Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #655860 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-08-12 17:35 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-09-03 17:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 105 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-12 17:35 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-12 19:39 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-12 21:06 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-12 20:25 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-12 23:16 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-13 12:45 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-13 12:46 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-13 16:15 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-13 16:37 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-13 16:50 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-13 19:54 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-13 21:20 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-13 21:25 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-13 22:01 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-13 22:12 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-13 22:42 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-13 23:07 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-13 21:48 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-14 09:40 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-14 17:15 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-14 11:06 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-14 16:00 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-14 22:49 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-15 09:43 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 18:45 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-15 10:29 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 19:34 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 11:42 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 10:45 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 10:55 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 22:20 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-15 10:25 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-15 17:34 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 11:47 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 22:10 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-17 10:50 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-17 13:08 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-18 11:11 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-18 12:06 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-19 10:27 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-19 10:52 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-19 11:51 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-20 17:22 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-22 00:32 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 22:16 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-14 21:53 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-14 22:04 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-14 20:27 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-15 11:42 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-14 06:25 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Mubarak Schitov <uaka@acikt.ru> - 2024-08-14 05:47 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-14 12:25 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-14 14:36 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-14 12:54 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-14 14:59 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-15 13:18 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-14 15:08 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-14 13:24 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-14 14:39 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-14 17:37 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-14 18:11 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-14 20:29 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-14 19:20 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-14 12:24 -0700
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-14 21:50 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-14 22:36 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 06:50 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Belgov Turpaev <eesssu@unuvpat.ru> - 2024-08-15 10:58 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-14 20:44 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-15 12:46 +0300
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-15 12:10 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 14:29 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-15 14:52 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 16:58 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 17:16 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-15 13:02 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 15:15 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-15 13:44 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 17:31 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 17:37 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 18:04 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 18:26 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 19:46 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-15 18:05 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 20:27 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-16 15:10 +0300
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-16 12:38 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-17 11:14 +0300
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-15 21:12 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-15 21:22 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 21:31 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-14 19:54 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-14 20:47 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-14 19:34 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-14 17:43 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-08-15 12:22 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-15 17:29 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-15 08:13 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-15 12:33 +0300
Re: Space-time interval (2) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> - 2024-08-15 11:24 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-15 13:49 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-17 11:18 +0300
Re: Space-time interval (2) guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2024-08-14 21:01 +0200
Re: Space-time interval (2) film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) - 2024-09-02 17:02 +0000
Re: Space-time interval (2) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-03 17:13 -0700
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 18:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17ebf27266748246$370060$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #656005 |
W dniu 15.08.2024 o 17:37, Python pisze: > Le 15/08/2024 à 17:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >> W dniu 15.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze: >>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:10:55 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote: >>>> >>>> But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated >>>> for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always >>>> receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present >>>> for M. But ONLY for M. >>> >>> Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard. >>> >>>> If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and >>>> will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps, >>>> reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my >>>> future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his >>>> beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c. >>> >>> Breathe, blow, Richard. Scientists and engineers are smarter than >> >> Engineers are for sure, and anyone can check >> GPS, t'=t. > > "My explosion engine does not explode! Pay me back!" - Wozniak at > the local car seller. See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting and slandering. And you're just doing what you can for your beloved Shit and your beloved church. And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid would be, and he has written it clearly enough for anyone able to read (even if not clearly enough for you, poor stinker). >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 18:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v9la6q$trev$19@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #656006 |
Le 15/08/2024 à 18:04, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > W dniu 15.08.2024 o 17:37, Python pisze: >> Le 15/08/2024 à 17:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>> W dniu 15.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze: >>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:10:55 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated >>>>> for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always >>>>> receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present >>>>> for M. But ONLY for M. >>>> >>>> Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard. >>>> >>>>> If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and >>>>> will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps, >>>>> reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my >>>>> future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his >>>>> beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c. >>>> >>>> Breathe, blow, Richard. Scientists and engineers are smarter than >>> >>> Engineers are for sure, and anyone can check >>> GPS, t'=t. >> >> "My explosion engine does not explode! Pay me back!" - Wozniak at >> the local car seller. > > See, poor stinker - I've proven ... Sure. You've also proven that Earth is flat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 19:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17ebf809b1e2d5f8$304257$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #656007 |
W dniu 15.08.2024 o 18:26, Python pisze: > Le 15/08/2024 à 18:04, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >> W dniu 15.08.2024 o 17:37, Python pisze: >>> Le 15/08/2024 à 17:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>> W dniu 15.08.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze: >>>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:10:55 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> But now that we have a synchronization based on M and validated >>>>>> for M, we can make A and B beep simultaneously, and M will always >>>>>> receive the beeps simultaneously. This is the universal present >>>>>> for M. But ONLY for M. >>>>> >>>>> Breathe, blow, yourself, Richard. >>>>> >>>>>> If I place myself at A, A will look at B with astonishment, and >>>>>> will say B is out of tune, the present moment with which he beeps, >>>>>> reaches me late, or rather EXISTS for me late. He beeps in my >>>>>> future, and not at my present moment, because when I beep, his >>>>>> beep does not exist FOR me, it will only exist in t=AB/c. >>>>> >>>>> Breathe, blow, Richard. Scientists and engineers are smarter than >>>> >>>> Engineers are for sure, and anyone can check >>>> GPS, t'=t. >>> >>> "My explosion engine does not explode! Pay me back!" - Wozniak at >>> the local car seller. >> >> See, poor stinker - I've proven ... > > Sure. You've also proven that Earth is flat. > slander noun [ C or U ] uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or the making of such a statement:
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 18:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pCNnHjclkXvZPfiZMXqobBlPbyQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #656014 |
Le 15/08/2024 à 19:46, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > slander > noun [ C or U ] > uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ > a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or > the making of such a statement: Jest fałszerzem. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 20:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17ebfa45bb35abf9$410793$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #656015 |
W dniu 15.08.2024 o 20:05, Richard Hachel pisze: > Le 15/08/2024 à 19:46, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >> slander >> noun [ C or U ] >> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, >> or the making of such a statement: > > Jest fałszerzem. He is a dumb, fanatic, lying piece of shit, just like most of Ein stein's worshippers. > > R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-16 15:10 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v9nfir$1e6i8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655995 |
On 2024-08-15 12:10:55 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > Le 15/08/2024 à 11:46, Mikko a écrit : >> >>> The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag >>> behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon >>> that will affect all the watches in the universe. >> >> No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and >> it shows as it was set. > > That's not what I'm talking about. Yes, you were. You said "each watch will lag behind the other". -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-16 12:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <NCMZlHRuo1p_S6DXG_aN0gMczys@jntp> |
| In reply to | #656030 |
Le 16/08/2024 à 14:10, Mikko a écrit : >>> >>> No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and >>> it shows as it was set. >> >> That's not what I'm talking about. > > Yes, you were. You said "each watch will lag behind the other". If we do a type M synchronization as I explained in the previous post. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-17 11:14 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v9pm51$1rdf2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #656040 |
On 2024-08-16 12:38:05 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > Le 16/08/2024 à 14:10, Mikko a écrit : >>>> >>>> No, it does not. A watch may be set to show that time or another time and >>>> it shows as it was set. >>> >>> That's not what I'm talking about. >> >> Yes, you were. You said "each watch will lag behind the other". > > If we do a type M synchronization as I explained in the previous post. No, you stated it unconditionally. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 21:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npsvO.179812$rto8.129997@fx05.ams4> |
| In reply to | #655939 |
Den 14.08.2024 15:24, skrev Richard Hachel: > I'm talking about the initial > synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches > in all the capitals with each other. > However, this is by nature impossible. "you have to synchronize all the watches in all the capitals with each other." Good grief! :-D > The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag > behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon > that will affect all the watches in the universe. How naive is it possible to be? You don't sync two clocks to each other, you sync one clock to another clock. A clock showing precise UTC can send a signal with the time to another clock, which can be set to the received time. This way, the clock will obviously lag on UTC, because of the transit time of the signal. If the master clock is, say 1000 km away, the clock will lag on the UTC by ~ 3.3 ms, which will be adequate for most purposes. If better precision i needed, and the distance is known to be, e.g. 1000km, the clock can be set to the received time - 3.336 ms, and its precision is in the order of microseconds. -------- Richard, I have a question for you. I suppose that you, like all people in France, have a clock which is set to show the time GMT+2h. How did you do that? > So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe > placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract > point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal > distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do this. > It's not hard to understand. That you find this nonsensical babble easy to understand is rather alarming for your mental health. :-D But how it was started in the real word is easy to understand, since it is historical facts. Here is how you start: You are at Greenwich in the 19th century, and you say: I herby define our pendulum clock to show GMT, which is 12.00.00 when the medium sun is in the meridian. All other clocks in the world must be synchronised from this clock. We will lower a flag at 12.00.00 so all the ships in the harbour can synchronise their clocks to show GMT. When the radio is invented, we will send a signal to make it possible to sync the clocks in all the UK and the rest of the world. The clocks can now be synced to within a second, which will be acceptable for all practical purposes (like celestial navigation). In 1960 GMT was renamed to UTC (Coordinate Universal Time) and the second was based on the Cs atom in stead of the Sun. The standard clock was now an atomic clock (actually many atomic clocks),and advances in radio communication made it possible to sync the clocks all over the world very precisely. In the 1978 came GPS, which was fully operational in 1993. Now anybody can have his clock synced to within few ns. (If he has the right equipment.) --------- I will be otherwise occupied for a few days, and will not post to this forum for some time. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 21:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v9lkg2$12gcs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655939 |
Den 14.08.2024 15:24, skrev Richard Hachel: > I'm talking about the initial > synchronization. At some point you have to synchronize all the watches > in all the capitals with each other. > However, this is by nature impossible. "you have to synchronize all the watches in all the capitals with each other." Good grief! 😂 > The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag > behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon > that will affect all the watches in the universe. How naive is it possible to be? You don't sync two clocks to each other, you sync one clock to another clock. A clock showing precise UTC can send a signal with the time to another clock, which can be set to the received time. This way, the clock will obviously lag on UTC, because of the transit time of the signal. If the master clock is, say 1000 km away, the clock will lag on the UTC by ~ 3.3 ms, which will be adequate for most purposes. If better precision i needed, and the distance is known to be, e.g. 1000km, the clock can be set to the received time - 3.336 ms, and its precision is in the order of microseconds. -------- Richard, I have a question for you. I suppose that you, like all people in France, have a clock which is set to show the time GMT+2h. How did you do that? > So, to start the watches at t=0, you'll need a point in the universe > placed at an equal distance from all the others, and only an abstract > point placed in an imaginary, perpendicular dimension, at an equal > distance from all the points in the local universe will be able to do this. > It's not hard to understand. That you find this nonsensical babble easy to understand is rather alarming for your mental health. 😂 But how it was started in the real word is easy to understand, since it is historical facts. Here is how you start: You are at Greenwich in the 19th century, and you say: I herby define our pendulum clock to show GMT, which is 12.00.00 when the medium sun is in the meridian. All other clocks in the world must be synchronised from this clock. We will lower a flag at 12.00.00 so all the ships in the harbour can synchronise their clocks to show GMT. When the radio is invented, we will send a signal to make it possible to sync the clocks in all the UK and the rest of the world. The clocks can now be synced to within a second, which will be acceptable for all practical purposes (like celestial navigation). In 1960 GMT was renamed to UTC (Coordinate Universal Time) and the second was based on the Cs atom in stead of the Sun. The standard clock was now an atomic clock (actually many atomic clocks),and advances in radio communication made it possible to sync the clocks all over the world very precisely. In the 1978 came GPS, which was fully operational in 1993. Now anybody can have his clock synced to within few ns. (If he has the right equipment.) --------- I will be otherwise occupied for a few days, and will not post to this forum for some time. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 21:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17ebfdc68557f6b7$304376$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #656018 |
W dniu 15.08.2024 o 21:22, Paul.B.Andersen pisze: > In 1960 GMT was renamed to UTC (Coordinate Universal Time) > and the second was based on the Cs atom in stead of the Sun. Delusions of a fanatic idiot. Anyone can check GPS, your Cs idiocy is unusable for serious purposes and ignored. > Now anybody can have his clock synced to within few ns. Right. Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 19:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17eba9e2c8a3ea8d$340239$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #655938 |
W dniu 14.08.2024 o 15:08, Python pisze: > Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a > écrit : >> .... will consider >> that there exists a fourth spatial dimension in the universe, and that >> an observer, placed there, perpendicular and very far away, apprehends >> our 3D universe in a perfectly synchronous way for him, and it is on >> this abstract but useful concept that we will synchronize all >> terrestrial watches. > > Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not > synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions. No, they're not, though they're not your gedanken delusions either. Yes, they are synchronized by any means possible. And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid would be, and he has written it clearly enough for anyone able to read (even if not clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 20:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v9iu3r$iefe$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655948 |
Le 14/08/2024 à 19:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > W dniu 14.08.2024 o 15:08, Python pisze: >> Le 14/08/2024 à 14:54, M.D. Richard "stuffed-shirt Hachel" Lengrand a >> écrit : >>> .... will consider >>> that there exists a fourth spatial dimension in the universe, and >>> that an observer, placed there, perpendicular and very far away, >>> apprehends our 3D universe in a perfectly synchronous way for him, >>> and it is on this abstract but useful concept that we will >>> synchronize all terrestrial watches. >> >> Clocks are physical devices (except in Wozniak's mind). They are not >> synchronized by imaginary devices on imaginary spatial dimensions. > > No, they're not, though they're not your > gedanken delusions either. Yes, they > are synchronized by any means possible. > > > And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit > to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid > would be, and he has written it clearly > enough for anyone able to read (even if not > clearly enough for you, poor stinker). Maciej, there are adults in the room.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 19:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v9ippa$hon2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655913 |
Den 14.08.2024 00:01, skrev Richard Hachel: > Le 13/08/2024 à 19:53, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> >> So you have given up gesticulating about universal anisochrony >> and why that makes it impossible to have synchronous clocks >> in Oslo and Paris? >> >> Try to explain it again? >> >> |> Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen: >> |>> >> |>> You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone >> |>> are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently >> |>> showing UTC + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually >> |>> synchronous. >> |>> >> |>> Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous. >> |>> (To within few seconds| >> | >> >> |> Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:> >> |>> But I keep explaining it to you. >> |>> >> |>> This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony. >> |>> >> |>> This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time” >> |>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems >> |>> logical to them, but it is an abstract thought. >> |>> >> >> Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second. >> >> I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on >> the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s >> I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when >> the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s. >> The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s >> The distance in the ground frame between the airports is >> L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km >> >> v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h >> >> Please explain why this is not a real speed >> in the ground frame. >> >> Richard, will you flee yet again? :-D > > No, no, I am not trying to escape. You are not only trying to escape, you are fleeing like hell to evade answering the questions. STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE! Is the time T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s the correct time (temporal interval) measured in the ground frame, between the events "Departure from Oslo" and "Arrival in Paris"? Is the speed v = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h the correct speed of the aeroplane, measured in the ground frame? The point is that if the clocks in Oslo and Paris are not synchronous within a second, you have to answer "no" to both questions. Repeating the tirade below is to keep fleeing. > I have forty years of relativistic > concepts behind me, and I have a perfect grasp of how things should be > taught. > There are several keys to understanding RR, and either none of these > keys are understood, or they are half understood, and that is not > satisfactory. > The first key, which is absolutely necessary to open the theory, is the > notion of universal anisochrony. > This made a lot of people laugh 40 years ago, because people did not > understand this term, nor what I meant by it. > Today, it is a little less funny, and many ask me to explain it in a > simple way, because the concept, although elementary, is not obvious to > everyone. > What is universal anisochrony? > It is a property of space, just as universal gravitation is a property > of bodies. > This means that the notion of absolute universal present is an abstract > thought. > There is no present moment at this moment that is at the level of a > planet that orbits Altair, for example, and that corresponds > reciprocally to my present moment. > In short, the notion of a flat present does not exist. > It is a thought anchored in man (like the flat earth before), but which > is only a human a priori. > Strangely, this simple idea, which corresponds perfectly to an > intelligent physics, is abandoned by men, while they understand very > well a more difficult concept which is the relativity of the internal > chronotropy of watches by change of inertial reference (gamma factor). > > We come back to Paris, and to Oslo. > > There is therefore a natural anisochrony between Paris and Oslo. > > There is no "flat present", "horizontal plane of present time" between > Paris and Oslo. I repeat, it is useless, false and abstract. > > So there is a natural, irreversible gap between the two. If we > synchronize the watches on Paris, an event that will occur in Oslo will > not exist for Paris. > > An event that will occur in Paris will not exist in Oslo. > > This event is only found in the "future of the other". > > And so on for the entire universe. > > We will always have a time interval, an anisochrony, > > which will be related to the distance. > > "My present is not your present, and your present is not my present, > there is no absolute universal simultaneity" > > So how do we make all this agree anyway? > > We will create a universal time, an abstract universal present, which > does not exist, and which corresponds to a synchronization made by an > observer placed in a fourth spatial dimension which does not exist, but > which is very useful, because mathematically, > if it is placed very far, perpendicular, and at an equal distance > from all the points of the three-dimensional metric universe which is > ours, it observes all the points in a constant perfect simultaneity. > > This point is abstract, does not exist, but allows us to use a universal > time and a perfect present time plan. > > But this perfect present time does not exist. > > This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in > general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for > me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and > without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on. > > R.H. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-14 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Z0Y1svUQF4ykDsNOlKKU-yv0zVQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #655944 |
Le 14/08/2024 à 19:33, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 14.08.2024 00:01, skrev Richard Hachel: > STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE! I am not running away. Your problem simply does not make sense. You are talking to me about planes that fly at Galilean speeds, asking me to respond with relativistic considerations. What can I answer you? R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 12:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v9kkri$u2jc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655947 |
Den 14.08.2024 19:43, skrev Richard Hachel: > Le 14/08/2024 à 19:33, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 14.08.2024 00:01, skrev Richard Hachel: > >> STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE! > > I am not running away. You are fleeing like hell. > Your problem simply does not make sense. > You are talking to me about planes that fly at Galilean speeds, asking > me to respond with relativistic considerations. What a nonsensical statement. Do you remember this scenario which you never responded to: The triplets Ginette, Elise and Wanda are co-located on the equator. They all have an atomic clock. Ginette are always stationary on the Equator. Elise is travelling eastwards at low altitude in an aeroplane. Wanda is travelling westwards at low altitude in an aeroplane. Both are travelling once around Earth at equator. Note that the altitude is so low that the gravitational blue shift can be ignored. From the time they are co-located, to they again are co-located after Elise's and Wanda's journey, Ginette's clock shows that the duration of their journey is τ_G = two sidereal days. Please find what the duration of the journey will be measured by Elise and Wanda, τ_E and τ_W. Some data: Circumference of Earth at equator L = 40075 km Sidereal day Tday = 86164.0905 s Ginette's speed in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI frame), v = L/Tday = 465.1 m/s SR predicts: τ_E − τ_G = −259.2 ns, τ_W − τ_G = +155.5 ns The point is that the aeroplanes are moving at what you call "Galilean speeds", and yes, in the real world it is possible to make "relativistic consideration" at those speeds. You can even measure the "relativistic phenomena" with real clocks. And it is done in the real world. https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf (see pages 708-716) > What can I answer you? You can answer the questions. But the issue isn't "relativistic consideration", it is about synchronisation of clocks! ========================================= |> Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen: |>> |>> You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone |>> are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently |>> showing GMT + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually |>> synchronous. |>> |>> Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous. |>> (To within few seconds| |> Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:> |>> But I keep explaining it to you. |>> |>> This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony. |>> |>> This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time” |>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems |>> logical to them, but it is an abstract thought. |>> STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE! Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second. I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s. The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h Question #1: ------------ Is the time T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s the correct time (temporal interval) measured in the ground frame, between the events "Departure from Oslo" and "Arrival in Paris"? Question #2: ------------ Is the speed v = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h the correct speed of the aeroplane, measured in the ground frame? The point is that if the clocks in Oslo and Paris are not synchronous within a second, you have to answer "no" to both questions. So what are your answers to the simple questions? I bet you will keep fleeing. Chicken! :-D > > R.H. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 17:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17ebf08fba1f4b9a$401474$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #655988 |
W dniu 15.08.2024 o 12:22, Paul.B.Andersen pisze: > Den 14.08.2024 19:43, skrev Richard Hachel: >> Le 14/08/2024 à 19:33, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>> Den 14.08.2024 00:01, skrev Richard Hachel: >> >>> STOP FLEEING AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE! >> >> I am not running away. > > You are fleeing like hell. > >> Your problem simply does not make sense. >> You are talking to me about planes that fly at Galilean speeds, asking >> me to respond with relativistic considerations. > > What a nonsensical statement. > Do you remember this scenario which you never responded to: > > The triplets Ginette, Elise and Wanda are co-located on > the equator. They all have an atomic clock. > > Ginette are always stationary on the Equator. > Elise is travelling eastwards at low altitude in an aeroplane. > Wanda is travelling westwards at low altitude in an aeroplane. > Both are travelling once around Earth at equator. > > Note that the altitude is so low that the gravitational > blue shift can be ignored. > > From the time they are co-located, to they again are co-located > after Elise's and Wanda's journey, Ginette's clock shows that > the duration of their journey is τ_G = two sidereal days. > > Please find what the duration of the journey will be > measured by Elise and Wanda, τ_E and τ_W. > > Some data: > Circumference of Earth at equator L = 40075 km > Sidereal day Tday = 86164.0905 s > Ginette's speed in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference > (ECI frame), v = L/Tday = 465.1 m/s > > SR predicts: τ_E − τ_G = −259.2 ns, τ_W − τ_G = +155.5 ns > > The point is that the aeroplanes are moving at what you call > "Galilean speeds", and yes, in the real world it is possible > to make "relativistic consideration" at those speeds. > You can even measure the "relativistic phenomena" with real clocks. And anyone can check GPS, t'=t, no relativistic phenomena. Commo n sense was warning your idiot guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 08:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <li5kjvFlo18U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #655913 |
Am Mittwoch000014, 14.08.2024 um 00:01 schrieb Richard Hachel: > Le 13/08/2024 à 19:53, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> >> So you have given up gesticulating about universal anisochrony >> and why that makes it impossible to have synchronous clocks >> in Oslo and Paris? >> >> Try to explain it again? >> >> |> Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen: >> |>> >> |>> You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone >> |>> are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently >> |>> showing UTC + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually >> |>> synchronous. >> |>> >> |>> Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous. >> |>> (To within few seconds| >> | >> >> |> Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:> >> |>> But I keep explaining it to you. >> |>> >> |>> This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony. >> |>> >> |>> This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time” >> |>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems >> |>> logical to them, but it is an abstract thought. >> |>> >> >> Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second. >> >> I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on >> the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s >> I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when >> the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s. >> The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s >> The distance in the ground frame between the airports is >> L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km >> >> v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h >> >> Please explain why this is not a real speed >> in the ground frame. >> >> Richard, will you flee yet again? :-D > > No, no, I am not trying to escape. I have forty years of relativistic > concepts behind me, and I have a perfect grasp of how things should be > taught. > There are several keys to understanding RR, and either none of these > keys are understood, or they are half understood, and that is not > satisfactory. > The first key, which is absolutely necessary to open the theory, is the > notion of universal anisochrony. > This made a lot of people laugh 40 years ago, because people did not > understand this term, nor what I meant by it. > Today, it is a little less funny, and many ask me to explain it in a > simple way, because the concept, although elementary, is not obvious to > everyone. > What is universal anisochrony? > It is a property of space, just as universal gravitation is a property > of bodies. > This means that the notion of absolute universal present is an abstract > thought. > There is no present moment at this moment that is at the level of a > planet that orbits Altair, for example, and that corresponds > reciprocally to my present moment. > In short, the notion of a flat present does not exist. > It is a thought anchored in man (like the flat earth before), but which > is only a human a priori. > Strangely, this simple idea, which corresponds perfectly to an > intelligent physics, is abandoned by men, while they understand very > well a more difficult concept which is the relativity of the internal > chronotropy of watches by change of inertial reference (gamma factor). > > We come back to Paris, and to Oslo. > > There is therefore a natural anisochrony between Paris and Oslo. > > There is no "flat present", "horizontal plane of present time" between > Paris and Oslo. I repeat, it is useless, false and abstract. > > So there is a natural, irreversible gap between the two. If we > synchronize the watches on Paris, an event that will occur in Oslo will > not exist for Paris. > > An event that will occur in Paris will not exist in Oslo. > > This event is only found in the "future of the other". > > And so on for the entire universe. > > We will always have a time interval, an anisochrony, > > which will be related to the distance. > > "My present is not your present, and your present is not my present, > there is no absolute universal simultaneity" > > So how do we make all this agree anyway? > > We will create a universal time, an abstract universal present, which > does not exist, and which corresponds to a synchronization made by an > observer placed in a fourth spatial dimension which does not exist, but > which is very useful, because mathematically, > if it is placed very far, perpendicular, and at an equal distance > from all the points of the three-dimensional metric universe which is > ours, it observes all the points in a constant perfect simultaneity. > > This point is abstract, does not exist, but allows us to use a universal > time and a perfect present time plan. My idea about 'local time' is similar to the infinity sign, which is kind of Moebius-strip. The strip is a representation of the imaginary behaviour of time, which is 'anti-symmetric'. This means: you need two rotations to return, while usually you need only one. After one rotation over a full circle the situation flips over from forward flowing time to backwards flowing time. That 'backwards flow' is invisible, hence we observe only forward time and only the 'real' part. This is represented by the adverse side of the Moebius strip. Now the opposite side exists, too, but experiences a timeline, which flows into the opposite direction than ours (thou invisible). Now we are invisible there, since our time flows backwards in comparison to time there, too. Now time goes on and the ribbon itself moves on in kind of 8-shape. Then always an opposite would exist, which passes right through our world, where time runs backwards from our perspective, which we cannot see. But we will move 'sideways' in this picture, because we need to follow the strip itself, which drags us through time. This will leave us in the 'cross' of these two strips (which are only one), because the opposite world moves through time, too, but into the opposite direction. TH > But this perfect present time does not exist. > > This does not prevent that in our universe, each point considered is, in > general at a different distance from me, and that it is impossible for > me to synchronize with it, without desynchronizing myself from it, and > without desynchronizing myself from the others and so on. > > R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 12:33 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v9ki0t$tmam$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655893 |
On 2024-08-13 12:46:55 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > Le 13/08/2024 à 12:44, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 12.08.2024 22:25, skrev Richard Hachel: >>> Le 12/08/2024 à 21:06, Python a écrit : >>> >>>>> Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr² >>>> >>>> No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2. >>> >>> LOL. >>> >>> Non : ds²=dl²-c²dt² >> >> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf >> Chapter 1. > > There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations > that are incorrect. When you say that there equations (or anything) that are not correct you should identify at least one incorrect equation and tell how you saw that it is not correct. > Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a thorough search, and to circle > in red everything that is wrong and tell you why. Instad, you had time to post a vague useless message. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-15 11:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EkV14qn5_v7VjcUzhODjqtck7Vc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #655985 |
Le 15/08/2024 à 11:33, Mikko a écrit : > On 2024-08-13 12:46:55 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf >>> Chapter 1. >> >> There are equations that are correct in your pdf, but also equations >> that are incorrect. > > When you say that there equations (or anything) that are not correct > you should identify at least one incorrect equation and tell how you > saw that it is not correct. But I do that. I denounce false formulas and false concepts. I re-explain all that, and I give the correct equations. It has been wrong for a long time. The problem: 1. I am not read 2. I am not believed. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web