Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #665208 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-07-22 12:33 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-08-01 19:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 211 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-22 12:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-22 15:08 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-22 18:17 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-22 17:56 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-22 21:11 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-22 19:53 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-23 09:01 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-23 11:28 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-07-22 16:41 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Victo Balahovsky <ihio@tiv.ru> - 2025-07-22 18:50 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-29 09:48 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-29 22:02 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-30 07:08 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-02 12:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 13:52 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 12:01 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 14:17 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 12:36 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 17:26 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 17:14 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 19:29 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 18:28 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 21:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Herman Katsushika <shek@unrkaas.jp> - 2025-08-02 22:13 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-06 22:39 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-07 08:54 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-07 22:52 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-08 07:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-08 13:51 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-08 15:09 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Hyram Dubanowski <akaao@dhswua.pl> - 2025-08-08 17:03 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-08 20:58 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 00:58 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-09 13:46 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 20:18 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-10 20:54 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-10 23:14 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Leron Warszawski <nkan@rwsirr.pl> - 2025-08-03 14:08 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-08-08 22:52 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 00:55 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-30 10:54 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-02 12:35 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-03 08:13 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-03 07:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-04 14:04 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-05 08:48 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-05 15:14 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-05 16:53 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-06 08:34 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-06 22:17 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-07 08:41 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-07 22:13 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Abner Habibulaev <baee@lvl.ru> - 2025-08-07 22:07 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-08 16:04 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-08 20:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-08 18:41 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-09 12:44 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 18:13 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-09 19:40 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 20:18 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-09 11:22 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-09 15:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-09 13:40 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-09 14:49 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-09 14:58 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-09 15:19 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-10 06:54 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 08:20 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Shane Dubenkov <bdneb@nbanb.ru> - 2025-08-10 15:33 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 09:46 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 09:55 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-21 20:34 -0800
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:03 -0800
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-11 07:02 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Freeman Vandroogenbroeck <dronn@reaea.nl> - 2025-08-12 21:42 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-10 21:05 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-11 10:17 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-13 09:53 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-10 06:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-10 21:11 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Murel Kartuzov <kv@ltel.ru> - 2025-08-10 20:35 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-11 10:41 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-11 11:20 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Darby Myachkov <vkbcm@yaycvbbm.ru> - 2025-08-12 20:45 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-13 10:00 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-14 07:54 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Bladimir Natalenko <ilr@el.ru> - 2025-08-14 09:07 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-14 12:17 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-17 22:34 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-18 07:52 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-18 09:36 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-18 20:56 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-18 21:30 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-18 21:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-19 06:12 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:16 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-19 08:03 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 14:36 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:18 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:20 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:20 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-19 07:55 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-19 19:47 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 20:54 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-20 09:36 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-20 10:20 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:18 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:27 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-20 15:36 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:51 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:56 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:58 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:59 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-21 11:14 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-21 14:42 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-20 15:56 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:58 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:51 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:56 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-21 08:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-20 10:15 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-20 19:00 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-21 08:39 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-21 11:48 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-22 08:20 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-22 17:07 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-23 09:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-21 13:37 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-21 14:57 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-22 08:26 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-22 16:53 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-23 09:02 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-21 21:11 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Samsath Bakalov <msml@svalsa.ru> - 2025-08-21 19:32 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-21 21:40 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-21 21:37 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-22 08:43 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-22 19:59 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-24 08:05 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-24 22:49 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-25 08:26 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-25 11:41 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-25 14:43 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-26 09:55 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-26 10:43 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-27 10:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Khalil Yablochkov <cvb@laoi.ru> - 2025-08-26 20:33 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-26 22:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-27 06:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-27 10:47 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-27 12:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-27 09:35 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-28 09:47 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-28 21:38 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-29 09:40 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-29 10:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-29 07:29 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-30 09:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-30 10:35 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-27 20:27 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-28 10:05 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-28 09:47 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-28 12:09 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-28 14:57 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-29 09:36 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-29 12:00 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-29 07:42 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-30 09:32 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-30 13:33 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-31 09:53 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-31 10:36 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-29 09:19 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-29 10:00 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-29 12:24 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-29 10:33 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-29 13:50 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-30 09:02 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-30 09:53 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Slobodan Miheenkov <so@kobn.ru> - 2025-08-30 10:23 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-31 09:13 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-31 11:50 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-01 08:27 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-01 08:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-02 08:42 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-02 09:40 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-02 09:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-02 10:28 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Antone De la fontaine <tle@aandot.fr> - 2025-09-02 19:56 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-04 15:40 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-30 10:44 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-31 09:28 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-29 11:38 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-30 09:12 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-30 12:46 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-31 09:35 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-30 13:11 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-30 13:19 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-30 15:40 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-30 13:44 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-28 14:47 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-25 22:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Chayne Prokurorov <nhp@ruurkrr.ru> - 2025-08-20 19:14 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:41 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:46 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-30 19:25 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-31 21:59 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 16:50 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 16:51 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-01 19:25 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 19:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 19:52 +0000
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-30 10:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <x4ztfYB7YMTs4C4j_4SnHCatFL8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665319 |
Le 29/07/2025 à 22:01, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > 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? Thomas could even see the delay applied according to the exact equations from Einstein's article as used in my Web app there: https://noedge.net/e/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-02 12:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <VRljQ.57483$CSF5.21534@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665322 |
Den 30.07.2025 12:54, skrev Python: > > Thomas could even see the delay applied according to the exact equations > from Einstein's article as used in my Web app there: https://noedge.net/e/ > > Nice! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-03 08:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mf8cpgFhd76U9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665361 |
Am Samstag000002, 02.08.2025 um 12:35 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 30.07.2025 12:54, skrev Python: >> >> Thomas could even see the delay applied according to the exact >> equations from Einstein's article as used in my Web app there: >> https://noedge.net/e/ >> >> > > Nice! > Not nice! if you criticize me, than you would need to present a quote from Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', where Einstein calculated the delay or eventually mentioned the word 'delay'. Also possible would be any statement, where Einstein wrote, that he had the intention to correct the actually reading of the remote clocks time by the delay for the signal transit. But none of the above was actually present in Einstein's paper. The only thing, which can actually be found is an equation, which would allow you to calculate the delay yourself. But that is, of course, not enough, since Einstein had to do that himself and had to write, how he wanted to deal with the delay. And THAT cannot be found in Einstein's paper. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-03 07:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <BVSQ0OVUVRRR1Sk-k-zbSeKgSfg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665377 |
Le 03/08/2025 à 08:09, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Samstag000002, 02.08.2025 um 12:35 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 30.07.2025 12:54, skrev Python: >>> >>> Thomas could even see the delay applied according to the exact >>> equations from Einstein's article as used in my Web app there: >>> https://noedge.net/e/ >>> >>> >> >> Nice! >> > > Not nice! > > if you criticize me, than you would need to present a quote from > Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', where Einstein > calculated the delay or eventually mentioned the word 'delay'. > > Also possible would be any statement, where Einstein wrote, that he had > the intention to correct the actually reading of the remote clocks time > by the delay for the signal transit. Einstein never mentions the "reading of the remote clocks". Such readings does not intervene in Einstein's procedure. > But none of the above was actually present in Einstein's paper. > > The only thing, which can actually be found is an equation, which would > allow you to calculate the delay yourself. It a way you're right but don't forget that Einstein describe a procedure to *check* if two clocks are synchronized, there "delays" appears even if not called so (because it is sooo obvious except for kooks like you) : t_B - t_A and t'_A - t_B are these "delays". He didn't provide details about how to deduce an offset to be applied to clocks so that these "delays" are equal, again this is quite obvious (except for cranks like you). > But that is, of course, not enough, since Einstein had to do that > himself and had to write, how he wanted to deal with the delay. It is enough, except for idiots like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-04 14:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <106q7jn$25854$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665377 |
Den 03.08.2025 08:13, skrev Thomas Heger:
>
> if you criticize me, than you would need to present a quote from
> Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', where Einstein
> calculated the delay or eventually mentioned the word 'delay'.
I did that in a post 31.07.2025
What you call "delay" is obviously the transit time for
the light to go from A to B or from B to A.
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 time' 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 time for
the pulse is tB − tA = t′A − tB.
The transit time is _measured_!
So the transit time is calculated, measured and mentioned.
How did you manage to miss that?
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem!
BTW, why do you call the transit time a "delay"?
>
> Also possible would be any statement, where Einstein wrote, that he had
> the intention to correct the actually reading of the remote clocks time
> by the delay for the signal transit.
No "remote clock" is read!
You have been explained this over and over by me and others.
How slow is it possible to be?
I have posted this before, READ IT!
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when
the light pulse is sent.
The observer at A reads the clock at A!
=======================================
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when
the light pulse is reflected.
The observer at B reads the clock at B!
=======================================
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when
he receives the reflected light pulse.
The observer at A 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 time.
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!
When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if:
tB − tA = t′A − tB
If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A.
If it isn't the observer at B will understand
what he must do to bring them in sync.
What "delay" do you miss in the expression:
tB − tA = t′A − tB?
This is "transit time A-B" = "transit time B-A"
Do you miss some other "delay" than the transit time?
>
> But none of the above was actually present in Einstein's paper.
>
> The only thing, which can actually be found is an equation, which would
> allow you to calculate the delay yourself.
You mean the equation: tB − tA = t′A − tB?
>
> But that is, of course, not enough, since Einstein had to do that
> himself and had to write, how he wanted to deal with the delay.
So you mean that when he said "transit time A-B" = "transit time B-A"
then he haven't said how he would deal with the transit time?
How do you think Einstein should have dealt with the transit time?
>
> And THAT cannot be found in Einstein's paper.
>
> TH
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-05 08:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfdnk0Fek12U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665392 |
Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 14:04 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > Den 03.08.2025 08:13, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> if you criticize me, than you would need to present a quote from >> Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', where Einstein >> calculated the delay or eventually mentioned the word 'delay'. > > > I did that in a post 31.07.2025 > > What you call "delay" is obviously the transit time for > the light to go from A to B or from B to A. > > 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 time' 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 time for > the pulse is tB − tA = t′A − tB. > > The transit time is _measured_! > > So the transit time is calculated, measured and mentioned. > > How did you manage to miss that? > You must have a serious reading comprehension problem! > > > BTW, why do you call the transit time a "delay"? > > >> >> Also possible would be any statement, where Einstein wrote, that he >> had the intention to correct the actually reading of the remote clocks >> time by the delay for the signal transit. > > No "remote clock" is read! > You have been explained this over and over by me and others. > How slow is it possible to be? > > I have posted this before, READ IT! > > 1. The observer at A reads the time tA when > the light pulse is sent. > The observer at A reads the clock at A! > ======================================= > > 2. The observer at B reads the time tB when > the light pulse is reflected. > The observer at B reads the clock at B! > ======================================= > > 3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when > he receives the reflected light pulse. > The observer at A 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 time. > 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! > > When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if: > tB − tA = t′A − tB > > If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A. > If it isn't the observer at B will understand > what he must do to bring them in sync. > > What "delay" do you miss in the expression: > tB − tA = t′A − tB? If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position 'B', which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A-time' and 'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'. To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon. Now Houston could send a signal to the Moon, which gets reflected there. 'A' can only use 'A-time', because Houston cannot read the clocks upon the Moon. t_B is therefore unknown in A and cannot be used. But the delay could be measured anyhow, because t_B is irrelevant for the measurement of the delay. A sends simply a 'ping' to the Moon and waits for the reflected signal and measures that delay. Since that is for two ways, Houston would cut that value in half and assume, this would be the one-way delay. that procedere would have be necessary, but wasn't meantioned by Einstein. That's why I had interpreted Einstein's words, as if he had no intention to do that. > This is "transit time A-B" = "transit time B-A" > > Do you miss some other "delay" than the transit time? Any observer can only use the own local time and not the time of the remote station. It is therefore impossible to calculate t_B - t_A or t_A' - t_B. >> >> But none of the above was actually present in Einstein's paper. >> >> The only thing, which can actually be found is an equation, which >> would allow you to calculate the delay yourself. > > You mean the equation: tB − tA = t′A − tB? > >> >> But that is, of course, not enough, since Einstein had to do that >> himself and had to write, how he wanted to deal with the delay. > > So you mean that when he said "transit time A-B" = "transit time B-A" > then he haven't said how he would deal with the transit time? > > How do you think Einstein should have dealt with the transit time? > I have written that several times already (e.g. see above). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-05 15:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <106t047$2palj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665404 |
Den 05.08.2025 08:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 14:04 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>
>> No "remote clock" is read!
>> You have been explained this over and over by me and others.
>> How slow is it possible to be?
>>
>> I have posted this before, READ IT!
You have obviously still not read it.
Why don't you read the posts you are responding to?
>>
>> 1. The observer at A reads the time tA when
>> the light pulse is sent.
>> The observer at A reads the clock at A!
>> =======================================
>>
>> 2. The observer at B reads the time tB when
>> the light pulse is reflected.
>> The observer at B reads the clock at B!
>> =======================================
>>
>> 3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when
>> he receives the reflected light pulse.
>> The observer at A 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 time.
>> 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!
>>
>> When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if:
>> tB − tA = t′A − tB
>>
>> If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A.
>> If it isn't the observer at B will understand
>> what he must do to bring them in sync.
>>
>> What "delay" do you miss in the expression:
>> tB − tA = t′A − tB?
>
>
> If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position 'B',
> which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A-time' and
> 'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'.
>
>
> To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in
> Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon.
So A is Houston and B is the Moon.
>
> Now Houston could send a signal to the Moon, which gets reflected there.
>
> 'A' can only use 'A-time', because Houston cannot read the clocks upon
> the Moon.
PBA wrote:
"
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when
the light pulse is sent.
The observer at A reads the clock at A!
=======================================
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when
the light pulse is reflected.
The observer at B reads the clock at B!
=======================================
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when
he receives the reflected light pulse.
The observer at A 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"!
"
Why didn't you read it?
>
> t_B is therefore unknown in A and cannot be used.
PBA:
The observer at A reads the clock at A!
=======================================
The observer at B reads the clock at B!
=======================================
>
> But the delay could be measured anyhow, because t_B is irrelevant for
> the measurement of the delay.
>
> A sends simply a 'ping' to the Moon and waits for the reflected signal
> and measures that delay.
>
> Since that is for two ways, Houston would cut that value in half and
> assume, this would be the one-way delay.
PBA:
" The observer at A has _measured_ the transit time.
It is (t'A-tA)/2 !"
But Houston can do nothing with this information,
so why should they calculate the transit-time?
>
> that procedere would have be necessary, but wasn't meantioned by Einstein.
The "procedure" which is necessary is that
the observer at Earth and the observer at Moon communicate.
The observer at A has measured tA and t'A
The observer at B has measured tB.
PBA wrote:
" 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!"
When B is at the Moon, observer A would obviously use
a radio transmitter, and B would have a receiver.
PBA wrote:
" When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if:
tB − tA = t′A − tB"
If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A.
If it isn't the observer at B will understand
what he must do to bring them in sync."
You will probably not understand how, so here is what
I have explained before:
Remember that clock B will probably not be synchronous.
So let B's reading of the clock be tx.
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 at 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 at B with δ seconds,
it will be in synch with clock at A.
----------------------------
Note that B doesn't have to calculate the transit time measured
by A to see if the clocks are in sync, but he must calculate it to
correct the clock B if they are not.
If you think that Einstein should have explained how clock B
could be corrected if it wasn't in sync, remember that all
but ignoramuses will understand how it can be done.
If you don't, that's YOUR problem, not Einstein's.
Is it still some "delay" you claim Einstein has failed to correct for?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-05 16:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1858e698e9690661$2227522$2042034$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665407 |
On 8/5/2025 3:14 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > > The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein: > "The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB." But he igmores the delusions of your idiot guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-06 08:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfgb61FrpgrU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665407 |
Am Dienstag000005, 05.08.2025 um 15:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: ... >>> 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 time. >>> 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! >>> >>> When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if: >>> tB − tA = t′A − tB >>> >>> If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A. >>> If it isn't the observer at B will understand >>> what he must do to bring them in sync. >>> >>> What "delay" do you miss in the expression: >>> tB − tA = t′A − tB? > >> >> >> If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position 'B', >> which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A-time' and >> 'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'. >> >> >> To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in >> Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon. > > So A is Houston and B is the Moon. > > > >> Now Houston could send a signal to the Moon, which gets reflected there. >> >> 'A' can only use 'A-time', because Houston cannot read the clocks upon >> the Moon. > > PBA wrote: > " > 1. The observer at A reads the time tA when > the light pulse is sent. > The observer at A reads the clock at A! > ======================================= > > 2. The observer at B reads the time tB when > the light pulse is reflected. > The observer at B reads the clock at B! > ======================================= > > 3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when > he receives the reflected light pulse. > The observer at A 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"! > " > > Why didn't you read it? > >> >> t_B is therefore unknown in A and cannot be used. > > PBA: > The observer at A reads the clock at A! > ======================================= > > The observer at B reads the clock at B! Sure. But there ain't no observers on the Moon. It is irrelevant, anyhow, because the qunatity t_B is not important in Einstein's equation, because he actually used only t_A. > ======================================= > >> >> But the delay could be measured anyhow, because t_B is irrelevant for >> the measurement of the delay. >> >> A sends simply a 'ping' to the Moon and waits for the reflected signal >> and measures that delay. >> >> Since that is for two ways, Houston would cut that value in half and >> assume, this would be the one-way delay. > > > PBA: > " The observer at A has _measured_ the transit time. > It is (t'A-tA)/2 !" > > But Houston can do nothing with this information, > so why should they calculate the transit-time? > >> >> that procedere would have be necessary, but wasn't meantioned by >> Einstein. > > The "procedure" which is necessary is that > the observer at Earth and the observer at Moon communicate. > > The observer at A has measured tA and t'A > The observer at B has measured tB. But how do you communicate with the 'man on the Moon'? And does he use clocks? And if he/she/it does, than what time-units do these clocks use? ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-06 22:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1070d8d$3jnra$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665414 |
Den 06.08.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Dienstag000005, 05.08.2025 um 15:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > ... DON'T SKIP THE ATTRIBUTIONS! >> Den 05.08.2025 08:48, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> >>> If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position 'B', >>> which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A-time' and >>> 'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'. >>> >>> >>> To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in >>> Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon. >> So A is Houston and B is the Moon in my example posted before. >>> Now Houston could send a signal to the Moon, which gets reflected there. >>> >>> 'A' can only use 'A-time', because Houston cannot read the clocks >>> upon the Moon. >> >> I have posted the following before: >> >> 1. The observer at A reads the time tA when >> the light pulse is sent. >> The observer at A reads the clock at A! >> ======================================= >> >> 2. The observer at B reads the time tB when >> the light pulse is reflected. >> The observer at B reads the clock at B! >> ======================================= >> >> 3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when >> he receives the reflected light pulse. >> The observer at A 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"! >> >> To check if the clock at B is synchronous >> the observers have to communicate. They can do >> it by shouting, E-post, a mobile phone, radio >> or whatever. >> >> When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if: >> tB − tA = t′A − tB >> >> If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A. >> >> If it isn't, the observer at B will have to correct >> the clock at B to makeit sunchronous with the clock >> at A. >> >> Remember that clock B will probably not be synchronous. >> So let B's reading of the clock be tx. >> >> The observer at B knows that according to Einstein: >> "The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB." >> >> So he knows that to be in sync with the clock at A, >> the clock at 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 >> to the clock at B. >> > Sure. > > But there ain't no observers on the Moon. I see. You have successfully proved that Einstein's synchronisation method is wrong because there is no observer at the Moon. > > It is irrelevant, anyhow, because the qunatity t_B is not important in > Einstein's equation, because he actually used only t_A. I am an idiot since I thought it must be possible to make Thomas Heger understand something. But I am still able to learn. I have learned that Tomas Hager is unable to learn anything. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-07 08:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfivuqFalhmU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665416 |
Am Mittwoch000006, 06.08.2025 um 22:17 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > Den 06.08.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Dienstag000005, 05.08.2025 um 15:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >> ... > > DON'T SKIP THE ATTRIBUTIONS! > >>> Den 05.08.2025 08:48, skrev Thomas Heger: > >>>> >>>> If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position >>>> 'B', which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A- >>>> time' and 'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'. >>>> >>>> >>>> To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in >>>> Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon. > >>> So A is Houston and B is the Moon in my example posted before. > >>>> Now Houston could send a signal to the Moon, which gets reflected >>>> there. >>>> >>>> 'A' can only use 'A-time', because Houston cannot read the clocks >>>> upon the Moon. > >>> >>> I have posted the following before: >>> >>> 1. The observer at A reads the time tA when >>> the light pulse is sent. >>> The observer at A reads the clock at A! >>> ======================================= >>> >>> 2. The observer at B reads the time tB when >>> the light pulse is reflected. >>> The observer at B reads the clock at B! >>> ======================================= >>> >>> 3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when >>> he receives the reflected light pulse. >>> The observer at A 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"! >>> >>> To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have to >>> communicate. They can do it by shouting, E-post, a mobile phone, radio >>> or whatever. >>> >>> When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if: >>> tB − tA = t′A − tB >>> >>> If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A. >>> >>> If it isn't, the observer at B will have to correct >>> the clock at B to makeit sunchronous with the clock at A. >>> >>> Remember that clock B will probably not be synchronous. >>> So let B's reading of the clock be tx. >>> >>> The observer at B knows that according to Einstein: >>> "The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB." >>> >>> So he knows that to be in sync with the clock at A, the clock at 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 >>> to the clock at B. >>> > > >> Sure. >> >> But there ain't no observers on the Moon. > > I see. You have successfully proved that Einstein's > synchronisation method is wrong because there is > no observer at the Moon. The hole dammed thing is total nonsense and full of errrors from start to finish. I have used the example of a Earth-Moon communcation as an exageration and as example, why Einstein's method was nonsense. But the main reason was, that if you have two remote clocks out of synch and want to synchronize them by Einstein's method, you need to decide, which clock is the 'master clock'. You simply cannot use both clocks, because that would cause something, which in computer science is called 'dead lock'. In simple words: if you tune clock B to clock A, than you should not tune clock A to clock B. You simply tune the remote clock to the time of the 'master clock', which was A in this case. But you could also tune clock A to clock B. But you should not try both. This would result in this: B (on Moon) is set in 1s in advance, because A (on Earth) tells B to do so the B finds, that A is behind and had to turn the clock one second ahead A send then a signal to B which tells B to advance by one second ... and so forth. Symmetry is, of course, important, but Einstein's method wasn't symmetric, because of the above. The time 'B-time' gets lost and is irrelevant anyhow, if you tune clock B to 'A-time'. Symmetry could be achieved, if the remote clock's reading is corrected by the transit delay. But Einstein did neither calculate the delay, nor had the intention to correct the remote clock's reading. >> >> It is irrelevant, anyhow, because the qunatity t_B is not important in >> Einstein's equation, because he actually used only t_A. > > I am an idiot since I thought it must be possible to make > Thomas Heger understand something. The method of synchronization had to be symmetric. But Einstein's method wasn't. Therefore Einstein's method was wrong. It's that simple! But you could come to the same conclusion by simply thinking about the problem. Then you would find, that a delay caused by the finite speed of light would make remote clocks seemingly have a time too early. This delay is, of course, identical to the run-time of the signal, because that is, what causes the apparent delay. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-07 22:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10731db$7udv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665418 |
Den 07.08.2025 08:41, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Mittwoch000006, 06.08.2025 um 22:17 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>> Den 06.08.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Am Dienstag000005, 05.08.2025 um 15:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>> Den 05.08.2025 08:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>>
>>>>> If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position
>>>>> 'B', which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A-
>>>>> time' and 'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in
>>>>> Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon.
>>>> So A is Houston and B is the Moon in my example posted before.
>>>>
>>>> I have posted the following before:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The observer at A reads the time tA when
>>>> the light pulse is sent.
>>>> The observer at A reads the clock at A!
>>>> =======================================
>>>>
>>>> 2. The observer at B reads the time tB when
>>>> the light pulse is reflected.
>>>> The observer at B reads the clock at B!
>>>> =======================================
>>>>
>>>> 3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when
>>>> he receives the reflected light pulse.
>>>> The observer at A 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"!
Thomas Heger believes that clock B is visually read
by the observer at point A.
But the observer at A reads the clock at A only!
It is the observer at B who reads the clock at B!
This is explicitly described by Einstein:
"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.
"
>>>>
>>>> To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have to
>>>> communicate. They can do it by shouting, E-post, a mobile phone, radio
>>>> or whatever.
>>>>
>>>> When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if:
>>>> tB − tA = t′A − tB
And B can calculate the "delay" (transit time) = (t'A-TA)/2
>>>>
>>>> If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A.
That is, clock B is the time when A sent the pulse +
the calculated "delay", TB = tA + (t'A-TA)/2 = (tA + t'A)/2
>>>>
>>>> If it isn't, the observer at B will have to correct
>>>> the clock at B to make it synchronous with the clock at A.
>>>>
>>>> Remember that clock B will probably not be synchronous.
>>>> So let B's reading of the clock be tx.
>>>>
>>>> The observer at B knows that according to Einstein:
>>>> "The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB."
>>>>
>>>> So he knows that to be in sync with the clock at A, the clock at 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
>>>> to the clock at B.
>>>>
After this correction, clock B will always show the same
as the master clock A. A and B are synchronous.
>>> Sure.
>>>
>>> But there ain't no observers on the Moon.
! :-D
>
>
> The hole dammed thing is total nonsense and full of errrors from start
> to finish.
So in which hole of yours is there many errrors?
(Sorry. Couldn't resist!)
>
> I have used the example of a Earth-Moon communcation as an exageration
> and as example, why Einstein's method was nonsense.
>
> But the main reason was, that if you have two remote clocks out of synch
> and want to synchronize them by Einstein's method, you need to decide,
> which clock is the 'master clock'.
Of course.
In my example the clock at B is synched to the master clock at A.
Is that a problem?
>
> You simply cannot use both clocks, because that would cause something,
> which in computer science is called 'dead lock'.
You have to use both clock A and clock B to sync clock B to clock A.
Are you saying it is a deadlock in my example above?
>
> In simple words:
>
> if you tune clock B to clock A, than you should not tune clock A to
> clock B. You simply tune the remote clock to the time of the 'master
> clock', which was A in this case.
As done in my example above.
>
> But you could also tune clock A to clock B.
Of course you could.
>
> But you should not try both.
You seem to say that you shouldn't try to sync
two clocks to each other without knowing
which should be synched to which.
This is obviously impossible, or rather meaningless.
>
> This would result in this:
> B (on Moon) is set in 1s in advance, because A (on Earth) tells B to do so
> the B finds, that A is behind and had to turn the clock one second ahead
>
> A send then a signal to B which tells B to advance by one second
>
> ...
> and so forth.
Don't you think it is a bit silly to state that
you shouldn't try to sync two clocks to each other
without knowing which should be synched to which?
It is like stating:
"You shouldn't try to do an impossible stupidity."
>
> Symmetry is, of course, important, but Einstein's method wasn't
> symmetric, because of the above.
Right.
You sync one clock to another.
You can't sync two clocks to each other without
knowing which should be synched to which.
In this sense synchronisation can't be symmetric.
So why do you think symmetry is important?
>
> The time 'B-time' gets lost and is irrelevant anyhow, if you tune clock
> B to 'A-time'.
The "wrong" clock B is corrected. Is that a problem?
>
> Symmetry could be achieved, if the remote clock's reading is corrected
> by the transit delay.
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
If that were true, the observer at A would at the time t'A,
when he receives the reflected pulse from B, know that when
the pulse was reflected from B, clock B should have shown:
tB + "delay" = tB + (t'A-TA)/2 .
Please explain how this can make clock B synchronous with clock A.
Remember you said : "there ain't no observers on the Moon".
>
> But Einstein did neither calculate the delay, nor had the intention to
> correct the remote clock's reading.
Einstein explicitly said what the "delay" was several times.
I have told you several times before:
What you call "delay" is obviously the transit time for
the light to go from A to B or from B to A.
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 time' 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 time for
the pulse is tB − tA = t′A − tB.
The transit time is _measured_!
So the transit time is calculated, measured and mentioned.
> The method of synchronization had to be symmetric. But Einstein's method
> wasn't.
Right.
You sync one clock to another.
You can't sync two clocks to each other without
knowing which should be synched to which.
In this sense synchronisation can't be symmetric.
So why do claim it must be symmetric?
> Therefore Einstein's method was wrong.
>
> It's that simple!
>
> But you could come to the same conclusion by simply thinking about the
> problem.
>
> Then you would find, that a delay caused by the finite speed of light
> would make remote clocks seemingly have a time too early.
Because you still believe that clock B is visually observed by
the observer at A.
But it isn't, so it won't.
>
> This delay is, of course, identical to the run-time of the signal,
> because that is, what causes the apparent delay.
>
> TH
You will keep believing that the clock at B is visually
observed by the observer at A, and you will keep believing
that you can sync the clock at B and the clock at A
in asymmetric way without an observer at point B.
Right? :-D
----
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Abner Habibulaev <baee@lvl.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-07 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1073835$a1hj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665422 |
Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > This is explicitly described by Einstein: > "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. > " good making it clear, that the Einstine didnt undredstand own theory. Relativity is NOT about estimating own clock, but all the others. here some other capitalist dirt, emphasising the lying and the hypocrisy or the collective_west. 𝗜𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗯𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗩𝗼𝗻_𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗟𝗲𝘆𝗲𝗻_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝙖𝙨_𝙝𝙚𝙨_𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙙 https://bi%74%63%68%75te.com/video/yDN1r9k5mqQI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 16:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8hvOKScEtxf-m8qYF-ByXs9HHhE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665422 |
Le 07/08/2025 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 07.08.2025 08:41, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Mittwoch000006, 06.08.2025 um 22:17 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>> Den 06.08.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Dienstag000005, 05.08.2025 um 15:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > >>>>> Den 05.08.2025 08:48, skrev Thomas Heger: > >>>>>> >>>>>> If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position >>>>>> 'B', which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A- >>>>>> time' and 'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in >>>>>> Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon. > >>>>> So A is Houston and B is the Moon in my example posted before. > >>>>> >>>>> I have posted the following before: >>>>> >>>>> 1. The observer at A reads the time tA when >>>>> the light pulse is sent. >>>>> The observer at A reads the clock at A! >>>>> ======================================= >>>>> >>>>> 2. The observer at B reads the time tB when >>>>> the light pulse is reflected. >>>>> The observer at B reads the clock at B! >>>>> ======================================= >>>>> >>>>> 3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when >>>>> he receives the reflected light pulse. >>>>> The observer at A 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"! > > Thomas Heger believes that clock B is visually read > by the observer at point A. > > But the observer at A reads the clock at A only! > It is the observer at B who reads the clock at B! > > This is explicitly described by Einstein: > "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. > " > >>>>> >>>>> To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have to >>>>> communicate. They can do it by shouting, E-post, a mobile phone, radio >>>>> or whatever. >>>>> >>>>> When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if: >>>>> tB − tA = t′A − tB > > And B can calculate the "delay" (transit time) = (t'A-TA)/2 > >>>>> >>>>> If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A. > > That is, clock B is the time when A sent the pulse + > the calculated "delay", TB = tA + (t'A-TA)/2 = (tA + t'A)/2 > >>>>> >>>>> If it isn't, the observer at B will have to correct >>>>> the clock at B to make it synchronous with the clock at A. >>>>> >>>>> Remember that clock B will probably not be synchronous. >>>>> So let B's reading of the clock be tx. >>>>> >>>>> The observer at B knows that according to Einstein: >>>>> "The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB." >>>>> >>>>> So he knows that to be in sync with the clock at A, the clock at 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 >>>>> to the clock at B. >>>>> > > After this correction, clock B will always show the same > as the master clock A. A and B are synchronous. > >>>> Sure. >>>> >>>> But there ain't no observers on the Moon. > > ! :-D > >> >> >> The hole dammed thing is total nonsense and full of errrors from start >> to finish. > > So in which hole of yours is there many errrors? > (Sorry. Couldn't resist!) > >> >> I have used the example of a Earth-Moon communcation as an exageration >> and as example, why Einstein's method was nonsense. >> >> But the main reason was, that if you have two remote clocks out of synch >> and want to synchronize them by Einstein's method, you need to decide, >> which clock is the 'master clock'. > > Of course. > In my example the clock at B is synched to the master clock at A. > > Is that a problem? > >> >> You simply cannot use both clocks, because that would cause something, >> which in computer science is called 'dead lock'. > > You have to use both clock A and clock B to sync clock B to clock A. > > Are you saying it is a deadlock in my example above? > >> >> In simple words: >> >> if you tune clock B to clock A, than you should not tune clock A to >> clock B. You simply tune the remote clock to the time of the 'master >> clock', which was A in this case. > As done in my example above. > >> >> But you could also tune clock A to clock B. > > Of course you could. > >> >> But you should not try both. > > You seem to say that you shouldn't try to sync > two clocks to each other without knowing > which should be synched to which. > > This is obviously impossible, or rather meaningless. > >> >> This would result in this: >> B (on Moon) is set in 1s in advance, because A (on Earth) tells B to do so >> the B finds, that A is behind and had to turn the clock one second ahead >> >> A send then a signal to B which tells B to advance by one second >> >> ... >> and so forth. > > Don't you think it is a bit silly to state that > you shouldn't try to sync two clocks to each other > without knowing which should be synched to which? > > It is like stating: > "You shouldn't try to do an impossible stupidity." > >> >> Symmetry is, of course, important, but Einstein's method wasn't >> symmetric, because of the above. > > Right. > You sync one clock to another. > > You can't sync two clocks to each other without > knowing which should be synched to which. > > In this sense synchronisation can't be symmetric. > > So why do you think symmetry is important? > >> >> The time 'B-time' gets lost and is irrelevant anyhow, if you tune clock >> B to 'A-time'. > > The "wrong" clock B is corrected. Is that a problem? > >> >> Symmetry could be achieved, if the remote clock's reading is corrected >> by the transit delay. > > Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A > has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when > the light pulse was sent from point A. It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using such a "method" to immediately rule it out: "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought." This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the time coordinate attached to such an event.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 20:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1075fos$s906$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665430 |
Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python: > Le 07/08/2025 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> >> Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A >> has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when >> the light pulse was sent from point A. > > It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using such a > "method" to immediately rule it out: Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate. (This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out") > "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by > an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co- > ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands > with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching > him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage > that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the > watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more > practical determination along the following line of thought." > > This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the time > coordinate attached to such an event. > You probably meant Heger. But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is. Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they both were visually observed by an observer at A. And then the transit time must be added to the time observed in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous with the observation. When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admit that it is wrong. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 18:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qJuYKZClIwNDmPG4YvueLIMgqF0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665434 |
Le 08/08/2025 à 20:30, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python: >> Le 07/08/2025 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>> >>> Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A >>> has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when >>> the light pulse was sent from point A. >> >> It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using such a >> "method" to immediately rule it out: > > Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define > the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to > explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate. > > (This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out") In principle it could be used. Good luck expressing Newton law of motion with that but it could be done. Coordinates systems can be quite arbitrary. >> "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by >> an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co- >> ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands >> with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching >> him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage >> that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the >> watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more >> practical determination along the following line of thought." >> >> This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the time >> coordinate attached to such an event. >> > You probably meant Heger. No, Hachel actually thinks that what should be done is what Heger thinks Einstein did. Cranks are funny sometimes... > But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is. > > Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method > for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A > and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they > both were visually observed by an observer at A. > And then the transit time must be added to the time observed > in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous > with the observation. > > When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admit > that it is wrong. Same for Hachel 😂
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 12:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10778pu$18hcu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665435 |
Den 08.08.2025 20:41, skrev Python: > Le 08/08/2025 à 20:30, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python: >>> Le 07/08/2025 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>> >>>> Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A >>>> has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when >>>> the light pulse was sent from point A. >>> >>> It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using >>> such a "method" to immediately rule it out: >> >> Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define >> the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to >> explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate. >> >> (This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out") > > In principle it could be used. Good luck expressing Newton law of motion > with that but it could be done. Coordinates systems can be quite arbitrary. Sure. Generally the time coordinate can be defined in any way you wish. But Einstein's time coordinate in §1 is precisely defined. That was why he first had to define simultaneity. Einstein: "It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it 'the time of the stationary system'." The "time defined by stationary clocks in the stationary system" is the time coordinate. And the clocks have to be synchronous according to the definition of simultaneity. The metric: (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² −dx² −dy²−dz² works only with time coordinates as defined by Einstein. Same with the Lorentz transform in it usual form. I don't think it would be possible to express the metric and the LT with the time coordinate described below. >>> "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined >>> by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the >>> co- ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the >>> hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and >>> reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the >>> disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the >>> observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We >>> arrive at a much more practical determination along the following >>> line of thought." >>> >>> This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the >>> time coordinate attached to such an event. >>> >> You probably meant Heger. > > No, Hachel actually thinks that what should be done is what Heger thinks > Einstein did. Cranks are funny sometimes... Quite. And with such a time coordinate it is indeed impossible to sync clocks! > >> But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is. >> >> Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method >> for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A >> and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they >> both were visually observed by an observer at A. >> And then the transit time must be added to the time observed >> in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous >> with the observation. >> >> When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admit >> that it is wrong. > > Same for Hachel 😂 > Or even worse. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 18:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <185a2550e07c4825$388484$2286850$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665441 |
On 8/9/2025 12:44 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 08.08.2025 20:41, skrev Python: >> Le 08/08/2025 à 20:30, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>> Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python: >>>> Le 07/08/2025 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A >>>>> has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when >>>>> the light pulse was sent from point A. >>>> >>>> It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using >>>> such a "method" to immediately rule it out: >>> >>> Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define >>> the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to >>> explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate. >>> >>> (This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out") >> >> In principle it could be used. Good luck expressing Newton law of >> motion with that but it could be done. Coordinates systems can be >> quite arbitrary. > > Sure. > Generally the time coordinate can be defined in any way you wish. And your moronic lies of "experiments confirming" especially the [utterly idiotic] way you wish - are, well, what anyone can expect from a brainwashed idiot. > > But Einstein's time coordinate in §1 is precisely defined. In inertial frames. I.e. nowhere. Poor mumbling idiot was unable to do more, and so are his idiot worshippers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 19:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XJLlQ.3849$LgPa.3811@fx05.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665451 |
Den 09.08.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > > And your moronic lies of "experiments confirming" > especially the [utterly idiotic] way you wish - > are, well, what anyone can expect from a brainwashed > idiot. > Was the above an attempt to make a meaningful statement? I am afraid you didn't succeed. Did you try to say something about experimental evidence? Here are a few experiments which you can criticise: https://paulba.no/paper/index.html I am sure you have read them all, so I am looking forward to see your probably well formulated explanation for why they are "moronic lies". -- Paul, having fun https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 20:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <185a2c1a7cc77b26$426489$2261098$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665452 |
On 8/9/2025 7:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 09.08.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> >> And your moronic lies of "experiments confirming" >> especially the [utterly idiotic] way you wish - >> are, well, what anyone can expect from a brainwashed >> idiot. >> > > Was the above an attempt to make a meaningful statement? > I am afraid you didn't succeed. > Did you try to say something about experimental evidence? You've said it yourself - "any way you wish". Even such a disgusting piece of lying shit sometimes is telling the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web