Re: Relativistic synchronisation method

On 12/22/2024 01:15 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

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.
>
And so on for the entire universe.
>
A synchronization of type M is then necessary, and we imagine, without
realizing it, a point M placed very far away in a hypothetical fourth
dimension and at an equal distance from all points A, B, C, D, etc... of
the universe.
>
This point M has its own hyperplane of present time, in which all events
take place at the same instants and we note tM(e1)= tM(e2)=tM(e3)=etc...
>
And it is on this virtual point that we refer when synchronizing all the
watches.
>
Synchronizing the watches (let's breathe, let's blow) does not mean
"agreeing to say that all the watches mark noon at the same time", it is
grotesque, false, and absurd. This is NOT what it means. Believing this
is an idea as religious as it is false.
>
It simply means that for M, all events occurred at the same present moment.
>
I repeat it again because it is so important, and because it is the very
basis of the theory of relativity well understood:
It simply means that for M, all events occurred at the same present moment.
>
Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand this concept which, I know
unfortunately confuses 99.9% of those who read me.
>
Paul, Paul, I beg you to make an effort to understand, and to UNDERSTAND
the simple notion of universal anosochrony and the usefulness of this
abstract virtual watch that the whole world uses without understanding
that it is a useful watch, but virtual and that NEVER two events can be
RECIPROCALLY SIMULTANEOUS.
>
It is only by abstract convention that we use the notion of synchronized
watches.
>
If you understand French, you will see that I write in my pdf: "Just as
all consciousness is consciousness of something, all synchronization is
synchronization ON something". Here, it is the point M as described in
my pdf.
>
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?6s8YJGP42H0C-4FoL8dk0ahw7GU@jntp/Data.Media:1>
---> direct acces here
<https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=6s8YJGP42H0C-4FoL8dk0ahw7GU@jntp>
>
Merry Christmas for all.
R.H.

This is science, we don't "understand" anything.
("Unnerstand, unnerstand, unnerstand ...?" No I do not.)
We may make a generous yet critical reading, ....
Christmas might be a little different this year
since the North Pole recently moved.
Clocks either procede, slow, or meet.
The fastest clock is at rest, ....
... and, every one observes each other
as were it each so.
Just because the Lorentzian is a Laplacian
with a "negative time term"
(x'' + y'' + z'') = 0 (Laplacian, harmonic, metric)
(x'' + y'' + z'') - t'' = s'', ..., = 0 (Lorentzian, metric)
because the invariant about electrodynamics
pretty much only needs such a term, and the
rotational in the kinematic makes one, -t'',
has that it's never negative so time only
slows, while mostly it's zero.
Then, that being only about the various exchanges
or transits of energy, and about the kinetic,
helps fix that various manufactured problems
are as of their own making, when really it's
that under-neath in the theory it's not a problem.
Besides that classical theories have a clock hypothesis,
where the classical theory is a continuum,
also Einstein's Relativity does, if not "popular Relativity".