Re: Relativistic synchronisation method

On 2024-12-17 14:16:07 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

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.

No, the you must say the things you want to be understood, whether they
are clear and fair or not.
If your intent were to be understood you would need to say clearly whatever
you want to be understood.

But with Dr. Richard Hachel, the problem is human, not semantic. "We do not want this man to reign over us".

True, we don't want you to reign over us. We don't consider it a problem
because we don't expect hit to be able. If you want to reign over us you
have a big problem.

Thus, if I talk about anisochrony, dilation of chronotropies, radial contraction of disks, immediately, I am told that I am not understood.

You are not understood because you can't talk about them in Common Language.
When you talk about yourself we understand but are not interested.
--
Mikko