
>>> that is measurable without external refence points.
>>>
>>> (Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but
>>> contains no accelerations.)
>>>
>>> As evidence I quote:
>>
>> For inertial movements, you simply need to have two points O and O'
>> which intersect, and you trigger the watches.
>>
>> For rotating movements, you need to have a ray that crosses another, and
>> you trigger the watches.
>
> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>
> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very fast.
>
> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel from
> the watch to the observer).
>
> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this difference
> and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no deleay.
>
> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at the
> remote clock.
>
That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the local
clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to get from
the remote clock to the local clock.

Le 15/01/2024 à 00:50, Volney a écrit :
> On 1/14/2024 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 10.01.2024 um 15:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>> I'm not attacking relativity per se.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and
>>>> eventually the predicted effect do in fact occur.
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
>>>> non-rotating FoRs.
>>>>
>>>> Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
>>>> that is measurable without external refence points.
>>>>
>>>> (Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but
>>>> contains no accelerations.)
>>>>
>>>> As evidence I quote:
>>>
>>> For inertial movements, you simply need to have two points O and O'
>>> which intersect, and you trigger the watches.
>>>
>>> For rotating movements, you need to have a ray that crosses another, and
>>> you trigger the watches.
>>
>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>>
>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very fast.
>>
>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel from
>> the watch to the observer).
>>
>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this difference
>> and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no deleay.
>>
>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at the
>> remote clock.
>>
> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the local
> clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to get from
> the remote clock to the local clock.

This is both very true and at the same time very false.

In the thoughts of the relativistic physicist, there is often the idea
that a fact occurs at a certain present moment, but that it is only
perceived LATER, after the signal has traveled very quickly, thanks to
small, very muscular feet, the distance separating the source from the
receiver.

This is not how we should see things, even if this abstract thought may be
interesting to ensure artificial but useful synchronizations.

When a receiver perceives a message, he always perceives it instantly in
the sense that the present moment of the transmitter and the receiver
agree, coincide.

It is in the same way that I instantly perceive this horse in this meadow,
this moon in the sky, this galaxy in my telescope.

And not after the photons, thanks to their little muscular feet, have
crossed small or immense distances.

On the other hand, the transmitter does not design an instantaneous path
at all.

If he could perceive the photons it emits directly, he would observe that
these photons move away at c/2.

This is due to the relativity of simultaneity.

This means that we can, in an abstract way, as we do for GPS satellites or
in Einstein's equations, use a form of simultaneity, but that this is only
a convenient artifice.

This is not the true notion of simultaneity which is specific to each
observer depending on their POSITION.

As for the relativity of chronotropy, it is something else, which is
perfectly known to physicists around the world, and which they call time
dilation. I call this in a truer and simpler way, the reciprocal dilation
of chronotropy.

R.H.

Le 15/01/2024 à 00:50, Volney a écrit :
> On 1/14/2024 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 10.01.2024 um 15:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>> I'm not attacking relativity per se.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and
>>>> eventually the predicted effect do in fact occur.
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
>>>> non-rotating FoRs.
>>>>
>>>> Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
>>>> that is measurable without external refence points.
>>>>
>>>> (Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but
>>>> contains no accelerations.)
>>>>
>>>> As evidence I quote:
>>>
>>> For inertial movements, you simply need to have two points O and O'
>>> which intersect, and you trigger the watches.
>>>
>>> For rotating movements, you need to have a ray that crosses another, and
>>> you trigger the watches.
>>
>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>>
>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very
>> fast.
>>
>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
>> from the watch to the observer).
>>
>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this difference
>> and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no deleay.
>>
>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at the
>> remote clock.
>>
> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the local
> clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to get from
> the remote clock to the local clock.
>

This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
ignored... Cranks are insufferable...

Le 15/01/2024 à 01:17, Python a écrit :
> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...

I did not say that the delay should be ignored.

Why do you want me to say that the delay should be ignored?

I said that there were two fundamental principles in special relativity.

That is to say the whole part which deals with Galilean frames of
reference, up to the part which deals with rotating frames of reference,
including accelerated frames of reference.

Here are these two fundamental principles: 1 Universal anisochrony.
2. The relativity of chronotropy.

I will not return to these two notions, because I know that you understand
them perfectly.

Now I never said, ever, that you could ignore things as you wish.

If I place myself somewhere equidistant from two points A and B; I must
know that the relativity of simultaneity is such that I will have the
impression that the photon which leaves A bers B moves to c.

On the other hand, if I place myself in B, I notice (if I am understood
correctly) that the transfer is instantaneous. The present moment of A is
the present moment of B (for B).

I explained these things again yesterday on Richard Verret's forum.

Your insistence on insulting other contributors is pathological and makes
no sense.

R.H.

Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
....
>>>
>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>>>
>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very
>>> fast.
>>>
>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
>>> from the watch to the observer).
>>>
>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
>>> deleay.
>>>
>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
>>> the remote clock.
>>>
>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
>>
>
> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...

This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!

This is a VERY (!!!) serious error, because Einstein also made efforts
to compensate the delay by adjusting the tick-rate of the remote clock
or by adjusting the time of the clock or the time of the remote system
per se.

This was all wrong, while the correct solution was never mentioned.

this would be:

measure the delay and add it to the reading od the remote clock.

This solution is so simple and obvious, that hardly anybody will be able
to reject it.

But instead of a simple and obvious solution a pompouse nonsense was
produced and forcefully shuffled into the minds of the defenseless public.

TH

Le 15/01/2024 à 08:08, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>
> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
>
> This is a VERY (!!!) serious error, because Einstein also made efforts
> to compensate the delay by adjusting the tick-rate of the remote clock
> or by adjusting the time of the clock or the time of the remote system
> per se.
>
> This was all wrong, while the correct solution was never mentioned.
>
> this would be:
>
> measure the delay and add it to the reading od the remote clock.
>
>
> This solution is so simple and obvious, that hardly anybody will be able
> to reject it.
>
> But instead of a simple and obvious solution a pompouse nonsense was
> produced and forcefully shuffled into the minds of the defenseless public.
>
>
> TH

The problem of synchronization is a problem of temporal reference.
We will say: "This event occurred at five o'clock" but what does that
mean?
This means that, for example, we placed in various places in a city, at
noon, all kinds of watches which we artificially set to noon, and that at
a crossroads, an accident occurred. when the small hand of a watch was on
five and the big hand on twelve.
In relativity, things are less simple because the time depends on the
location of the observer in relation to the event. The further away from
the event, the greater the anisochrony will be.

What is important to understand is that synchronization, useful for
subsequent discussions, can therefore only be done for a single observer,
and that it is always on a previously chosen observer that the watches are
synchronized.

This is similar to choosing the Greenwich meridian to determine the
geographic position of an event.

By convention, you need a base. If I say that the event occurred at
43°14'27", I know by definition that it is relative to the Greenwich
meridian. Everything is only relative to something.

If I now take GPS synchronization, and if I correctly understand the
theory of relativity, I will first realize that it is absolutely
impossible to synchronize even two watches in the universe. Each will
advance on the other by a value delta_t=x/c.

However, the GPS works. For what?

Because we took, for GPS, as we did for Greenwich, a basic reference.

What is this basic reference?

It is an abstract point, located in a hypothetical fourth spatial
dimension, placed very far from all the three D points of the universe,
but equidistant from each of them.

That's GPS.

But àa b absolutely does not mean that between them, all the points of a
universe, even a fixed one, "coexist absolutely at the same instant, and
that the notion of universal anisochrony does not exist.

On the contrary, it is the basis of our world, and it is even possible
that our world could not exist without it?

Would the notion of energy, and therefore of life, precisely, exist
without universal anisochrony?

R.H.

On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
> ...
>>>>
>>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very
>>>> fast.
>>>>
>>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
>>>> from the watch to the observer).
>>>>
>>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
>>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
>>>> deleay.
>>>>
>>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
>>>> the remote clock.
>>>>
>>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
>>>
>>
>> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
>
>
> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!

In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?

In the formula T3 = T1 + (T2-T1)/2 = (T1+T2)/2 where T1 is when a beam
of light is sent and T2 is when it is returned and T3 is the time of the
remote clock when it reflects the light, where did the 1/2 term come from?
>
> This is a VERY (!!!) serious error,

No error.

Am 15.01.2024 um 14:37 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 15/01/2024 à 08:08, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>
>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
>>
>> This is a VERY (!!!) serious error, because Einstein also made efforts
>> to compensate the delay by adjusting the tick-rate of the remote clock
>> or by adjusting the time of the clock or the time of the remote system
>> per se.
>>
>> This was all wrong, while the correct solution was never mentioned.
>>
>> this would be:
>>
>> measure the delay and add it to the reading od the remote clock.
>>
>>
>> This solution is so simple and obvious, that hardly anybody will be
>> able to reject it.
>>
>> But instead of a simple and obvious solution a pompouse nonsense was
>> produced and forcefully shuffled into the minds of the defenseless
>> public.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> The problem of synchronization is a problem of temporal reference.
> We will say: "This event occurred at five o'clock" but what does that mean?
> This means that, for example, we placed in various places in a city, at
> noon, all kinds of watches which we artificially set to noon, and that
> at a crossroads, an accident occurred. when the small hand of a watch
> was on five and the big hand on twelve.
> In relativity, things are less simple because the time depends on the
> location of the observer in relation to the event. The further away from
> the event, the greater the anisochrony will be.
No

The further away the later the signals will arive.

But this would not have any influence on the time of the remote location.

It is nonsense to read a 'clock' at a remote location and take the
actual reading without compensation of the delay, caused by the finite
speed of light.

You NEED !!!! to add the delay, otherwise you create nonsense!

But for unknown reasons this is not done in SRT (and many other parts of
cosmology!).

>
> What is important to understand is that synchronization, useful for
> subsequent discussions, can therefore only be done for a single
> observer, and that it is always on a previously chosen observer that the
> watches are synchronized.

Well, that's actually ok.

I call this principle 'subjectivism'.

This means: time is a local phenomenon and the observer in question
decides, which time is taken - simply by being somewhere and using the
local time.

> This is similar to choosing the Greenwich meridian to determine the
> geographic position of an event.
>
> By convention, you need a base. If I say that the event occurred at
> 43°14'27", I know by definition that it is relative to the Greenwich
> meridian. Everything is only relative to something.
>
> If I now take GPS synchronization, and if I correctly understand the
> theory of relativity, I will first realize that it is absolutely
> impossible to synchronize even two watches in the universe. Each will
> advance on the other by a value delta_t=x/c.
>
> However, the GPS works. For what?
>
> Because we took, for GPS, as we did for Greenwich, a basic reference.

This is perfectly ok.
>
> What is this basic reference?

Well, we have apparently no universal clock and can only use some sort
of time standards, which are usually based on our local environment.

Bad luck, but that's how it is.

To use 'universal standards' for time is simply wrong.
>
> It is an abstract point, located in a hypothetical fourth spatial
> dimension, placed very far from all the three D points of the universe,
> but equidistant from each of them.
>

what do you mean with "all the three D points of the universe".

The universe does not provide absolute locations neither!

So: 'location' means (like time) a place in reference to some other
location, which is chosen as reference point.

> That's GPS.
>
> But àa b absolutely does not mean that between them, all the points of a
> universe, even a fixed one, "coexist absolutely at the same instant, and
> that the notion of universal anisochrony does not exist.

The 'points of a universe' (along a streigth line) are all between point
A and point B, because 'streigth line' and 'universe' are defined that way.

What we call 'universe' is actually a picture, which we see in the nicht
sky.

This picture is not real, because it is based on events, which didn't
happen at the same time.

Instead it is layered in time with distance.

So, the 'real universe' is mainly invisible and we cannot tell easily,
how it looks like and how it functions.

Bad luck, too, but hard to overcome.

> On the contrary, it is the basis of our world, and it is even possible
> that our world could not exist without it?
>
> Would the notion of energy, and therefore of life, precisely, exist
> without universal anisochrony?
>
??

TH

Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very
>>>>> fast.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
>>>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
>>>>> deleay.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
>>>>> the remote clock.
>>>>>
>>>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
>>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
>>
>>
>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
>
> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
> Where does the 2 come from?

I know, of course, what that equation means.

A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts from
A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.

2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A and
a position vector B is not a distance.

But distance from A to B was obviously meant.

Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional physicist?

....

Besides of this:

Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
again' (or something equivalent).

Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.

TH

Le 16/01/2024 à 09:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
>> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very
>>>>>> fast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
>>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
>>>>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
>>>>>> deleay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
>>>>>> the remote clock.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
>>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
>>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
>>>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
>>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
>>>
>>>
>>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
>>
>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
>> Where does the 2 come from?
>
> I know, of course, what that equation means.
>
> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts from
> A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
>
> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A and
> a position vector B is not a distance.
>
> But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
>
> Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional physicist?
>
> ...
>
> Besides of this:
>
> Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
> the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
> again' (or something equivalent).
>
> Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.

1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is
ridiculous)
2. Talking about delays is pointless before having defined how
synchronizing distant co-moving clocks (couché Lengrand !)
3. This being done (and this is the very point of paragraph I.1)
then it is obvious that the synchronization procedure leads to
take the propagation delay into account

You are definitely not a member of the intended audience of this
article i.e. honest and educated. You are dishonest and crazy.

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 12:00:00 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Le 16/01/2024 à 09:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> > Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
> >> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
> >>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very
> >>>>>> fast.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
> >>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
> >>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
> >>>>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
> >>>>>> deleay.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
> >>>>>> the remote clock.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
> >>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
> >>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
> >>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
> >>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
> >>>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
> >>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
> >>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
> >>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
> >>
> >> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
> >> Where does the 2 come from?
> >
> > I know, of course, what that equation means.
> >
> > A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts from
> > A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
> >
> > 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A and
> > a position vector B is not a distance.
> >
> > But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
> >
> > Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional physicist?
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Besides of this:
> >
> > Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
> > the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
> > again' (or something equivalent).
> >
> > Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.
> 1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is
> ridiculous)
> 2. Talking about delays is pointless before having defined how
> synchronizing distant co-moving clocks (couché Lengrand !)
> 3. This being done (and this is the very point of paragraph I.1)
> then it is obvious that the synchronization procedure leads to
> take the propagation delay into account
>
> You are definitely not a member of the intended audience of this
> article i.e. honest and educated. You are dishonest and crazy.

Oh, that stinker Python is opening its muzzle again
and again pretending he knows something.
Have you already learnt what a "function" in
mathematics is?

Volney wrote:

> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
>
> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
> Where does the 2 come from?

ohh sure. Read this and stop crying. Paste & Go. There's no reason to cry.
In america.

𝗝𝗘𝗙𝗙𝗥𝗘𝗬_𝗘𝗣𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗜𝗡_🏝_𝗜'𝗠_𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/X1rbm3GMhBC6

On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 12:14:13 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
> Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
>
>
>
> To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
> encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
>
> Also the rigid disk itself would ecounter 'length elongation' (radius
> gets longer), because the centrifugal acceleration tends to tear the
> disk apart.
>
> But neither of these effects were mentioned, while the similarity to
> gravitation assumed.
>
> But as far as I know, gravitation pulls into the opposite direction
> (towards the center).
>
> And: the observer could not possibly regard his rotating disk as at
> rest, because he had trouble to stay on his feet and on the disk, if
> that disk rotates.
>
>
>
>
> TH
That is a good and sufficient refutation.
Also,
Refutation:
1. If there were (and it did not involve every layer of the disc contracting), then the pi ratio of radius to circumference would no longer exist.
2. Then, it would no longer be a circle.
3. Therefore, length contraction is again disproven by proving to be self-contradictory nonsense.
There is no such thing as length contraction.

This is all any intelligent and (self-) educated person needs to know to be a real scientist instead of a fool (relativist).

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 5:37:34 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 15/01/2024 à 08:08, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> >
> > This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
> > word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
> >
> > This is a VERY (!!!) serious error, because Einstein also made efforts
> > to compensate the delay by adjusting the tick-rate of the remote clock
> > or by adjusting the time of the clock or the time of the remote system
> > per se.
> >
> > This was all wrong, while the correct solution was never mentioned.
> >
> > this would be:
> >
> > measure the delay and add it to the reading od the remote clock.
> >
> >
> > This solution is so simple and obvious, that hardly anybody will be able
> > to reject it.
> >
> > But instead of a simple and obvious solution a pompouse nonsense was
> > produced and forcefully shuffled into the minds of the defenseless public.
> >
> >
> > TH
> The problem of synchronization is a problem of temporal reference.
> We will say: "This event occurred at five o'clock" but what does that
> mean?
> This means that, for example, we placed in various places in a city, at
> noon, all kinds of watches which we artificially set to noon, and that at
> a crossroads, an accident occurred. when the small hand of a watch was on
> five and the big hand on twelve.
> In relativity, things are less simple because the time depends on the
> location of the observer in relation to the event. The further away from
> the event, the greater the anisochrony will be.
>
> What is important to understand is that synchronization, useful for
> subsequent discussions, can therefore only be done for a single observer,
> and that it is always on a previously chosen observer that the watches are
> synchronized.
>
> This is similar to choosing the Greenwich meridian to determine the
> geographic position of an event.
>
> By convention, you need a base. If I say that the event occurred at
> 43°14'27", I know by definition that it is relative to the Greenwich
> meridian. Everything is only relative to something.
>
> If I now take GPS synchronization, and if I correctly understand the
> theory of relativity, I will first realize that it is absolutely
> impossible to synchronize even two watches in the universe. Each will
> advance on the other by a value delta_t=x/c.
>
> However, the GPS works. For what?
>
> Because we took, for GPS, as we did for Greenwich, a basic reference.
>
> What is this basic reference?
>
> It is an abstract point, located in a hypothetical fourth spatial
> dimension, placed very far from all the three D points of the universe,
> but equidistant from each of them.
>
> That's GPS.
>
> But àa b absolutely does not mean that between them, all the points of a
> universe, even a fixed one, "coexist absolutely at the same instant, and
> that the notion of universal anisochrony does not exist.
>
> On the contrary, it is the basis of our world, and it is even possible
> that our world could not exist without it?
>
> Would the notion of energy, and therefore of life, precisely, exist
> without universal anisochrony?
>
> R.H.

Phaselock.

Einstein sets his clock by it.

It's pretty well established the universe is flat, i.e., doesn't have an anisotropy.

Then as with regards Zenos' paradoxes of motion, those are exercises to be
resolved by continuum mechanics, not excuses your dog ate your homework.

Heh, your dog ate your homework.

https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

That number 21 of Philosophical Foreground, describes and explains
"the three replete central continuous domains of mathematics",
in the first fifteen minutes, and, where they come from.