Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #567555 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-11-22 22:25 +0000 |
| Last post | 2021-12-01 16:03 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 115 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-22 22:25 +0000
Re: Watch problem robby <me@pla.net.invalid> - 2021-11-23 08:15 +0100
Re: Watch problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-11-23 08:18 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 00:57 -0800
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 13:09 +0000
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 05:37 -0800
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-23 20:39 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-11-24 01:44 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-24 12:25 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-24 17:24 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-25 13:46 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-25 14:09 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-25 16:19 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-25 19:52 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 02:20 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-26 14:24 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 14:37 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-26 18:18 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 19:34 +0000
Re: Watch problem rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 11:45 -0800
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-26 21:32 +0000
Re: Watch problem rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 14:02 -0800
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-28 20:49 +0000
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-28 20:47 +0000
Re: Watch problem "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2021-11-28 10:03 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-28 14:06 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 14:13 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-28 14:49 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 15:11 +0000
Re: Watch problem rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 06:13 -0800
Re: Watch problem Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-28 10:53 -0500
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 16:32 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-01 15:57 +0000
Re: Watch problem Harif Kuloo <bbcs@uioas.ar> - 2021-12-02 19:42 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-28 19:13 +0000
Re: Watch problem Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-28 20:49 -0500
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-29 13:53 +0000
Re: Watch problem Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-29 11:06 -0500
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-29 17:14 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-29 16:52 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-29 17:08 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-11-30 00:10 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-30 13:04 +0000
Re: Watch problem Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-30 10:33 -0500
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-30 16:41 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 16:51 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-30 18:08 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 18:44 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-30 18:55 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 19:30 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-11-30 23:00 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 23:12 -0800
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-01 16:13 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-01 15:29 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-25 14:47 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-25 16:19 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-25 19:56 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-11-25 21:02 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-25 20:52 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 02:20 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-11-25 07:49 +0100
Re: Watch problem Nabor Nave <er@cwe.re> - 2021-11-27 18:22 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-11-28 07:45 +0100
Re: Watch problem rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 06:04 -0800
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-28 20:01 +0000
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-28 20:15 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-11-29 08:24 +0100
Re: Watch problem rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2021-11-29 06:24 -0800
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-29 23:03 +0000
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-29 23:13 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-11-30 00:18 +0100
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-29 23:27 +0000
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-29 23:23 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-01 09:23 +0100
Re: Watch problem Justo Lugo <rety@cvb.rt> - 2021-12-01 10:47 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-02 07:53 +0100
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-12-02 10:06 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-02 04:04 -0800
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-03 09:23 +0100
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-03 09:47 +0100
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-12-03 10:47 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-03 02:11 -0800
Re: Watch problem Harif Kuloo <bbcs@uioas.ar> - 2021-12-03 12:12 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-04 16:21 +0000
Re: Watch problem Harif Kuloo <bbcs@uioas.ar> - 2021-12-03 12:02 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-04 07:42 +0100
Re: Watch problem Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-04 02:30 -0500
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-04 01:15 -0800
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-12-04 14:29 +0100
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-05 21:38 +0100
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-04 16:58 +0000
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-04 11:29 -0800
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-12-04 20:06 +0100
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-05 20:47 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-04 16:41 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-04 16:51 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-12-05 13:21 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-05 13:08 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@example.invalid> - 2021-12-07 16:42 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-07 07:51 -0800
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-07 16:47 +0000
Re: Watch problem Reese Page <uteb@dlwcrt.ca> - 2021-12-07 16:53 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-12-08 03:20 +0100
Re: Watch problem Reese Page <uteb@dlwcrt.ca> - 2021-12-08 20:39 +0000
Re: Watch problem Reese Page <uteb@dlwcrt.ca> - 2021-12-07 16:48 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-12-08 03:22 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-07 22:38 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@example.invalid> - 2021-12-07 23:56 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 07:06 -0800
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-08 08:53 +0100
Re: Watch problem Python <python@example.invalid> - 2021-12-08 12:56 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-08 04:35 -0800
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-08 13:47 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-10 06:49 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-01 16:03 +0000
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-25 07:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j08pvfFf51hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #567578 |
Am 23.11.2021 um 14:09 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote: >> In relativity, you always have to be extremely precise in the words and >> terms you use. >> It is not always easy. >> For example, when we say: "When the origins O and O 'coincide, the watches >> are triggered". >> As Inspector Columbo would say: "Yes, sir, I'm not contradicting, sir, we >> trigger the watches. But WHAT watches?" >> A smart kid will immediately throw himself to the ground, giggling. >> And he will say: "But the watches of the two origins O and O ', it is >> obvious". >> And Columbo, because it is Columbo will respond. "No, sir, it can't be >> those watches. It's obviously not the ones that we set off." >> And against all, he is right. >> It is necessarily not those that we trigger. >> I love this guy. >> >> R.H. >> > > Knowing full well that you are off your rocker, we are talking about > synchronizing a watch near O that is at rest in S, with another watch near > O’ that is at rest in S’. The only opportunity to do that is when O and O’ > coincide, putting these watches very near each other. > > It is also then necessary to apply a synchronization procedure for the > clock near O and all the other clocks at rest in S, as well as for the > clock near O’ and all the other clocks at rest in S’. That is a different > synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but > though different it is not complicated. We could think about two clocks only, which are located at the center of their coordinate system. The relative velocity v is zero for comoving clocks in the own coordinate system and have v>0 in a moving system. The synchronisation procedure for the own system would be, to measure the delay, which is caused by the distance, which the synchronisation signal needs to reach the remote clock. The 'master clock' at point 0 would subtract the delay, hence the remote clocks receives the synch-signal at the intended time. For the control-reading of the remote clock by the master clock, the delay needed to be added to the received time-code. For a moving system we would need to compensate the Doppler effect, too. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nabor Nave <er@cwe.re> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-27 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sntt20$bm8$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567706 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but >> though different it is not complicated. > > We could think about two clocks only, which are located at the center of > their coordinate system. coordinate systems has no centers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 07:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j0gmrrFbhdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #567963 |
Am 27.11.2021 um 19:22 schrieb Nabor Nave: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> synch procedure because these clocks are all spatially separated, but >>> though different it is not complicated. >> >> We could think about two clocks only, which are located at the center of >> their coordinate system. > > coordinate systems has no centers. > Well...in a way... I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance. I call this point 'center', even if this point could be relocated and another point can be regarded as 'center'. The zero-spot is the point, from where the position vectors of the other points start. I think, the position of the observer is a good choice for the zero spot, because then the zero spot could be called 'observer'. This is an arbitrary setting, but the one which I usually chose. The idea behind this setting is, that if the observer is located at the zero spot, then all position vectors start at him. This is a good setting, because then the term 'space' (of all the other endpoints of all possible 'sight-vectors') coincides with what is called 'past-light-cone'. Now we usually call that 'sight-space' 'universe', even if it is only the space of the events, the observer could possibly see. We only need to think, that also position vectors operate like light rays and do not connect with infinete velocity, but with c. This view is different to the Euclidean space, where vectors are timeless, hence connect with infinite pace. The disadvantage of Euclidean space: we cannot see with infinite speed, hence the content of Euclidean space is invisible. Therefore we usually call the own past-light-cone 'space' and our own position 'observer'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 06:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cb2cb8e0-7c89-46e3-a77a-12a09ec2ee04n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568035 |
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 1:45:18 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 27.11.2021 um 19:22 schrieb Nabor Nave: > > coordinate systems has no centers. > > > Well...in a way... > > I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance. It knows that, so why did you reply to it? Didn't you notice? You replied to the nym Shifting troll. It will say anything to get you, and it got you. You fell for it. Just reported spam. And don't fall for it again. It's so obvious when it is the troll. You should have noticed it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 20:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <so0n7d$1js3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568046 |
rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 1:45:18 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 27.11.2021 um 19:22 schrieb Nabor Nave: > >> > coordinate systems has no centers. >> > >> Well...in a way... >> I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance. > > It knows that, so why did you reply to it? > Didn't you notice? You replied to the nym Shifting troll. > It will say anything to get you, and it got you. You fell for it. He admits making mistake you inbreed cretin. That's origo, not center. There are no centers in coordinate systems, you stupid bag of rocks. Go report yourself, you gave google your phone number, how can you be this stupid? Also, this group is not moderated, and Hager will shit a big one in your mouth and the mouth of your stinking mother.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-28 20:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <so0o0u$1js3$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568035 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> coordinate systems has no centers. >> > Well...in a way... > I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance. that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-29 08:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j0jdgrFg3p2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #568092 |
Am 28.11.2021 um 21:15 schrieb Chason Aceta: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> coordinate systems has no centers. >>> >> Well...in a way... >> I meant the point (zero, zero, zero), for instance. > > that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff. > I'm actually German and English is a second language for me. Therefore I use eventually wrong words or words with wrong meanings. The term 'center' I use for 'the central point of something'. Possibly this is not correct, but I meant actually that. This central point gets the coordinates (0, 0, 0) in a 3-dimensional non-Euclidean space, which we usually call 'Universe'. This IS actually the center of the own 'space of observations', because all rays seen arrive actually there. This 3D-space has no real center, because the observer could be moved to any desired location and watch the universe from there, but the space of observations obviously has. This point is the point 'here and now', which therefore gets the four-vector (0,0,0,0) (coordinates meant as relative to the observer). This point is the center of the co-moving coordinate system, which the observer usually uses. The real universe (which is mainly not visible) has no center and no zero spot. The real universe is infinite in space and time, because it undergoes a process, where it 'folds inside out'. The observer experiences this as space and time, just by being somewhere. That spot 'somewhere' serves then as center of the universe, which is special for the observer in question. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-29 06:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bb3952fb-ae7b-44b8-83d8-24e6f4279e56n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568143 |
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:24:15 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 28.11.2021 um 21:15 schrieb Chason Aceta: > > that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff. > > > I'm actually German and English is a second language for me. > > Therefore I use eventually wrong words or words with wrong meanings. Why did you refer respond to the troll? Didn't you notice his sole purpose was to make fun of you, and you fell for it? Try harder to notice Such trivial things. Learn a little respect by not responding to the trolls. Else you are just contributing to their mischief. What you should do, is to report them, report them as spam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-29 23:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <so3m8d$1sm5$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568151 |
rotchm wrote: > On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:24:15 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 28.11.2021 um 21:15 schrieb Chason Aceta: > >> > that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff. >> > >> I'm actually German and English is a second language for me. >> >> Therefore I use eventually wrong words or words with wrong meanings. > > Why did you refer respond to the troll? > Didn't you notice his sole purpose was to make fun of you, and you fell > for it? Heger is a doctor, compared to you, you stupid basics uneducated imbecile, not even knowing elementary stuff. There are no centers in coordinate systems, you shit eater. lol
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-29 23:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <so3mqv$1sm5$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568151 |
rotchm wrote: here is how to report the crap coming from this stupid spammer: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Message-ID: <bb3952fb-ae7b-44b8-83d8-24e6f4279e56n@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Watch problem From: rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:24:18 +0000 User-Agent: G2/1.0 Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 06:24:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <j0jdgrFg3p2U1@mid.individual.net> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=184.160.32.227; posting-account=BHsbrQoAAAANJj6HqXJ987nOEDAC1EsJ NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.160.32.227 References: <R9GjEL1FIXnAIviXPOpB5G1yt-U@jntp>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-30 00:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <61a55fa9$0$1365$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #568177 |
Nym-shifting troll, aka Chason Aceta schwrote: > rotchm wrote: > > here is how to report the crap coming from this stupid spammer: > From: Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> > Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity > Subject: Re: Watch problem > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 23:13:35 -0000 (UTC) > Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server > Message-ID: <so3mqv$1sm5$4@gioia.aioe.org> > References: <R9GjEL1FIXnAIviXPOpB5G1yt-U@jntp> <snip5d$1mo7$1@gioia.aioe.org> > <j08pvfFf51hU1@mid.individual.net> <sntt20$bm8$4@gioia.aioe.org> > <j0gmrrFbhdU1@mid.individual.net> <so0o0u$1js3$3@gioia.aioe.org> > <j0jdgrFg3p2U1@mid.individual.net> > <bb3952fb-ae7b-44b8-83d8-24e6f4279e56n@googlegroups.com> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="62149"; posting-host="sHOXf7EwUFqQynFIiR4AXg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org"; > User-Agent: Microsoft Windows Live Mail/14.0.8117.416 (MSIE 8; Windows NT 5.1; > Trident/4.0; GTB7.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR > 3.5.30729; TmstmpExt) > X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 Right!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-29 23:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <so3nlh$1sm5$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568179 |
Python wrote: > Chason Aceta schwrote: >> rotchm wrote: >> >> here is how to report the crap coming from this stupid spammer: > > Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Message-ID: > <bb3952fb-ae7b-44b8-83d8-24e6f4279e56n@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: Watch problem From: rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> > Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:24:18 +0000 User-Agent: G2/1.0 > Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 06:24:17 -0800 > (PST) > In-Reply-To: <j0jdgrFg3p2U1@mid.individual.net> > Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; > posting-host=184.160.32.227; > posting-account=BHsbrQoAAAANJj6HqXJ987nOEDAC1EsJ NNTP-Posting-Host: > 184.160.32.227 References: <R9GjEL1FIXnAIviXPOpB5G1yt-U@jntp> > > Right! eat shit you stupid incompetent troll spammer. Uneducated frogs are sticking together as I can see. Disgusting sacks of subhuman excrement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-29 23:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <so3nco$1std$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568143 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff. >> >> > I'm actually German and English is a second language for me. > > Therefore I use eventually wrong words or words with wrong meanings. The > term 'center' I use for 'the central point of something'. > > Possibly this is not correct, but I meant actually that. > > This central point gets the coordinates (0, 0, 0) in a 3-dimensional > non-Euclidean space, which we usually call 'Universe'. what's the "center" when you have an angle driven coordinate system? And the universe is 4D not 3. And your (0,0,0) is arbitrary, hence not fixed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-01 09:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j0opnfFh4hvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #568180 |
Am 30.11.2021 um 00:23 schrieb Chason Aceta: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> that's origo or origin, not center. Kindergarten stuff. >>> >>> >> I'm actually German and English is a second language for me. >> >> Therefore I use eventually wrong words or words with wrong meanings. The >> term 'center' I use for 'the central point of something'. >> >> Possibly this is not correct, but I meant actually that. >> >> This central point gets the coordinates (0, 0, 0) in a 3-dimensional >> non-Euclidean space, which we usually call 'Universe'. > > what's the "center" when you have an angle driven coordinate system? And > the universe is 4D not 3. And your (0,0,0) is arbitrary, hence not fixed. > The zero point of the co-moving 3d space are actually we ourselves. The world we see is an internal representation of the outer world, which is based on a certain spot within our brain. So lets call that hypothetical spot 'observer' and what we see with our eyes 'universe'. Then we have a valid model of the process of seeing and of what is seen. This 'universe' is, of course, not universal, but an subjective image, that only represents the outer world. Only, we humans are so used to use this method, that we usually forget, that an internal representaion of the world is not the world, but an image. Now I extend this and say, that we do that all the time and everybody does that, hence the collective representation of the vision of the outer world is called 'the real universe'. But, in fact, this also only a subjective representaion of the outer world, too, but by a larger set of individuals (humanity), which call themselves 'I' as a collective. So, what is the 'real universe' than???? My solution: I don't know and take the subjective vision as real, because for now I (we) have no other means. I call this 'subjectivism' and use it as kind of 'backdrop' for my own 'theory': https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Justo Lugo <rety@cvb.rt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-01 10:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <so7jro$k1q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568288 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> what's the "center" when you have an angle driven coordinate system? >> And the universe is 4D not 3. And your (0,0,0) is arbitrary, hence not >> fixed. > > The zero point of the co-moving 3d space are actually we ourselves. > The world we see is an internal representation of the outer world, which > is based on a certain spot within our brain. > So lets call that hypothetical spot 'observer' and what we see with our > eyes 'universe'. this is wrong even more. What's the distance between an arbitrary coordinate system and "you", in millimetres? > Then we have a valid model of the process of seeing and of what is > seen. This 'universe' is, of course, not universal, but an subjective > image, that only represents the outer world. > Only, we humans are so used to use this method, that we usually forget, > that an internal representaion of the world is not the world, but an > image. wrong even more. Think! > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/ 1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing wasting your time. Better just focus on Einstine. He was wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-02 07:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j0r8rsF14nnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #568291 |
Am 01.12.2021 um 11:47 schrieb Justo Lugo: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> what's the "center" when you have an angle driven coordinate system? >>> And the universe is 4D not 3. And your (0,0,0) is arbitrary, hence not >>> fixed. >> >> The zero point of the co-moving 3d space are actually we ourselves. >> The world we see is an internal representation of the outer world, which >> is based on a certain spot within our brain. >> So lets call that hypothetical spot 'observer' and what we see with our >> eyes 'universe'. > > this is wrong even more. What's the distance between an arbitrary > coordinate system and "you", in millimetres? I relocate the coordinate system in question, that its center coincides with the observer. An arbitrary coordinate system could have any conceivable distance to that, depending on your decision. Because the location of an inertial FoR can be be chosen, I always chose it that way, where its zero spot coincides with the observer. This is only one of many possible ways, but has advantages. >> Then we have a valid model of the process of seeing and of what is >> seen. This 'universe' is, of course, not universal, but an subjective >> image, that only represents the outer world. >> Only, we humans are so used to use this method, that we usually forget, >> that an internal representaion of the world is not the world, but an >> image. > > wrong even more. Think! We look into the past if we look into the sky. The stars we see do not exist any more in many cases. Therefore, seeing has a time-depency, while Euclidean space has not. That's why the space we see and call 'universy' is actually non Euclidean. It is also not universal, but the image the observer has from the world. This image is actually not real for a number of reasons. One reason is, that the things seen are not, where they are seen. (Some stars seen do not exist at all anymore.) The other main reason is, that we cannot see the world directly, but have only an internal representation of the outside world in our brain. >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/ > 1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > wasting your time. Better just focus on Einstine. He was wrong. Einstein defined 'now' in a different way than me. I would use a hypothetical signal with infinite speed. Then I needed to use light, which is significantly slower, hence had to measure the delay for the signal in transit and add the result to the received time-codes. Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading of a remote clock as time at that remote location. I also disliked his description of induction, because he used a conductor instead of a loop of wire. Another set of errors was related to the symbol x'. He also wrote no quotes or references at all. His system of variable names was at best 'strange'. I have written about 420 annotations, from which most mean errors. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-02 10:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <61a88c60$0$29473$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #568347 |
Thomas Heger wrote: ... > Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading of > a remote clock as time at that remote location. This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light propagation time. As a matter of fact what you pretend (wrongly) about Einstein's method is exactly what Richard (Lengrand) Hachel claim as the only correct method (this is wrong too btw).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-02 04:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <688c64ce-cb24-4a13-ab26-6fa123e27b34n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568352 |
On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 10:05:39 UTC+1, Python wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: > ... > > Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading of > > a remote clock as time at that remote location. > This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times > Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light > propagation time. > > As a matter of fact what you pretend (wrongly) about Einstein's method > is exactly what Richard (Lengrand) Hachel claim as the only correct > method (this is wrong too btw). In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-03 09:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j0u2gnFhg69U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #568352 |
Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python: > Thomas Heger wrote: > ... >> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading >> of a remote clock as time at that remote location. > > This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times > Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light > propagation time. Sure, that is correct. But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the remote clock. I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find any hint. Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want. TH > As a matter of fact what you pretend (wrongly) about Einstein's method > is exactly what Richard (Lengrand) Hachel claim as the only correct > method (this is wrong too btw). > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-03 09:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j0u3ttFho17U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #568463 |
Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger: > Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >> ... >>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading >>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location. >> >> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times >> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light >> propagation time. > > Sure, that is correct. > > But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the > remote clock. > > > I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention > to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find > any hint. > > Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want. > let me try to explain this statement: I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury. That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs, which commonly communicate with us. This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition. The clock is now able to sent coded signals, which we can receive. The signals contain also the current time at that location (as measured by our clock there). The remote time is called t_B and the local time is called t_A. So: a signal from there would reach us with a delay of three years. Which was the assumption of Einstein about t_B, if the signal contains the time t_A - 3years ? He should have added 3 years, of course, but apparently didn't. If he had actually calculated this delay and added it to the remote reading, than I could, at least, not find his calculation. Would you be so kind and tell me, where that calculation can be found? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web