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 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | Murel Kartuzov <kv@ltel.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 20:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107avqm$24lt4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665456 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Donnerstag000007, 07.08.2025 um 22:13 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >> This is explicitly described by Einstein: >> "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A >> can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity >> of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous >> with these events. >> If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects >> resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to >> determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood >> of B. >> " > > Sure, that's true and also what Einstein wrote. > > But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there wasn't > anybody to read a clock on the Moon. > > If there are actually observers at the remote station with clocks and at > least some intelligence, we would get a lot of now problems. so true indeed; Kasparov’s real name is Garik Weinstein. Those not Jewish at all would be Karpov, Spassky, Petrosian, Keres.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 10:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <V0imQ.32654$B2N3.3806@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665456 |
Den 10.08.2025 06:31, skrev Thomas Heger: > > But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there wasn't > anybody to read a clock on the Moon. > > If there are actually observers at the remote station with clocks and at > least some intelligence, we would get a lot of now problems. > > For instance we need to find ways to communicate with these observers at > the remote station to beginn with. > > Then we need to negotiate the meaning of time and of time units and how > long those units are. > > It makes no sense to assume, that observers at a place near, say, Alpha > Centaaury are very interested in Earth time. > > But we could eventually convince them to set up a special 'Earth clock' > there, which is synchronized with Earth time. > > Be then we need to tell them 'Earth time', if we want them to set this > 'Earth clock' to Earth time. > > This would require from the Earth station to measure the delay from here > to there. > > Then we would add this value to our current time, encode the result and > send that to the remote station. > > But, of course, that wasn't, what Einstein wanted to do. > ... > > > TH And this is why Einstein's synchronisation method is: "total nonsense and full of errrors from start to finish" ? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 11:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <185aabe466c93cee$2775960$2257900$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665472 |
On 8/11/2025 10:41 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 10.08.2025 06:31, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there >> wasn't anybody to read a clock on the Moon. >> >> If there are actually observers at the remote station with clocks and >> at least some intelligence, we would get a lot of now problems. >> >> For instance we need to find ways to communicate with these observers >> at the remote station to beginn with. >> >> Then we need to negotiate the meaning of time and of time units and >> how long those units are. >> >> It makes no sense to assume, that observers at a place near, say, >> Alpha Centaaury are very interested in Earth time. >> >> But we could eventually convince them to set up a special 'Earth >> clock' there, which is synchronized with Earth time. >> >> Be then we need to tell them 'Earth time', if we want them to set this >> 'Earth clock' to Earth time. >> >> This would require from the Earth station to measure the delay from >> here to there. >> >> Then we would add this value to our current time, encode the result >> and send that to the remote station. >> >> But, of course, that wasn't, what Einstein wanted to do. >> ... >> >> >> TH > > And this is why Einstein's synchronisation method is: > "total nonsense and full of errrors from start to finish" ? No, the reasons are different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darby Myachkov <vkbcm@yaycvbbm.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 20:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107g95i$3hbpr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665472 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 10.08.2025 06:31, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Then we would add this value to our current time, encode the result and >> send that to the remote station. >> >> But, of course, that wasn't, what Einstein wanted to do. >> ... TH > > And this is why Einstein's synchronisation method is: "total nonsense > and full of errrors from start to finish" ? exactly, indeed, the americans are working for us. I like america. They just shit on about $500 milliards for a fictitious natzi territory named ukrane, for the capitalist collective_europe, what can you do. i dont think the Russians will forget what your deepen corrupt terrorist regime did with their energy pipelines at the bottom of the sea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 10:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mg2uqaFabqU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665472 |
Am Montag000011, 11.08.2025 um 10:41 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 10.08.2025 06:31, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there >> wasn't anybody to read a clock on the Moon. >> >> If there are actually observers at the remote station with clocks and >> at least some intelligence, we would get a lot of now problems. >> >> For instance we need to find ways to communicate with these observers >> at the remote station to beginn with. >> >> Then we need to negotiate the meaning of time and of time units and >> how long those units are. >> >> It makes no sense to assume, that observers at a place near, say, >> Alpha Centaaury are very interested in Earth time. >> >> But we could eventually convince them to set up a special 'Earth >> clock' there, which is synchronized with Earth time. >> >> Be then we need to tell them 'Earth time', if we want them to set this >> 'Earth clock' to Earth time. >> >> This would require from the Earth station to measure the delay from >> here to there. >> >> Then we would add this value to our current time, encode the result >> and send that to the remote station. >> >> But, of course, that wasn't, what Einstein wanted to do. >> ... >> >> >> TH > > And this is why Einstein's synchronisation method is: > "total nonsense and full of errrors from start to finish" ? This was a quote from me, but not about the method to synchronize clocks. I meant the entire text with 'full of errors'. The number of errors is extremely large and counts in the hundreds. And I didn't believe for a minute, that Max Planck was unable to see at least a few of them, hence the entire thing was fraudulent on the side of the publisher, too. My guess about this was, that the text was meant as 'mocking' of the general public. The scientific audience must therefore been silenced by other means. It didn't work completely, because about three thousand critical articles and books were printed, which dealt with that particular text. TH > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 07:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mg5bp6FcpelU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665480 |
Am Mittwoch000013, 13.08.2025 um 10:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am Montag000011, 11.08.2025 um 10:41 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 10.08.2025 06:31, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>> But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there
>>> wasn't anybody to read a clock on the Moon.
>>>
>>> If there are actually observers at the remote station with clocks and
>>> at least some intelligence, we would get a lot of now problems.
>>>
>>> For instance we need to find ways to communicate with these observers
>>> at the remote station to beginn with.
>>>
>>> Then we need to negotiate the meaning of time and of time units and
>>> how long those units are.
>>>
>>> It makes no sense to assume, that observers at a place near, say,
>>> Alpha Centaaury are very interested in Earth time.
>>>
>>> But we could eventually convince them to set up a special 'Earth
>>> clock' there, which is synchronized with Earth time.
>>>
>>> Be then we need to tell them 'Earth time', if we want them to set
>>> this 'Earth clock' to Earth time.
>>>
>>> This would require from the Earth station to measure the delay from
>>> here to there.
>>>
>>> Then we would add this value to our current time, encode the result
>>> and send that to the remote station.
>>>
>>> But, of course, that wasn't, what Einstein wanted to do.
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> And this is why Einstein's synchronisation method is:
>> "total nonsense and full of errrors from start to finish" ?
>
> This was a quote from me, but not about the method to synchronize clocks.
>
But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong.
This caan be seen, if you compare Einstein's text ('On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies') and what Einstein wrote there about
this method in comparison to how that should actually be done.
I wrote about how the method should be (but wasn't), that you need to
measure the delay for the 'round trip', devide that by two and use the
result as correction of the own time value.
E.g. you want to adjust a clock on the Moon, which is one light-second away.
Then you first need to send a signal there, which gets reflected on the
Moon and sent back to Earth.
The round trip shall last, say, two seconds, then the delay would be one
second.
This one second you would add to, say, 1:00:00 pm, which is the currect
time here.
Therefore you need to encode 01:00:01 pm into the signal, which you need
to send to the Moon.
There the Man-on-the-Moon reads the signal and dials the Moon-time-clock
to 01:00:01 pm. Now both clocks are synchronized (supposed the tick rate
is also equal).
But Einstein used an entirely different method and didn't even mention
delay.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bladimir Natalenko <ilr@el.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 09:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107k910$cko1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665482 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > This one second you would add to, say, 1:00:00 pm, which is the currect > time here. > > Therefore you need to encode 01:00:01 pm into the signal, which you need > to send to the Moon. > > There the Man-on-the-Moon reads the signal and dials the Moon-time-clock > to 01:00:01 pm. Now both clocks are synchronized (supposed the tick rate > is also equal). not true. You don't have to encode. The second is defined by a shit in a state, inherently at a speed of infinity. There is no rise or fall time. Try think. A shift is a infinitely high peek with size zero in frequency.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 12:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <A1EsOrM6qcasummaqB_jVlEzZIk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665482 |
Le 14/08/2025 à 07:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Mittwoch000013, 13.08.2025 um 10:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>> Am Montag000011, 11.08.2025 um 10:41 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>> Den 10.08.2025 06:31, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>
>>>> But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there
>>>> wasn't anybody to read a clock on the Moon.
>>>>
>>>> If there are actually observers at the remote station with clocks and
>>>> at least some intelligence, we would get a lot of now problems.
>>>>
>>>> For instance we need to find ways to communicate with these observers
>>>> at the remote station to beginn with.
>>>>
>>>> Then we need to negotiate the meaning of time and of time units and
>>>> how long those units are.
>>>>
>>>> It makes no sense to assume, that observers at a place near, say,
>>>> Alpha Centaaury are very interested in Earth time.
>>>>
>>>> But we could eventually convince them to set up a special 'Earth
>>>> clock' there, which is synchronized with Earth time.
>>>>
>>>> Be then we need to tell them 'Earth time', if we want them to set
>>>> this 'Earth clock' to Earth time.
>>>>
>>>> This would require from the Earth station to measure the delay from
>>>> here to there.
>>>>
>>>> Then we would add this value to our current time, encode the result
>>>> and send that to the remote station.
>>>>
>>>> But, of course, that wasn't, what Einstein wanted to do.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> And this is why Einstein's synchronisation method is:
>>> "total nonsense and full of errrors from start to finish" ?
>>
>> This was a quote from me, but not about the method to synchronize clocks.
>>
>
> But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong.
>
> This caan be seen, if you compare Einstein's text ('On the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies') and what Einstein wrote there about
> this method in comparison to how that should actually be done.
>
> I wrote about how the method should be (but wasn't), that you need to
> measure the delay for the 'round trip', devide that by two and use the
> result as correction of the own time value.
>
> E.g. you want to adjust a clock on the Moon, which is one light-second away.
>
> Then you first need to send a signal there, which gets reflected on the
> Moon and sent back to Earth.
>
> The round trip shall last, say, two seconds, then the delay would be one
> second.
>
> This one second you would add to, say, 1:00:00 pm, which is the currect
> time here.
How could you know that this is the "currect" time herer or there if the
clocks are not synchronized? You have a chicken-and-egg problem here.
> Therefore you need to encode 01:00:01 pm into the signal, which you need
> to send to the Moon.
No, you needn't. There is a simplier way, which the one Einstein describe.
> There the Man-on-the-Moon reads the signal and dials the Moon-time-clock
> to 01:00:01 pm. Now both clocks are synchronized (supposed the tick rate
> is also equal).
>
> But Einstein used an entirely different method and didn't even mention
> delay.
When you substract values from two separated clock you cannot know in
advance if the result is a delay or not. It relies on synchronisation.
When you substract values from ONE single clock THEN you know that is a
delay, so when Einstein wrote 2AB/(t'A - tA) every decent reader would
recognize t'A - tA as a "delay".
Then when he define synchronisation as the property that tB - tA = t'A -
tB, again everyone with a very minimal clue would recognize that IF THE
PROPERTY IS TRUE tB - tA and t'A - tB are delays.
If tB - tA =/= t'A - tB then it is easy to compute the offset that should
be applied to any of the clocks, even to both if you wish. See :
https://noedge.net/e/ this is DIRECT application of formulas from
Einstein's article : 1) first to check if clocks are in sync and 2) to
compute the offset to be applied in order to make them so (Einstein did
not address this directly in his paper as it is trivial to deduce from the
*checking* synchronisation procedure)
Nobody on Earth was, back then, stupid enough to interpret this as taking
the reading of the remote clock as the value to be set. This is utterly
asinine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 22:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107tec1$2j1t1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665482 |
Den 14.08.2025 07:54, skrev Thomas Heger:
>
> But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong.
Let's review what "Einstein's method to synchronize clocks" is.
The very first paragraph of Einstein's paper is:
§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity
The definition is:
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are
simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of
space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values
of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B.
. . .
Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′ A.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB −tA = t′A −tB.
"
This equation can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
The transit time for the ray to go from A to B or from B to A is
"delay" = (t'A-tA)/2
In words:
If the clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent,
then the clock at B is synchronous with the clock at A if it
shows t plus the transit time (delay) when the pulse is received.
Note. Einstein only give the definition of simultaneity,
he say what the clocks should read to be synchronous.
He does not say anything about how to sync non-synchronous clocks.
This depends on the available instruments etc., and doesn't belong
in a _definition_ of simultaneity.
>
> This caan be seen, if you compare Einstein's text ('On the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies') and what Einstein wrote there about
> this method in comparison to how that should actually be done.
A _definition_ can't be wrong.
>
> I wrote about how the method should be (but wasn't), that you need to
> measure the delay for the 'round trip', devide that by two and use the
> result as correction of the own time value.
Right.
According to Einstein the clocks are synced if tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
'delay' = (t'A-tA)/2
> > E.g. you want to adjust a clock on the Moon, which is one light-second
> away.
I note with interest that you now have realised that you must have
an observer on the Moon, and you are using Einstein's definition
of simultaneity, the definition you claimed was wrong.
>
> Then you first need to send a signal there, which gets reflected on the
> Moon and sent back to Earth.
>
> The round trip shall last, say, two seconds, then the delay would be one
> second.
The 'delay' is measured in Einstein's method.
>
> This one second you would add to, say, 1:00:00 pm, which is the currect
> time here.
>
> Therefore you need to encode 01:00:01 pm into the signal, which you need
> to send to the Moon.
>
> There the Man-on-the-Moon reads the signal and dials the Moon-time-clock
> to 01:00:01 pm. Now both clocks are synchronized (supposed the tick rate
> is also equal).
So you are trying to set the clock at the Moon to show
tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
In accordance with Einstein's definition!
However, your method of synchronising non-synchronous clocks can
hardly work. If we are synchronising atomic clocks the synchronisation
should probably be within a ns or better.
tA is the time at the start of the signal and so is tB.
Your coded signal will have to be several ns long.
Go figure!
----------------
I have told you several times how it can be done:
This is one possible way:
Clock at B will probably not be synchronous with clock at A.
So let B's reading of the clock when the ray is reflected be tx.
The observer at A has measured tA and t'A.
The observers have now to communicate.
When B is at the Moon, observer A would probably use
a radio transmitter, and B would have a receiver.
Observer at A can then send tA and t'A to observer at B.
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-tA)/2 = (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,
it will be in synch with clock at A.
Note that if at a later time the clock at B shows t,
then the correct time is t+δ.
That is: δ shouldn't be added to tx, but to current time.
>
> But Einstein used an entirely different method and didn't even mention
> delay.
You are really something. :-D
I have told you at umpteen times:
Einstein:
"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."
That is: the clocks are synchronous if the 'delay' forth is
the same as the 'delay' back.
Is your problem that you don't find the transit time of the ray
called by the word "delay" ?
Why am I expecting you to keep saying
"Einstein didn't even mention delay? :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 07:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <185cc6a4e9795d32$269173$2336164$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665502 |
On 8/17/2025 10:34 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 14.08.2025 07:54, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong. > > Let's review what "Einstein's method to synchronize clocks" is. > The very first paragraph of Einstein's paper is: > > § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > The definition is: > "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer Paul, poor fanatic trash, if you ever had even a smallest piece of honesty - you would admit that even according to your moronic religion the nonsense of your idiot guru is worthless in the presence of gravity, i.e. everywhere. > A _definition_ can't be wrong. Paul, you're such an idiot to believe such a nonsense. Any of your precious "experimental evidence" for that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 09:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgg38vF6desU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665502 |
Am Sonntag000017, 17.08.2025 um 22:34 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 14.08.2025 07:54, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>
>> But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong.
>
> Let's review what "Einstein's method to synchronize clocks" is.
> The very first paragraph of Einstein's paper is:
>
> § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
> The definition is:
> "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
> at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
> proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are
> simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of
> space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
> it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values
> of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B.
> . . .
> Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
> let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
> and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′ A.
> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
> tB −tA = t′A −tB.
> "
> This equation can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
> The transit time for the ray to go from A to B or from B to A is
> "delay" = (t'A-tA)/2
>
> In words:
> If the clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent,
> then the clock at B is synchronous with the clock at A if it
> shows t plus the transit time (delay) when the pulse is received.
Sure, that's correct!
I have actually written that several times already, but you have always
rejected my demand.
But the question wasn't, what I think or you, but what Einstein wrote in
his paper.
And there ain't no such thing as 'delay'.
Einstein simply ignored the 'technical' requirements for synchronization.
> Note. Einstein only give the definition of simultaneity,
> he say what the clocks should read to be synchronous.
But Einstein's definition was nonsense!
It is obvious, that the transit of a signal needs a little bit of time
and that this time follows after the event, if a signal from an event is
interpreted somewhere.
For a proper definition of simultaneity you need to consider the delay
and subtract it afterwards again from the remote measurement.
Or in the other direction:
if you watch a remote clock and read out the remote time, you need to
add the delay to that reading, if you want to know the present time at
the remote station.
> He does not say anything about how to sync non-synchronous clocks.
> This depends on the available instruments etc., and doesn't belong
> in a _definition_ of simultaneity.
Sure.
But we're talking about principles and whether or not those make sense.
And Einstein's principles didn't make sense.
>> This caan be seen, if you compare Einstein's text ('On the
>> electrodynamics of moving bodies') and what Einstein wrote there about
>> this method in comparison to how that should actually be done.
>
> A _definition_ can't be wrong.
Well, in a way that is true, but would justify nonsense.
>>
>> I wrote about how the method should be (but wasn't), that you need to
>> measure the delay for the 'round trip', devide that by two and use the
>> result as correction of the own time value.
>
> Right.
> According to Einstein the clocks are synced if tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
>
> 'delay' = (t'A-tA)/2
All of this wasn't written in Eisntein's paper.
It would have been easy to rearrange the equations and derive, what you
had witten.
But Einstein didn't do that.
No such thing as 'delay' occured in Einstein's paper.
'Lichlaufzeit' was mentioned, which is almost the correct thing, but
that time wasn't used to compensate the delay.
Therefore my guess was: Einstein didn't wanted to correct the error
caused by the delay.
>
>> > E.g. you want to adjust a clock on the Moon, which is one light-second
>> away.
>
> I note with interest that you now have realised that you must have
> an observer on the Moon, and you are using Einstein's definition
> of simultaneity, the definition you claimed was wrong.
...
> I used an example and that was to place point B on the Moon and point A
in Houston, Texas.
This is IMHO possible, because an observer at A could see B.
It is in fact nonsense to assume an observer on the Moon, but we could
use the laser reflectors there or assume a future Moon station.
Now we could see, that t_B is irrelevant in Einstein's setting, hence
also, whether or not there is an observer on the Moon.
Sation A measures simply the delay for the entire 'round trip', which is
t'_A - t_A =delay_roundtrip
The half of this value is the delay for one direction and that could be
used to adjust the encoded time, which sent to the Moon-station.
But in the end both clocks don't get synchronized mutually, because
simply clock B is adjusted to clock A.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 20:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107vsv3$39klm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665506 |
Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Sonntag000017, 17.08.2025 um 22:34 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>> Den 14.08.2025 07:54, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>> But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong.
>>
>> Let's review what "Einstein's method to synchronize clocks" is.
>> The very first paragraph of Einstein's paper is:
>>
>> § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
>> The definition is:
>> "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
>> at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
>> proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are
>> simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of
>> space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
>> it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values
>> of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B.
>> . . .
>> Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
>> let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
>> and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′ A.
>> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>> tB −tA = t′A −tB.
>> "
>> This equation can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
>> The transit time for the ray to go from A to B or from B to A is
>> "delay" = (t'A-tA)/2
>>
>> In words:
>> If the clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent,
>> then the clock at B is synchronous with the clock at A if it
>> shows t plus the transit time (delay) when the pulse is received.
> Sure, that's correct!
Of course it is.
So why do you keep insisting it is wrong?
>
> I have actually written that several times already, but you have always
> rejected my demand.
Your 'demand' which I have 'rejected' was that Einstein's
definition above was wrong because he had ignored the 'delay'.
>
> But the question wasn't, what I think or you, but what Einstein wrote in
> his paper.
>
> And there ain't no such thing as 'delay'.
This is too stupid!
Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light
to go from A to B, or from B to A.
Einstein's definition of simultaneity in Einstein's words:
"We establish by definition that the “time” required by light
to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel
from B to A."
Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB −tA = t′A − tB."
Expressed in words:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
the transit time from A to B is equal to the transit time
from B to A."
The equation above can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
So Einstein's definition can be written:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2"
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."
There is no way to express Einstein's definition without
including the transit time. It is all about the transit time!
So how did you manage to read Einstein's paper and miss
that the transit time is mentioned over and over?
---------------------
You have now admitted that Einstein's definition is correct.
So stop claiming that the transit time is ignored.
Case closed!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <185cf342d8431708$402584$2311219$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665509 |
On 8/18/2025 8:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Einstein's definition of simultaneity in Einstein's words: > "We establish by definition that the “time” required by light > to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel > from B to A." > > Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math: > "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if > tB −tA = t′A − tB." Einstein's definition of a shark: shark noun [ C ] a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its wool, skin, and meat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 21:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g1fNSsDgS99de3GeogzHwGTfEgY@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665510 |
Le 18/08/2025 à 21:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 8/18/2025 8:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > >> Einstein's definition of simultaneity in Einstein's words: >> "We establish by definition that the “time” required by light >> to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel >> from B to A." > > >> >> Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math: >> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >> tB −tA = t′A − tB." > > Einstein's definition of a shark: > shark > noun [ C ] > a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its wool, > skin, and meat In Aleut language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleut_language) the word for what is called sheep in London is pronounced in a way that could be written in latin alphabet as "shark".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 06:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <185d0fbf9f825156$547746$2336164$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665511 |
On 8/18/2025 11:39 PM, Python wrote: > Le 18/08/2025 à 21:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/18/2025 8:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> >>> Einstein's definition of simultaneity in Einstein's words: >>> "We establish by definition that the “time” required by light >>> to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel >>> from B to A." >> >> >>> >>> Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math: >>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >>> tB −tA = t′A − tB." >> >> Einstein's definition of a shark: >> shark >> noun [ C ] >> a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its >> wool, skin, and meat > > In Aleut language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleut_language) the > word for what is called sheep in London is pronounced in a way that > could be written in latin alphabet as "shark". And I guess what is pronounced as "synchronization" in the mad newspeak of your mad ideology may fit the mad definition of your mad guru. Not in English, however.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 02:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <woGR3cFs77uz2UjY8TB37LA8z-w@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665509 |
Le 18/08/2025 à 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger: > Case closed! LOL. J'aurais quand même eu affaire à de biens belles bandes de crétins sur usenet, mais nous tournons en rond. Sinon je rappelle que : "It is not possible to synchronize two distant watches because they will never share the same notion of universal simultaneity. The plane of absolute present time does not exist. This notion, however deeply rooted in our minds it may be, does not exist. Our universe is not made like that; it is made according to the principle of universal anisochrony. "The time here cannot absolutely correspond with the time there." The plane of absolute present time is a fantasy. Let's take the example of a mountain. Its altitude is 3,645 meters. Much lower down, in the valley, we have an altitude of 1,250 meters. The two points can NEVER be measured at the same height. Let's say I set my altimeter to 3,645 meters. I'll have the same height as the other altimeter by this subterfuge, but as soon as I go up there, my altimeter will no longer agree with the other one. Their agreement in principle was artificial; the two points were not at the same height, period. This is what physics theorists seem to fail to understand when discussing the nature of time. We CANNOT AGREE the notions of local simultaneity. It may be that an event in B occurs at the same time as an event in A for A. But this will not be simultaneous for B. It is quite incredible that physicists were able to understand the notion of relativity of chronotropy by a change of reference frame, but without understanding that of anisochrony by a simple change of position."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 08:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgii5pFila8U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665512 |
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 04:16 schrieb Richard Hachel: > Le 18/08/2025 à 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger: > >> Case closed! > > LOL. > > J'aurais quand même eu affaire à de biens belles bandes de crétins sur > usenet, mais nous tournons en rond. > > Sinon je rappelle que : > "It is not possible to synchronize two distant watches because they will > never share the same notion of universal simultaneity. > The plane of absolute present time does not exist. > This notion, however deeply rooted in our minds it may be, does not > exist. Our universe is not made like that; it is made according to the > principle of universal anisochrony. "The time here cannot absolutely > correspond with the time there." The plane of absolute present time is a > fantasy. > Let's take the example of a mountain. Its altitude is 3,645 meters. Much > lower down, in the valley, we have an altitude of 1,250 meters. The two > points can NEVER be measured at the same height. > Let's say I set my altimeter to 3,645 meters. I'll have the same height > as the other altimeter by this subterfuge, but as soon as I go up there, > my altimeter will no longer agree with the other one. Their agreement in > principle was artificial; the two points were not at the same height, > period. > This is what physics theorists seem to fail to understand when > discussing the nature of time. We CANNOT AGREE the notions of local > simultaneity. It may be that an event in B occurs at the same time as an > event in A for A. But this will not be simultaneous for B. > It is quite incredible that physicists were able to understand the > notion of relativity of chronotropy by a change of reference frame, but > without understanding that of anisochrony by a simple change of position." I agree to the idea of local time, but would not reject a 'plane of simultaneity'. In relativity lingo a 'plane of simultaneity' is called 'spacelike'. That is technically a hyperplane (commonly called 'present'). It could be defined by a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity. This hyperplane is comoving with the observer and connects a realm, which actually invisible, though real. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 14:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8Zdh5Zxw1ptgMWkWDZsuzioQ7NI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665520 |
Le 19/08/2025 à 07:59, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 04:16 schrieb Richard Hachel: >> Le 18/08/2025 à 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>> Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >>> Case closed! >> >> LOL. >> >> J'aurais quand même eu affaire à de biens belles bandes de crétins sur >> usenet, mais nous tournons en rond. >> >> Sinon je rappelle que : >> "It is not possible to synchronize two distant watches because they will >> never share the same notion of universal simultaneity. >> The plane of absolute present time does not exist. >> This notion, however deeply rooted in our minds it may be, does not >> exist. Our universe is not made like that; it is made according to the >> principle of universal anisochrony. "The time here cannot absolutely >> correspond with the time there." The plane of absolute present time is a >> fantasy. >> Let's take the example of a mountain. Its altitude is 3,645 meters. Much >> lower down, in the valley, we have an altitude of 1,250 meters. The two >> points can NEVER be measured at the same height. >> Let's say I set my altimeter to 3,645 meters. I'll have the same height >> as the other altimeter by this subterfuge, but as soon as I go up there, >> my altimeter will no longer agree with the other one. Their agreement in >> principle was artificial; the two points were not at the same height, >> period. >> This is what physics theorists seem to fail to understand when >> discussing the nature of time. We CANNOT AGREE the notions of local >> simultaneity. It may be that an event in B occurs at the same time as an >> event in A for A. But this will not be simultaneous for B. >> It is quite incredible that physicists were able to understand the >> notion of relativity of chronotropy by a change of reference frame, but >> without understanding that of anisochrony by a simple change of position." > > I agree to the idea of local time, but would not reject a 'plane of > simultaneity'. > > > In relativity lingo a 'plane of simultaneity' is called 'spacelike'. > > That is technically a hyperplane (commonly called 'present'). > > It could be defined by a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity. > > This hyperplane is comoving with the observer and connects a realm, > which actually invisible, though real. > > TH I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. It gives a rather unpleasant impression. A bit like if for forty years, a man had been saying that he was injured falling from a horse, and by the word "horse," everyone understood that he had fallen from a rabbit. All of this is quite incredible. It's still not normal, even if sometimes the language barrier can play tricks, that no one, ever, understands this idea of the relativity of the hyperplane of present time between two distant observers, making perfect synchronization and absolute simultaneity of their respective existences impossible. No one seems to understand that Juliet, sitting on this bench, and Romeo sitting on that other one, although in the same courtyard, but separated by a distance of 30 meters, will never live in the same absolute present time. This is what is called universal anisochrony. Their universal present time plane is relative, and entirely personal. Two simultaneous events for Romeo (she beeps at the same time as him for him) will no longer be simultaneous for Juliet (for her, in this case, Romeo beeped much later delta_t=2x/c). R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 02:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uaJm2-xICICjD7Y8Eb1q-I3yElM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665509 |
Le 18/08/2025 à 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger: > Case closed! LOL. J'aurais quand même eu affaire à de biens belles bandes de crétins sur usenet, mais nous tournons en rond. Sinon je rappelle que : "It is not possible to synchronize two distant watches because they will never share the same notion of universal simultaneity. The plane of absolute present time does not exist. This notion, however deeply rooted in our minds it may be, does not exist. Our universe is not made like that; it is made according to the principle of universal anisochrony. "The time here cannot absolutely correspond with the time there." The plane of absolute present time is a fantasy. Let's take the example of a mountain. Its altitude is 3,645 meters. Much lower down, in the valley, we have an altitude of 1,250 meters. The two points can NEVER be measured at the same height. Let's say I set my altimeter to 3,645 meters. I'll have the same height as the other altimeter by this subterfuge, but as soon as I go up there, my altimeter will no longer agree with the other one. Their agreement in principle was artificial; the two points were not at the same height, period. This is what physics theorists seem to fail to understand when discussing the nature of time. We CANNOT AGREE the notions of local simultaneity. It may be that an event in B occurs at the same time as an event in A for A. But this will not be simultaneous for B. It is quite incredible that physicists were able to understand the notion of relativity of chronotropy by a change of reference frame, but without understanding that of anisochrony by a simple change of position."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 02:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <s4max35Mfa4OvrYficPVBTzcrYc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665509 |
Le 18/08/2025 à 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger: > Case closed! LOL. J'aurais quand même eu affaire à de biens belles bandes de crétins sur usenet, mais nous tournons en rond. Sinon je rappelle que : "It is not possible to synchronize two distant watches because they will never share the same notion of universal simultaneity. The plane of absolute present time does not exist. This notion, however deeply rooted in our minds it may be, does not exist. Our universe is not made like that; it is made according to the principle of universal anisochrony. "The time here cannot absolutely correspond with the time there." The plane of absolute present time is a fantasy. Let's take the example of a mountain. Its altitude is 3,645 meters. Much lower down, in the valley, we have an altitude of 1,250 meters. The two points can NEVER be measured at the same height. Let's say I set my altimeter to 3,645 meters. I'll have the same height as the other altimeter by this subterfuge, but as soon as I go up there, my altimeter will no longer agree with the other one. Their agreement in principle was artificial; the two points were not at the same height, period. This is what physics theorists seem to fail to understand when discussing the nature of time. We CANNOT AGREE the notions of local simultaneity. It may be that an event in B occurs at the same time as an event in A for A. But this will not be simultaneous for B. It is quite incredible that physicists were able to understand the notion of relativity of chronotropy by a change of reference frame, but without understanding that of anisochrony by a simple change of position."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web