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 | 11 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 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 22:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <KB3rQ.311$053.260@fx18.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665605 |
Den 25.08.2025 08:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 24.08.2025 08:05, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Am Freitag000022, 22.08.2025 um 19:59 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>> Den 22.08.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>> Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 21:11 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein wrote:
>>>>>> "die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translated to English:
>>>>>> "the “time” required by light to travel from A to B"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is your 'delay' anything different from: "die Zeit, welche
>>>>>> das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In that case, please explain what 'delay' means.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem was, that Einstein equated these transit times (from A
>>>>> to B and from B to A), but didn't take the 'one way delay' into
>>>>> consideration.
>>>>
>>>> You didn't answer the question:
>>>
>>>
>>> sure I did.
>>>
>>> I was missing a statement about the transit delay from A to B.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is your 'one way delay' different from: "die Zeit, welche
>>>> das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" ?
>>>
>>> (the German part means:
>>> the time which light needs to get from A to B)
>>>
>>> Sure, that would have been delay.
>>>
>>> You have given the exact quote about what Einstein had actually
>>> written about this delay.
>>>
>>> But: where is 'delay'?
>>
>> 'delay' is a wrong word used on a transits time.
>>
>> Webster: delay (noun)
>>
>> a: the act of postponing, hindering, or causing something
>> to occur more slowly than normal : the state of being delayed
>>
>> b: an instance of being delayed
>>
>>>
>>> I mean: how long is that time?
>>
>> Good grief!
>> You have been told umpteen time!
>>
>> Einstein:
>> "Es gehe nämlich ein Lichtstrahl zur "A-Zeit" tA von A nach B ab,
>> werde zur "B-Zeit" tB in B gegen A zu reflektiert und gelange zur
>> "A-Zeit" t'A nach A zurück. Die beiden Uhren laufen definitionsgemäß
>> synchron, wenn tB − tA = t′A − tB "
>>
>> Translated to English:
>> "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 are synchronous if tB − tA = t′A − tB "
>>
>> The 'one way delay' from A to B = tB − tA
>
> NO!!
>
> The 'one way delay' is not easy to measure.
>
> You can measure only two way delay at a certain spot ('A' for instance).
>
> This delay would have been - say- 2 seconds for a signal from Earth to
> the Moon and back.
>
> Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is irrelevant
> and also unknown on Earth.
>
> The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is
> actually 'two way delay'.
>
> To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
> extremly large.
>
>> The 'one way delay' from B to A = t′A − tB
>>
>> If tB − tA = t′A − tB, then the two clocks are synchronous
>>
>> If the 'one way delay', measured with the clocks at A and B,
>> is the same in both direction, then the clocks at A and B
>> are synchronous.
>
> Supposed there is a man on the Mood, he could do the same from the
> postion 'B' ('Moon station') and come to a certain value for the delay
> in measures of 'B-time'.
>
> But how could he possibly know, that this value is the same as the value
> measured upon planet Earth?
>
> But supposed he can do that somehow, how would this fact synchronise his
> clock with that on Earth?
>
>> Still not got it?
>
> No, still not...
>
> To me it sounds like nonsense.
>
>>>
>>> It was, of course, easy to calculate and would be
>>>
>>> delay =(t'_A - t_A)/2
>>>
>>> This delay should have been used to correct the apparent time at the
>>> remote clock.
>>
>> Good grief! The 'remote clock' again. Do you never learn?
>>
>> Einstein:
>> "Befindet sich in Punkte A des Raumes eine Uhr, so kann ein in A
>> befindlicher Beobachter die Ereignisse in der unmittelbaren
>> Umgebung von A zeitlich werten durch Aufsuchen der mit diesen
>> Ereignissen gleichseitigen Uhrsteigerstellungen.
>> Befindet sich in Punkte B des Raumes eine Uhr - wir wollen
>> hinzufügen, "eine Uhr von genau derselben Beschaffenheit wie
>> die in A befindliche" - so ist auch eine zeitliche Wertung
>> der Ereignisse in der unmittelbaren Umgebung von B durch
>> einen in B befindlicher Beobachter möglich."
>>
>> Translated to Enlish:
>> "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."
>>
>> There is no "apparent time" at the "remote clock" to correct.
>
>
> If you want to synchronise two different clocks, you need to adjust at
> least one clock to a different value.
>
> In case of a wrist watch you would pull out the crown a little bit and
> turn the hands to a different position.
>
> But what position would you chose and which clock would you like to adjust?
>
> Usually you tend to adjust the remote clock and keep your own clock as
> it is.
>
> The other way round would also be possible, but would be usually much
> less pleasant.
>
> So, you decide to take your own time and adjust the remote clock
> accordingly.
>
> To do this, you need to have a clock and a helper at point B.
>
> The helper needs to have a timing signal, which you need to send to him.
>
> Once the signal arrives at the remote station, the helper turns the
> remote clock to your timing value.
>
> This timing value had therefore be a part of the signal, which you need
> to send to the remote station, hence you need to know, when the signal
> will arrive there in measures of your own clock.
>
>> The observer at B reads the clock at B to show tB.
>> There is nothing "apparent" about tB.
>
> The reading of the observer at position 'B' would not help the observer
> at point A.
>
> If A wants to synchronise the remote clock at 'B' with the own clock,
> the remote time t_B would become irrelevant.
>
> It is unknown, anyhow, if A could not read out the clock at B.
>
> B could read óut his clock, of course. But how could A make use of B's
> knowledge?
>
>>>
>>>
>>> But Einstein didn't do that and made absolutely no attempts to do
>>> that, nor even mentioned the requirement or the word 'delay' itself.
>>
>> 'delay' is not the correct word for travel time or transit time.
>>
>
> Ok, possibly. But actually I think, that delay would fit for 'transit
> time', because a remaote clock seen through an extremly large telescope
> would seem to be too late (by the value called 'delay').
>
> TH
I give up.
You are told the same thing over and over, but either you
don't read it, or you don't understand what you read.
I suspect the latter.
You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem.
(Or maybe a serious comprehension problem.)
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chayne Prokurorov <nhp@ruurkrr.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10856pv$gso6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665527 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>>> 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? > > No, the word 'delay' didn't occur in Einstein's paper. > >> Is this wrong? > > Sure, it should have been mentioned. absolutely, good point, I was almost about to mention it, for the Einstine, a one without proper skills and education, the term delay wasnt into his vocabulary. Even today, it takes long time to realize what a propagation delay is. Here more truth, taught in schools about relativity in europe 𝗡*𝘇𝗶𝘀𝗺_𝗶𝘀_𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲 https://bi%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/OQFHRSKrRhKm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 02:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <V-eQu0sqoDnuMh2F3iDl310ZxHw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665502 |
Le 17/08/2025 à 22:34, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> § 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
Albert Einstein n'a pas compris que la vitesse de la lumière est un
leurre transversal,
et que le déplacement de A à B n'est de 3.10^8m/s que pour un
observateur C indépendant et placé à égale distance de A et de B.
Pour A, la vitesse de fuite de la lumière (de l'information) est de c/2.
Et la vitesse de retour se fait en direct-live.
Pour B, c'est l'inverse (par pure logique physique). Il voit
l'information partir en direct-live, mais le retour de l'information se
produire à c/2.
40 ans que je le dis.
C'est tout bonnement incroyable que personne ne tilte.
Pourtant, un paradoxe incroyable va surgir (le paradoxe de Langevin en
vitesses apparentes), c'est mathématique et indéniable.
Tu ne peux pas voir la terre revenir vers toi avec une vitesse apparente
de 4c (si Vo=0.8c),
et pendant un temps propre de 9 ans, si tu ne prends pas en compte que :
1. "Nous observons notre référentiel en parfait direct-live, même à 50
milliards d'années-lumière"
2. L'élasticité des longueurs et des distances se fait sous le principe
D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
Tout le reste n'est qu'absurdités mathématiques.
Rejeter ces deux choses, c'est cracher sur la simple logique relativiste.
"Vous êtes vraiment des grands malades, les mecs"
Docteur Richard Hachel.
R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 02:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jHslpaugY_1smXU7utEV3gFu7HU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665502 |
Le 17/08/2025 à 22:34, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> § 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
Albert Einstein n'a pas compris que la vitesse de la lumière est un
leurre transversal,
et que le déplacement de A à B n'est de 3.10^8m/s que pour un
observateur C indépendant et placé à égale distance de A et de B.
Pour A, la vitesse de fuite de la lumière (de l'information) est de c/2.
Et la vitesse de retour se fait en direct-live.
Pour B, c'est l'inverse (par pure logique physique). Il voit
l'information partir de A en direct-live, mais le retour de l'information
vers A se produire à c/2.
40 ans que je le dis.
C'est tout bonnement incroyable que personne ne tilte.
Pourtant, un paradoxe incroyable va surgir (le paradoxe de Langevin en
vitesses apparentes), c'est mathématique et indéniable.
Tu ne peux pas voir la terre revenir vers toi avec une vitesse apparente
de 4c (si Vo=0.8c),
et pendant un temps propre de 9 ans, si tu ne prends pas en compte que :
1. "Nous observons notre référentiel en parfait direct-live, même à 50
milliards d'années-lumière"
2. L'élasticité des longueurs et des distances se fait sous le principe
D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
Tout le reste n'est qu'absurdités mathématiques.
Rejeter ces deux choses, c'est cracher sur la simple logique relativiste.
"Vous êtes vraiment des grands malades, les mecs"
Docteur Richard Hachel.
R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-30 19:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mev2l8F5fdU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665319 |
Am Dienstag000029, 29.07.2025 um 22:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take >> the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to transfer >> a signal. >> >> >> E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out by >> a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early. > > You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on > the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly > constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee, > and the observer at Earth and the observer on the Moon are > where they will see the other body at zenith. > > The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because > the clocks are at different gravitational potential. > But let's ignore this problem for now. > > --------------------- > > We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer > at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they > can communicate with each other. > > We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any > way, but they are using the same time unit second. > The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI. > > At point A the observer has the following instruments: > Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser. > The computer can register the time shown by C_A when > the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers > a laser pulse from the Moon. > > At point B the observer has the following instruments: > Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer. > The computer can register the time shown by C_B when > the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth. > > Now the observer at A fires the laser. > At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds. > > When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B, > Clock C_B shows tx seconds. > > Some time later the light detector at A registers > the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B. > At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds. > > Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer > and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was > sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received. > > The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein: > "The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB." > > So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown > tB = (tA + t'A)/2 > > But since it showed tx, he must add the correction: > δ = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx > > So when he corrects the clock C_B with δ seconds, > it will be in synch with clock C_A. > > Do you miss a delay in the above? > No, but in Einstein's paper. Actually I can almost sing 'On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies' and can assure you, that 'transit delay' or anything similar was neither calculated, measured or even mentioned. Einstein seemingly assumed, that the actual reading of the remote clock would be the remote time. To eleminate this error, you would need to 'ping' the remote station, measure the delay for a round trip, cut that in half (supposed the remote station is in relative rest) and add this value to your own time. Then you need to encode the own time plus delay into a signal and send that to the remote station. The remote station would need to decode the signal, extract the time value and adjust the own clockks according to that value. But Einstein didn't say anything like that. This problem was simply missing entirely in his paper. The main point is this: a 'clock' can also be a device, which has no hands and shows time values by electronic means. To this value you need to add the delay. These values need to be encoded somehow into a carrier signal. The encoded signal needs to be sent to the remote station, where someone decodes it. The sending station needs to know the delay in advance, hence had to measure it by measuring some sort of reflected message. This is equvalent to a 'ping' on the internet, but can be any kind of mechanism. If you don't do that, your process of synchronization is wrong. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-31 21:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <106ghue$985$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665323 |
Den 30.07.2025 19:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Dienstag000029, 29.07.2025 um 22:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>> Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>> Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take
>>> the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to
>>> transfer a signal.
>>>
>>>
>>> E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out
>>> by a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
>>
>> You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
>> the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
>> constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
>> and the observer at Earth and the observer on the Moon are
>> where they will see the other body at zenith.
>>
>> The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
>> the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
>> But let's ignore this problem for now.
>>
>> ---------------------
Read this again when you have read my response below:
>>
>> We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
>> at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they
>> can communicate with each other.
>>
>> We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
>> way, but they are using the same time unit second.
>> The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
>>
>> At point A the observer has the following instruments:
>> Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser.
>> The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
>> the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers
>> a laser pulse from the Moon.
>>
>> At point B the observer has the following instruments:
>> Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
>> The computer can register the time shown by C_B when
>> the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth.
>>
>> Now the observer at A fires the laser.
>> At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds.
>>
>> When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B,
>> Clock C_B shows tx seconds.
>>
>> Some time later the light detector at A registers
>> the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B.
>> At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds.
>>
>> Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer
>> and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was
>> sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received.
>>
>> The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein:
>> "The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB."
>>
>> So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown
>> tB = (tA + t'A)/2
>>
>> But since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
>> δ = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
>>
>> So when he corrects the clock C_B with δ seconds,
>> it will be in synch with clock C_A.
>>
>> Do you miss a delay in the above?
>>
>
> No, but in Einstein's paper.
>
> Actually I can almost sing 'On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies' and
> can assure you, that 'transit delay' or anything similar was neither
> calculated, measured or even mentioned.
Quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
"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."
"the time required by light to travel from A to B" _is_
the 'transit delay' you say is never mentioned.
Another quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = t′A − tB."
If the clocks synchronise, then the transit delay for
the pulse is tB − tA = t′A − tB.
The transit delay is _measured_!
So the transit delay is calculated, measured and mentioned.
How did you manage to miss that?
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem!
>
> Einstein seemingly assumed, that the actual reading of the remote clock
> would be the remote time.
??? Is the clock at B the "remote clock"?
Do you mean that the actual reading of the clock at B
is _not_ the time showed by clock B?
Or what do you mean?
>
> To eleminate this error, you would need to 'ping' the remote station,
> measure the delay for a round trip, cut that in half (supposed the
> remote station is in relative rest) and add this value to your own time.
There is no error to correct.
>
> Then you need to encode the own time plus delay into a signal and send
> that to the remote station.
Good Grief! :-D
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when the light pulse
is sent. He reads the clock at A!
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when the light pulse
is reflected. He reads the clock at B!
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when he receives
the reflected light pulse. He reads the clock at A!
These are all the measurements that are done.
Only local clocks are read.
There is no "reading of the remote clock"!
The observer at A has _measured_ the transit delay.
It is (t'A-tA)/2 ! How did you manage to miss that?
To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have
to communicate. They can do it by shouting, send it by snail mail,
E-post, a mobile phone or whatever.
And there is not necessary to encrypt anything!
If they find that their clocks are not synchronous, the clock
at B can be corrected as I explained above,
>
> The remote station would need to decode the signal, extract the time
> value and adjust the own clockks according to that value.
>
> But Einstein didn't say anything like that.
Quite. Einstein wasn't stupid!
Now you can read my previous post quoted above again.
But with your serious reading comprehension problem,
you will probably not understand it.
>
> This problem was simply missing entirely in his paper.
Right. All your problems are missing.
There is no problem in his paper.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-01 16:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zhze6YCMDdCuNf5Z8YjawIpRJSc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665339 |
Le 31/07/2025 à 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 30.07.2025 19:25, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Dienstag000029, 29.07.2025 um 22:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>> Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take >>>> the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to >>>> transfer a signal. >>>> >>>> >>>> E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out >>>> by a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early. >>> >>> You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on >>> the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly >>> constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee, >>> and the observer at Earth and the observer on the Moon are >>> where they will see the other body at zenith. >>> >>> The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because >>> the clocks are at different gravitational potential. >>> But let's ignore this problem for now. >>> >>> --------------------- > > Read this again when you have read my response below: > >>> >>> We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer >>> at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they >>> can communicate with each other. >>> >>> We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any >>> way, but they are using the same time unit second. >>> The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI. >>> >>> At point A the observer has the following instruments: >>> Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser. >>> The computer can register the time shown by C_A when >>> the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers >>> a laser pulse from the Moon. >>> >>> At point B the observer has the following instruments: >>> Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer. >>> The computer can register the time shown by C_B when >>> the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth. >>> >>> Now the observer at A fires the laser. >>> At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds. >>> >>> When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B, >>> Clock C_B shows tx seconds. >>> >>> Some time later the light detector at A registers >>> the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B. >>> At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds. >>> >>> Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer >>> and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was >>> sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received. >>> >>> The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein: >>> "The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB." >>> >>> So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown >>> tB = (tA + t'A)/2 >>> >>> But since it showed tx, he must add the correction: >>> δ = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx >>> >>> So when he corrects the clock C_B with δ seconds, >>> it will be in synch with clock C_A. >>> >>> Do you miss a delay in the above? >>> >> >> No, but in Einstein's paper. >> >> Actually I can almost sing 'On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies' and >> can assure you, that 'transit delay' or anything similar was neither >> calculated, measured or even mentioned. > > Quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity: > "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." > > "the time required by light to travel from A to B" _is_ > the 'transit delay' you say is never mentioned. > > Another quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity: > "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if > tB − tA = t′A − tB." > > If the clocks synchronise, then the transit delay for > the pulse is tB − tA = t′A − tB. > > The transit delay is _measured_! > > So the transit delay is calculated, measured and mentioned. > > How did you manage to miss that? > You must have a serious reading comprehension problem! > >> >> Einstein seemingly assumed, that the actual reading of the remote clock >> would be the remote time. > > ? ? ? Is the clock at B the "remote clock"? > > Do you mean that the actual reading of the clock at B > is _not_ the time showed by clock B? > > Or what do you mean? > >> >> To eleminate this error, you would need to 'ping' the remote station, >> measure the delay for a round trip, cut that in half (supposed the >> remote station is in relative rest) and add this value to your own time. > > There is no error to correct. > >> >> Then you need to encode the own time plus delay into a signal and send >> that to the remote station. > > Good Grief! :-D > > > 1. The observer at A reads the time tA when the light pulse > is sent. He reads the clock at A! > > 2. The observer at B reads the time tB when the light pulse > is reflected. He reads the clock at B! > > 3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when he receives > the reflected light pulse. He reads the clock at A! > > These are all the measurements that are done. > Only local clocks are read. > There is no "reading of the remote clock"! > > The observer at A has _measured_ the transit delay. > It is (t'A-tA)/2 ! How did you manage to miss that? > > To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have > to communicate. They can do it by shouting, send it by snail mail, > E-post, a mobile phone or whatever. > And there is not necessary to encrypt anything! > > If they find that their clocks are not synchronous, the clock > at B can be corrected as I explained above, > > > >> >> The remote station would need to decode the signal, extract the time >> value and adjust the own clockks according to that value. >> >> But Einstein didn't say anything like that. > > Quite. Einstein wasn't stupid! > > Now you can read my previous post quoted above again. > > But with your serious reading comprehension problem, > you will probably not understand it. > >> >> This problem was simply missing entirely in his paper. > > Right. All your problems are missing. > > There is no problem in his paper. Moreover Thomas could see this procedure in action at https://noedge.ne/e/ He could even check the source code and see Einstein's very equation are used to compute the delay to be applied to any of both clocks or both. Replaying the synchronisation checking procedure allow te see how it is reflexive and symmetric. I may add more clocks to illustrate that the procedure is transitive. Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-01 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gcrbwA8oMMx4phxI6jbRt7OA94g@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665348 |
Le 01/08/2025 à 18:50, Python a écrit : > Le 31/07/2025 à 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 30.07.2025 19:25, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Dienstag000029, 29.07.2025 um 22:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>>> Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> >>>>> Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take >>>>> the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to >>>>> transfer a signal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out >>>>> by a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early. >>>> >>>> You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on >>>> the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly >>>> constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee, >>>> and the observer at Earth and the observer on the Moon are >>>> where they will see the other body at zenith. >>>> >>>> The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because >>>> the clocks are at different gravitational potential. >>>> But let's ignore this problem for now. >>>> >>>> --------------------- >> >> Read this again when you have read my response below: >> >>>> >>>> We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer >>>> at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they >>>> can communicate with each other. >>>> >>>> We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any >>>> way, but they are using the same time unit second. >>>> The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI. >>>> >>>> At point A the observer has the following instruments: >>>> Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser. >>>> The computer can register the time shown by C_A when >>>> the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers >>>> a laser pulse from the Moon. >>>> >>>> At point B the observer has the following instruments: >>>> Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer. >>>> The computer can register the time shown by C_B when >>>> the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth. >>>> >>>> Now the observer at A fires the laser. >>>> At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds. >>>> >>>> When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B, >>>> Clock C_B shows tx seconds. >>>> >>>> Some time later the light detector at A registers >>>> the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B. >>>> At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds. >>>> >>>> Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer >>>> and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was >>>> sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received. >>>> >>>> The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein: >>>> "The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB." >>>> >>>> So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown >>>> tB = (tA + t'A)/2 >>>> >>>> But since it showed tx, he must add the correction: >>>> δ = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx >>>> >>>> So when he corrects the clock C_B with δ seconds, >>>> it will be in synch with clock C_A. >>>> >>>> Do you miss a delay in the above? >>>> >>> >>> No, but in Einstein's paper. >>> >>> Actually I can almost sing 'On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies' and >>> can assure you, that 'transit delay' or anything similar was neither >>> calculated, measured or even mentioned. >> >> Quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity: >> "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." >> >> "the time required by light to travel from A to B" _is_ >> the 'transit delay' you say is never mentioned. >> >> Another quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity: >> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >> tB − tA = t′A − tB." >> >> If the clocks synchronise, then the transit delay for >> the pulse is tB − tA = t′A − tB. >> >> The transit delay is _measured_! >> >> So the transit delay is calculated, measured and mentioned. >> >> How did you manage to miss that? >> You must have a serious reading comprehension problem! >> >>> >>> Einstein seemingly assumed, that the actual reading of the remote clock >>> would be the remote time. >> >> ? ? ? Is the clock at B the "remote clock"? >> >> Do you mean that the actual reading of the clock at B >> is _not_ the time showed by clock B? >> >> Or what do you mean? >> >>> >>> To eleminate this error, you would need to 'ping' the remote station, >>> measure the delay for a round trip, cut that in half (supposed the >>> remote station is in relative rest) and add this value to your own time. >> >> There is no error to correct. >> >>> >>> Then you need to encode the own time plus delay into a signal and send >>> that to the remote station. >> >> Good Grief! :-D >> >> >> 1. The observer at A reads the time tA when the light pulse >> is sent. He reads the clock at A! >> >> 2. The observer at B reads the time tB when the light pulse >> is reflected. He reads the clock at B! >> >> 3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when he receives >> the reflected light pulse. He reads the clock at A! >> >> These are all the measurements that are done. >> Only local clocks are read. >> There is no "reading of the remote clock"! >> >> The observer at A has _measured_ the transit delay. >> It is (t'A-tA)/2 ! How did you manage to miss that? >> >> To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have >> to communicate. They can do it by shouting, send it by snail mail, >> E-post, a mobile phone or whatever. >> And there is not necessary to encrypt anything! >> >> If they find that their clocks are not synchronous, the clock >> at B can be corrected as I explained above, >> >> >> >>> >>> The remote station would need to decode the signal, extract the time >>> value and adjust the own clockks according to that value. >>> >>> But Einstein didn't say anything like that. >> >> Quite. Einstein wasn't stupid! >> >> Now you can read my previous post quoted above again. >> >> But with your serious reading comprehension problem, >> you will probably not understand it. >> >>> >>> This problem was simply missing entirely in his paper. >> >> Right. All your problems are missing. >> >> There is no problem in his paper. > > Moreover Thomas could see this procedure in action at https://noedge.ne/e/ https://noedge.net/e/ > He could even check the source code and see Einstein's very equation are used to > compute the delay to be applied to any of both clocks or both. > > Replaying the synchronisation checking procedure allow te see how it is > reflexive and symmetric. > > I may add more clocks to illustrate that the procedure is transitive. > > Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-01 19:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e0ledUld-7afqygj3d0t_9l8fPM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665348 |
Le 01/08/2025 à 18:50, Python a écrit : > Le 31/07/2025 à 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw.. :)) R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-01 19:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <TPCUeXTX2G9RSsFTJz1ksVCK0Yk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665350 |
Le 01/08/2025 à 21:25, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 01/08/2025 à 18:50, Python a écrit : >> Le 31/07/2025 à 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > >> Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw.. > > :)) > > R.H. Either you like it or it is the case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-01 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hErhDiikBTn6zXF0r_c7-HBxjPI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665350 |
Le 01/08/2025 à 21:25, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 01/08/2025 à 18:50, Python a écrit : >> Le 31/07/2025 à 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > >> Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw.. > > :)) > > R.H. Youu like it or not it is the case.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web