Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #665208 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-07-22 12:33 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-08-01 19:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 211 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-22 12:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-22 15:08 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-22 18:17 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-22 17:56 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-22 21:11 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-22 19:53 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-23 09:01 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-23 11:28 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-07-22 16:41 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Victo Balahovsky <ihio@tiv.ru> - 2025-07-22 18:50 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-29 09:48 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-29 22:02 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-30 07:08 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-02 12:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 13:52 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 12:01 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 14:17 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 12:36 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 17:26 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 17:14 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 19:29 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 18:28 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 21:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Herman Katsushika <shek@unrkaas.jp> - 2025-08-02 22:13 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-06 22:39 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-07 08:54 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-07 22:52 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-08 07:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-08 13:51 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-08 15:09 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Hyram Dubanowski <akaao@dhswua.pl> - 2025-08-08 17:03 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-08 20:58 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 00:58 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-09 13:46 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 20:18 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-10 20:54 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-10 23:14 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Leron Warszawski <nkan@rwsirr.pl> - 2025-08-03 14:08 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-08-08 22:52 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 00:55 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-30 10:54 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-02 12:35 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-03 08:13 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-03 07:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-04 14:04 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-05 08:48 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-05 15:14 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-05 16:53 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-06 08:34 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-06 22:17 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-07 08:41 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-07 22:13 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Abner Habibulaev <baee@lvl.ru> - 2025-08-07 22:07 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-08 16:04 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-08 20:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-08 18:41 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-09 12:44 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 18:13 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-09 19:40 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 20:18 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-09 11:22 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-09 15:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-09 13:40 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-09 14:49 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-09 14:58 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-09 15:19 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-10 06:54 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 08:20 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Shane Dubenkov <bdneb@nbanb.ru> - 2025-08-10 15:33 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 09:46 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 09:55 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-21 20:34 -0800
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:03 -0800
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-11 07:02 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Freeman Vandroogenbroeck <dronn@reaea.nl> - 2025-08-12 21:42 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-10 21:05 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-11 10:17 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-13 09:53 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-10 06:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-10 21:11 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Murel Kartuzov <kv@ltel.ru> - 2025-08-10 20:35 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-11 10:41 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-11 11:20 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Darby Myachkov <vkbcm@yaycvbbm.ru> - 2025-08-12 20:45 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-13 10:00 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-14 07:54 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Bladimir Natalenko <ilr@el.ru> - 2025-08-14 09:07 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-14 12:17 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-17 22:34 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-18 07:52 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-18 09:36 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-18 20:56 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-18 21:30 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-18 21:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-19 06:12 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:16 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-19 08:03 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 14:36 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:18 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:20 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:20 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-19 07:55 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-19 19:47 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 20:54 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-20 09:36 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-20 10:20 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:18 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:27 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-20 15:36 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:51 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:56 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:58 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:59 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-21 11:14 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-21 14:42 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-20 15:56 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:58 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:51 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:56 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-21 08:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-20 10:15 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-20 19:00 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-21 08:39 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-21 11:48 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-22 08:20 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-22 17:07 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-23 09:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-21 13:37 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-21 14:57 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-22 08:26 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-22 16:53 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-23 09:02 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-21 21:11 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Samsath Bakalov <msml@svalsa.ru> - 2025-08-21 19:32 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-21 21:40 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-21 21:37 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-22 08:43 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-22 19:59 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-24 08:05 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-24 22:49 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-25 08:26 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-25 11:41 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-25 14:43 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-26 09:55 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-26 10:43 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-27 10:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Khalil Yablochkov <cvb@laoi.ru> - 2025-08-26 20:33 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-26 22:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-27 06:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-27 10:47 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-27 12:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-27 09:35 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-28 09:47 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-28 21:38 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-29 09:40 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-29 10:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-29 07:29 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-30 09:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-30 10:35 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-27 20:27 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-28 10:05 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-28 09:47 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-28 12:09 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-28 14:57 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-29 09:36 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-29 12:00 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-29 07:42 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-30 09:32 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-30 13:33 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-31 09:53 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-31 10:36 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-29 09:19 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-29 10:00 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-29 12:24 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-29 10:33 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-29 13:50 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-30 09:02 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-30 09:53 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Slobodan Miheenkov <so@kobn.ru> - 2025-08-30 10:23 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-31 09:13 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-31 11:50 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-01 08:27 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-01 08:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-02 08:42 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-02 09:40 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-02 09:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-02 10:28 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Antone De la fontaine <tle@aandot.fr> - 2025-09-02 19:56 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-04 15:40 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-30 10:44 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-31 09:28 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-29 11:38 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-30 09:12 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-30 12:46 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-31 09:35 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-30 13:11 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-30 13:19 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-30 15:40 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-30 13:44 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-28 14:47 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-25 22:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Chayne Prokurorov <nhp@ruurkrr.ru> - 2025-08-20 19:14 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:41 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:46 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-30 19:25 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-31 21:59 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 16:50 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 16:51 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-01 19:25 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 19:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 19:52 +0000
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 02:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j2riLJwdWZHqsze9U9UdpCuCzuE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665514 |
Le 19/08/2025 à 04:20, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 18/08/2025 à 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger: > >> Case closed! > > LOL. > > J'aurais quand même eu affaire à de biens belles bandes de crétins sur > usenet, mais nous tournons en rond. > > Sinon je rappelle que : > > "It is not possible to synchronize two distant watches because they will never > share the same notion of universal simultaneity. > The plane of absolute present time does not exist. > This notion, however deeply rooted in our minds it may be, does not exist. Our > universe is not made like that; it is made according to the principle of universal > anisochrony. "The time here cannot absolutely correspond with the time there." The > plane of absolute present time is a fantasy. > Let's take the example of a mountain. Its altitude is 3,645 meters. Much lower > down, in the valley, we have an altitude of 1,250 meters. The two points can NEVER > be measured at the same height. > Let's say I set my altimeter to 3,645 meters. I'll have the same height as the > other altimeter by this subterfuge, but as soon as I go up there, my altimeter > will no longer agree with the other one. Their agreement in principle was > artificial; the two points were not at the same height, period. > This is what physics theorists seem to fail to understand when discussing the > nature of time. We CANNOT AGREE the notions of local simultaneity. It may be that > an event in B occurs at the same time as an event in A for A. But this will not be > simultaneous for B. > It is quite incredible that physicists were able to understand the notion of > relativity of chronotropy by a change of reference frame, but without > understanding that of anisochrony by a simple change of position."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 07:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgiho5Fila8U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665509 |
Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: ... >>>> But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong. > >>> >>> Let's review what "Einstein's method to synchronize clocks" is. >>> The very first paragraph of Einstein's paper is: >>> >>> § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >>> The definition is: >>> "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer >>> at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate >>> proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are >>> simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of >>> space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, >>> it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values >>> of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. >>> . . . >>> Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, >>> let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, >>> and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′ A. >>> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >>> tB −tA = t′A −tB. >>> " >>> This equation can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2 >>> The transit time for the ray to go from A to B or from B to A is >>> "delay" = (t'A-tA)/2 >>> >>> In words: >>> If the clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent, >>> then the clock at B is synchronous with the clock at A if it >>> shows t plus the transit time (delay) when the pulse is received. > >> Sure, that's correct! > > Of course it is. > > So why do you keep insisting it is wrong? I DIDN'T, but wanted to show, that the correct solution (which I wrote) and the solution of Einstein were different. Therefore, Einstein's solution must be wrong. >> >> I have actually written that several times already, but you have >> always rejected my demand. > > Your 'demand' which I have 'rejected' was that Einstein's > definition above was wrong because he had ignored the 'delay'. > >> >> But the question wasn't, what I think or you, but what Einstein wrote >> in his paper. >> >> And there ain't no such thing as 'delay'. > > > This is too stupid! Well, yes!! But it wasn't my stupidity. > > Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light > to go from A to B, or from B to A. > > Einstein's definition of simultaneity in Einstein's words: > "We establish by definition that the “time” required by light > to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel > from B to A." > > Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math: > "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if > tB −tA = t′A − tB." > > Expressed in words: > "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if > the transit time from A to B is equal to the transit time > from B to A." > > The equation above can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2 > > So Einstein's definition can be written: > "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if > tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2" But where is this equation in Einstein's paper?? It is not sufficiant, that the equation could be derived with ease, but that the author derived this equation. And Einstein didn't. YOU did! ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 19:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1082d9u$3sb35$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665519 |
Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> ...
>> Am Mittwoch000013, 13.08.2025 um 10:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>
>>> But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually
>>> also wrong.
>>>
>>> This caan be seen, if you compare Einstein's text
>>> ('On the electrodynamics of moving bodies') and what
>>> Einstein wrote there about this method in comparison
>>> to how that should actually be done.
>>>
>>> I wrote about how the method should be (but wasn't),
>>> that you need to measure the delay for the 'round trip',
>>> devide that by two and use the result as correction of
>>> the own time value.
>>>
>>> But Einstein used an entirely different method and didn't even
>>> mention delay.
>>>
>>
>> Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light
>> to go from A to B, or from B to A.
>>
>> Einstein's definition of simultaneity in Einstein's words:
>> "We establish by definition that the “time” required by light
>> to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel
>> from B to A."
Is the 'delay' mentioned?
Is this wrong?
>>
>> Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math:
>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>> tB −tA = t′A − tB."
>>
>> Expressed in words:
>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>> the transit time from A to B is equal to the transit time
>> from B to A."
Is the 'delay' mentioned?
Is this wrong?
>> The equation above can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
>>
>> So Einstein's definition can be written:
>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>> tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2"
>>
>> Expressed in words:
>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>> the clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent, and
>> the clock at B shows t plus the transit time when the ray
>> is received."
Is the 'delay' mentioned?
Is this wrong?
>
> But where is this equation in Einstein's paper??
(tB −tA = t′A − tB) ≡ (tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2)
>
> It is not sufficiant, that the equation could be derived with ease, but
> that the author derived this equation.
>
> And Einstein didn't. YOU did!
And that's why Einstein didn't even menton delay,
and his defition of sumultaneity is wrong? :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 20:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2vi11vw1Pnpz3to4KTUADUyjGU0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665522 |
Le 19/08/2025 à 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger: > (tB −tA = t′A − tB) This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given observer. It is not. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 09:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1083ts1$6q5d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665523 |
Den 19.08.2025 22:54, skrev Richard Hachel: > Le 19/08/2025 à 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > >> (tB −tA = t′A − tB) > > This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of > information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given observer. > > It is not. > > R.H. https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 10:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgleimF2ohgU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665523 |
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel: > Le 19/08/2025 à 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger: > >> (tB −tA = t′A − tB) > > This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of > information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given observer. This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the middle. Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point. It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper. I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA. But otherwise the equation is a correct quote. (I had tripple checked this right now). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HafCmqwENYysBUr0Gu0yv1YM_yE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665528 |
Le 20/08/2025 à 10:16, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel: >> Le 19/08/2025 à 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>> Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >>> (tB −tA = t′A − tB) >> >> This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of >> information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given observer. > > This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the middle. > > Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point. > > It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper. > > > I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write > subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA. > > But otherwise the equation is a correct quote. > (I had tripple checked this right now). > > TH Le problème n'est pas de savoir si l'équation est bonne ou pas. Le problème, c'est qu'après avoir lu Poincaré, c'est particulièrement crétin. If it were enough to conceive of an inertial frame of reference with its present time hyperplane as something absolute, and to say that we must wait for the delay of light to synchronize the clocks (because light does not travel quickly), it is particularly ridiculous and at the level of low-level thinking. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 13:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <OnyH7w6m-j3VGqv8vJPAD89_50c@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665529 |
Le 20/08/2025 à 15:18, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 20/08/2025 à 10:16, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel: >>> Le 19/08/2025 à 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>> Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> >>>> (tB −tA = t′A − tB) >>> >>> This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of >>> information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given observer. >> >> This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the middle. >> >> Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point. >> >> It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper. >> >> >> I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write >> subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA. >> >> But otherwise the equation is a correct quote. >> (I had tripple checked this right now). >> >> TH > > Le problème n'est pas de savoir si l'équation est bonne ou pas. > > Le problème, c'est qu'après avoir lu Poincaré, c'est particulièrement > crétin. Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincaré wrote is 100% equivalent to what Einstein wrote. Hence the name: "Einstein-Poincaré synchronization method". https://noedge.net/e/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 15:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <185d7d21fefc5309$176105$2317941$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665530 |
On 8/20/2025 3:27 PM, Python wrote: > Le 20/08/2025 à 15:18, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> Le 20/08/2025 à 10:16, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel: >>>> Le 19/08/2025 à 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>>> Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>>> (tB −tA = t′A − tB) >>>> >>>> This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of >>>> information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given >>>> observer. >>> >>> This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the >>> middle. >>> >>> Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point. >>> >>> It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper. >>> >>> >>> I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write >>> subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA. >>> >>> But otherwise the equation is a correct quote. >>> (I had tripple checked this right now). >>> >>> TH >> >> Le problème n'est pas de savoir si l'équation est bonne ou pas. >> Le problème, c'est qu'après avoir lu Poincaré, c'est particulièrement >> crétin. > > Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincaré wrote is 100% equivalent to > what Einstein wrote. Lie as much as you wish, poor stinker, Poincare had enough wit to understand what a nonsense rejecting Euclidean geometry would be and wrote it clearly enough for anyone able to read (even if not clearly enough for you). > > Hence the name: "Einstein-Poincaré synchronization method". > > https://noedge.net/e/ >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 13:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t62po_oKEddfTzgNtsboV5Bh2Cw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665531 |
Le 20/08/2025 à 15:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 8/20/2025 3:27 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 20/08/2025 à 15:18, Richard Hachel a écrit : >>> Le 20/08/2025 à 10:16, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel: >>>>> Le 19/08/2025 à 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>>>> Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> >>>>>> (tB −tA = t′A − tB) >>>>> >>>>> This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of >>>>> information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given >>>>> observer. >>>> >>>> This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the >>>> middle. >>>> >>>> Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point. >>>> >>>> It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write >>>> subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA. >>>> >>>> But otherwise the equation is a correct quote. >>>> (I had tripple checked this right now). >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> Le problème n'est pas de savoir si l'équation est bonne ou pas. >>> Le problème, c'est qu'après avoir lu Poincaré, c'est particulièrement >>> crétin. >> >> Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincaré wrote is 100% equivalent to >> what Einstein wrote. > > Lie as much as you wish I do have Poincaré's writing right in front of me. > Poincare had enough wit to understand > what a nonsense rejecting Euclidean > geometry would be and wrote it clearly > enough for anyone able to read (even > if not clearly enough for you). He didn't write it would be "nonsense", and he was wrong for once, it happens to everyone (for instance you, "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had" are always wrong) including geniuses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 13:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Ko404e1FjAcphiNlF6h22RLv9TY@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665532 |
Le 20/08/2025 à 15:51, Python a écrit : > Le 20/08/2025 à 15:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/20/2025 3:27 PM, Python wrote: Poincaré wrote is 100% equivalent to >>> what Einstein wrote. >> >> Lie as much as you wish > > I do have Poincaré's writing right in front of me. You are a liar. Faut arrêter de prendre les gens (ici Poincaré) pour des cons. Tu vois Poincaré expliquer que si l'on envoie un signal lumineux, le retour se fera dans t=2AB/c ? Einstein a été assez con pour le faire, et de plus, il n'explique rien du tout de la nature de la simultanéité locale. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 13:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <JlENwYx-DODNL7VqXBzheIWQ1nE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665534 |
Le 20/08/2025 à 15:56, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 20/08/2025 à 15:51, Python a écrit : >> Le 20/08/2025 à 15:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 8/20/2025 3:27 PM, Python wrote: > > Poincaré wrote is 100% equivalent to >>>> what Einstein wrote. >>> >>> Lie as much as you wish >> >> I do have Poincaré's writing right in front of me. > > You are a liar. I already showed you the photographs of the pages. Do you want me to repost them ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 13:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <RSX04FcRX1_R4cRgjyRBt5lePJE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665537 |
Le 20/08/2025 à 15:58, Python a écrit : > Le 20/08/2025 à 15:56, Richard Hachel a écrit : >>> I do have Poincaré's writing right in front of me. >> >> You are a liar. > > I already showed you the photographs of the pages. Do you want me to repost them > ? Yes. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 11:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ieqGYltruaozZY99nLhgXpzXY94@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665539 |
Le 20/08/2025 à 15:59, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 20/08/2025 à 15:58, Python a écrit : >> Le 20/08/2025 à 15:56, Richard Hachel a écrit : > >>>> I do have Poincaré's writing right in front of me. >>> >>> You are a liar. >> >> I already showed you the photographs of the pages. Do you want me to repost them >> ? > > Yes. Here you are: https://noedge.net/Poincar%C3%A9/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 14:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LfeSuTOlsPYH7Va_d45cra2l000@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665546 |
Le 21/08/2025 à 13:14, Python a écrit : > Le 20/08/2025 à 15:59, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> Le 20/08/2025 à 15:58, Python a écrit : >>> Le 20/08/2025 à 15:56, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> >>>>> I do have Poincaré's writing right in front of me. >>>> >>>> You are a liar. >>> >>> I already showed you the photographs of the pages. Do you want me to repost them >>> ? >> >> Yes. > > Here you are: https://noedge.net/Poincar%C3%A9/ L'article n'est pas de Poincaré. On dit juste Poincaré remarque ceci et dit cela. Si tu savais ce qu'on a fait dire à Einstein (il aurait dicté 56897 proverbes et on l'a même fait parler de Dieu de multiples fois alors qu'il était profondément athée). Alors il faut en prendre et en laisser. Par contre, il parle une fois de "relativité du temps sur des théâtres différents". Mais l'ambiguïté du mot théâtre fait que sa phrase ne veut rien dire du tout puisqu'elle veut dire deux choses à la fois. Les uns considèrent que le nouveau théâtre, c'est un autre référentiel inertiel et qu'on parle de durée. Les autres que c'est un changement positionnel (si je suis au théâtre de la Bastille, je ne suis à celui du Moulin-Rouge) et que c'est l'instant-même qui varie. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 15:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <185d7e30d6a0856d$93074$2346581$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665532 |
On 8/20/2025 3:51 PM, Python wrote: > Le 20/08/2025 à 15:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/20/2025 3:27 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 20/08/2025 à 15:18, Richard Hachel a écrit : >>>> Le 20/08/2025 à 10:16, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel: >>>>>> Le 19/08/2025 à 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>>>>> Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> >>>>>>> (tB −tA = t′A − tB) >>>>>> >>>>>> This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of >>>>>> information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given >>>>>> observer. >>>>> >>>>> This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the >>>>> middle. >>>>> >>>>> Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point. >>>>> >>>>> It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write >>>>> subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA. >>>>> >>>>> But otherwise the equation is a correct quote. >>>>> (I had tripple checked this right now). >>>>> >>>>> TH >>>> >>>> Le problème n'est pas de savoir si l'équation est bonne ou pas. >>>> Le problème, c'est qu'après avoir lu Poincaré, c'est >>>> particulièrement crétin. >>> >>> Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincaré wrote is 100% equivalent to >>> what Einstein wrote. >> >> Lie as much as you wish > > I do have Poincaré's writing right in front of me. > >> Poincare had enough wit to understand >> what a nonsense rejecting Euclidean >> geometry would be and wrote it clearly >> enough for anyone able to read (even >> if not clearly enough for you). > > He didn't write it would be "nonsense", and he was wrong for once, No, poor stinker, he wasn't, you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 13:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <YgOtDd_KGTl6KfjN-trDpfjigeo@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665535 |
Le 20/08/2025 à 15:56, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 8/20/2025 3:51 PM, Python wrote: >> He didn't write it would be "nonsense", and he was wrong for once, > No, poor stinker, he wasn't, > you are. Python is a clown. A buffoon. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 13:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9YubjdwLbqop6L7yDUQdp8P5MHU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665530 |
Le 20/08/2025 à 15:27, Python a écrit :
> Le 20/08/2025 à 15:18, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Le problème n'est pas de savoir si l'équation est bonne ou pas.
>>
>> Le problème, c'est qu'après avoir lu Poincaré, c'est particulièrement
>> crétin.
>
> Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincaré wrote is 100% equivalent to what
> Einstein wrote.
Je me contrefous bien pas mal de ce que ce crétin a écrit, et ce qu'il
fallait écrire, je préfère l'écrire moi-même, car c'est beaucoup
moins con.
Il a l'air fin, à côté de moi, ton guignol avec son équation de
bouffon tB-tA=t'A-tB.
Since the notion of simultaneity is defined by the coincident existence
of all events occurring at the same time, or else is characterized by the
set of all physical phenomena occurring at the same instant, we should be
able, at least by considering all the fixed components located in the same
frame of reference, to speak of "absolute simultaneity," "universal
synchronization," or "common calendar." These terms are likely to acquire
a real physical meaning if we could, without it varying, transpose the
cosmic simultaneity specific to an observer to all the other inertial
observers present in the system.
It would be enough to find any signal, or a particular action at a
distance by which a body A could interact instantaneously with a body B,
or to discover a round-trip signal propagating infinitely quickly between
the two bodies, such that the events "information departure" from A and
"information return" to A are simultaneous, for this notion to be
experimentally proven.
It would then be possible to say that there exists, de facto, between A
and B, a sort of absolute and reciprocal present time that connects these
two bodies,
and that they are intrinsically part of the same hyperplane of
simultaneity.
However, this proof does not exist: no infinitely fast signal or
information at a distance that is instantaneous has ever been found.
Rather, it seems that there exists in the universe an insurmountable speed
limit that will extend, for any frame of reference considered, to all
particles and all the laws of physics.
From this, it will inevitably become apparent that it is physically
impossible to cover any reference point with fixed clocks that are
resolutely synchronized with each other, since they will never be able to
agree on the notion of simultaneity of events that occurred "elsewhere";
and we
can reasonably propose the following postulate:
"Even if they are stationary with each other,
placed in different locations,
different observers,
build different systems of simultaneity."
R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 13:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kB8mnreGu1f7kJuYSJdbKUja-4Y@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665533 |
Le 20/08/2025 à 15:51, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 20/08/2025 à 15:27, Python a écrit : >> Le 20/08/2025 à 15:18, Richard Hachel a écrit : > >>> Le problème n'est pas de savoir si l'équation est bonne ou pas. >>> >>> Le problème, c'est qu'après avoir lu Poincaré, c'est particulièrement >>> crétin. >> >> Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincaré wrote is 100% equivalent to what >> Einstein wrote. > > Je me contrefous bien pas mal de ce que ce crétin Poincré is a cretin now ? > a écrit, et ce qu'il fallait écrire, je préfère l'écrire moi-même, car > c'est beaucoup moins con. > > Il a l'air fin, à côté de moi, ton guignol avec son équation de bouffon > tB-tA=t'A-tB. Richard Hachel wrote (in 2007): > Attends, je rêve, là... > Cela veut dire qu'Einstein trouve que les montres sont synchronisées si elles > battent à la même vitesse? ? ? > C'est ça que tu veux dire? ? ? > Parce que l'équation dite ici dessus, c'est ça. > Mais j'en ai rien à foutre de ça! Je le sais implicitement, ça! N'importe > quel abruti (même Vicnent t'as qu'à voir) le sait implicitement! > Mais c'est PAS DU TOUT mon propos. J'en parle même pas de ça. C'est tellement > évident que je n'en parle pas. Translation : "Wait, am I losing my mind here… Are you telling me Einstein thinks clocks are synchronized just because they tick at the same rate? ? ? Is that what you’re saying? ? ? Because that’s exactly what the equation above is saying. But I couldn’t care less about that! I already take that for granted! Any fool (even Vicnent, for crying out loud) takes that for granted! But that’s absolutely NOT my point. I’m not even talking about that. It’s so obvious it doesn’t even need mentioning." The "equation above" being "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B", "ne riez pas les amis" ! 'nuff said :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 08:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgnsjaFfm6uU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665530 |
Am Mittwoch000020, 20.08.2025 um 15:27 schrieb Python: > Le 20/08/2025 à 15:18, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> Le 20/08/2025 à 10:16, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel: >>>> Le 19/08/2025 à 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>>> Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>>> (tB −tA = t′A − tB) >>>> >>>> This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of >>>> information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given >>>> observer. >>> >>> This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the >>> middle. >>> >>> Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point. >>> >>> It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper. >>> >>> >>> I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write >>> subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA. >>> >>> But otherwise the equation is a correct quote. >>> (I had tripple checked this right now). >>> >>> TH >> >> Le problème n'est pas de savoir si l'équation est bonne ou pas. >> Le problème, c'est qu'après avoir lu Poincaré, c'est particulièrement >> crétin. > > Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincaré wrote is 100% equivalent to > what Einstein wrote. > > Hence the name: "Einstein-Poincaré synchronization method". > > https://noedge.net/e/ > This is actually possible, but wasn't my topic. I have treated Einstein's paper as a 'singular text'. This means, that the text is regarded as if it would be the only paper on the planet. What the author actually had in mind or what he or anybody else wrote or said elsewhere, that was treated as nonexistent. This sounds a little harsh, but actually isn't. It is a simple requirement for any scientific text and means, that a text should be 'self-contained' and should contain everything needed to decipher, what the author had in mind. Such a setting is necessary, if you want to criticize a paper, because otherwise the content of the paper gets undefined. Here was the question, whether Einstein's synchronization method was valid or not. This would require to isolate Einstein's method from any other method, which was used by somebody else (like Poincare in this case). Now Einstein didn't calculate transit time (delay) and had apparently no intention to do that, because his paper doesn't contain even the word 'delay' or any equivalent term. That paper also doesn't contain any calculation of the delay. Therefore, we are entitled to assume, that Einstein didn't want to calculate the delay. Whether Poincare did, that is irrelevant in this context. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web