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 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 10:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgle9qF2ohgU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665522 |
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: ... >>> The equation above can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2 >>> >>> So Einstein's definition can be written: >>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >>> tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2" >>> >>> Expressed in words: >>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >>> the clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent, and >>> the clock at B shows t plus the transit time when the ray >>> is received." > > Is the 'delay' mentioned? No, the word 'delay' didn't occur in Einstein's paper. > Is this wrong? Sure, it should have been mentioned. >> >> But where is this equation in Einstein's paper?? > > (tB −tA = t′A − tB) ≡ (tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2) > >> >> It is not sufficiant, that the equation could be derived with ease, >> but that the author derived this equation. >> >> And Einstein didn't. YOU did! > > And that's why Einstein didn't even menton delay, > and his defition of sumultaneity is wrong? :-D His definition was wrong, because he took the actual remote reading of a distant clock as remote time. This was conceptually wrong. In fact he had to add the delay to that reading. But Einstein didn't mention delay and didn't calculate that delay properly. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 19:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <P9npQ.2053$NzO3.1708@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665527 |
Den 20.08.2025 10:15, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>> Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>>> >>>> Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light >>>> to go from A to B, or from B to A. Do you think that pretending not to understand that the 'transit time' is the same as your 'delay' can make it correct that the your 'delay' is never mentioned? :-D >>>> >>>> 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." Do you think that pretending not to understand that the 'travel time' is the same as your 'delay' can make it correct that the your 'delay' is never mentioned? :-D >> >> Is the 'delay' mentioned? >> Is this wrong? >> >>>> >>>> Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math: >>>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >>>> tB −tA = t′A − tB." >>>> >>>> Expressed in words: >>>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >>>> the transit time from A to B is equal to the transit time >>>> from B to A." >> >> Is the 'delay' mentioned? >> Is this wrong? >> >>>> The equation above can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2 >>>> >>>> So Einstein's definition can be written: >>>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >>>> tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2" >>>> >>>> Expressed in words: >>>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >>>> the clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent, and >>>> the clock at B shows t plus the transit time when the ray >>>> is received." >> >> Is the 'delay' mentioned? > > No, the word 'delay' didn't occur in Einstein's paper. > >> Is this wrong? > > Sure, it should have been mentioned. > :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 08:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgnt23Ffm6uU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665541 |
Am Mittwoch000020, 20.08.2025 um 19:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 20.08.2025 10:15, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > >>>> Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > >>>>> >>>>> Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light >>>>> to go from A to B, or from B to A. > > Do you think that pretending not to understand that > the 'transit time' is the same as your 'delay' can > make it correct that the your 'delay' is never mentioned? :-D But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither! What you actually do is a very common mistake: you fill in the blanks! This is like hallucinating what should be there, but isn't. Humans do that all the time and are actually very good at it. But if you want to treat Einstein's paper properly, you need to search for what Einstein had actually written and must ignore, what you think he should have written. And after very careful search I haven't found, what you wrote the text would contain. So, you should take the possibility into consideration, that your guess about the text was wrong. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 11:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uaYk-BFV3_BNTnOyeQu8Wd9Tc6A@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665545 |
Le 21/08/2025 à 08:35, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Mittwoch000020, 20.08.2025 um 19:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 20.08.2025 10:15, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >> >>>>> Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >> >>>>>> >>>>>> Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light >>>>>> to go from A to B, or from B to A. >> >> Do you think that pretending not to understand that >> the 'transit time' is the same as your 'delay' can >> make it correct that the your 'delay' is never mentioned? :-D > > > But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither! If you cannot spot that when t_A, t_B and t'_A are defined as such : "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” t_A from A towards B, let it at the “B time” t_B be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” $t'_A." And then that when t_B - t_A, t'_A - t_B and t'_A - t_A (all being subtractions of times) are mentioned they all are (on some conditions that Einstein specified) TRANSIT TIME i.e. delay then you definitely are not part of the intended audience of this article. Your interpretation of the text, which has absolutely no ground in the paper itself, is even ruled out at the very beginning of this section: "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." Einstein EXPLICITLY rejects the interpretation you pulled out of nowhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-22 08:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgqgapFsv4sU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665547 |
Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 13:48 schrieb Python: > Le 21/08/2025 à 08:35, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Mittwoch000020, 20.08.2025 um 19:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 20.08.2025 10:15, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>> >>>>>> Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light >>>>>>> to go from A to B, or from B to A. >>> >>> Do you think that pretending not to understand that >>> the 'transit time' is the same as your 'delay' can >>> make it correct that the your 'delay' is never mentioned? :-D >> >> >> But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither! > > If you cannot spot that when t_A, t_B and t'_A are defined as such : > > "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” t_A from A towards B, let it > at the “B time” t_B be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive > again at A at the “A time” $t'_A." > > And then that when t_B - t_A, t'_A - t_B and t'_A - t_A (all being > subtractions of times) are mentioned they all are (on some conditions > that Einstein specified) TRANSIT TIME i.e. delay then you definitely are > not part of the intended audience of this article. No, because Einstein used the symbol 't' for 'points in time', which were measured in system K as 'A-time'. The remote system in relative motion had also a local time, but which had a different symbol 'tau'. Now it is very important, to keep track of the frames of reference, which were addressed by Einstein's variables. We have two coordinate systems (K and k) and two different symbols for time coordinates (t and tau). Einstein used the term 'time' not as intervals, but meant 'points in time'. This was also wrong, of course, because time is always an interval and absolute points in time make no sense. But Einstein meant actually 'points in time' with t. Therefore, you were wrong, because those t in "t_B - t_A, t'_A - t_B and t'_A - t_A" were actually not all 'subtractions of times'. Einstein meant points in time. Duration was therefore a difference between t'_A and t_A (for instance). BUT (VERY IMPORTANT!) all of these t were based and measured with 'A-time' and by the observer in A. This made t_B in measures of 'B-time' irrelevant. The remote clock at B should be turned to 'A-time' anyhow (what was regarded as 'synchronization'). But to do this, we would need to tell an observer at point B the value of t_B, to which he had to set the local clock at the time of arrival of the signal. This could be done, if the observer at point A measures the delay, adds the value to the local time in A, sends the result encoded to the remote station, where the local observer there turns the clock at point B accordingly. > Your interpretation of the text, which has absolutely no ground in the > paper itself, is even ruled out at the very beginning of this section: Sure, but that wasn't 'interpretation of the text'. Instead I had created the correct method for synchronization myself and compared Einstein's method with that. And, sure, there was a difference. > "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." > > Einstein EXPLICITLY rejects the interpretation you pulled out of nowhere. I interpreted Einstein's word, as if he wanted to take the actually reading of the remote clock as remote time. This follows from his procedure, where he 'reads' the remote clock (apparently by means of a telescope or similar). This time value, which he reads from the remote clock, was assumed to be depending upon the distance between the observer and the clock. But that would require, that Einstein didn't want to correct the received signal of the error caused by the transit delay. This was in fact my interpretation of Einstein's text. If you have any other, than, please, let me know. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-22 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LSM6JkuB_zvMr4zR7AzbZyr0FE0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665559 |
Le 22/08/2025 à 08:16, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 13:48 schrieb Python: >> Le 21/08/2025 à 08:35, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Mittwoch000020, 20.08.2025 um 19:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 20.08.2025 10:15, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>>> >>>>>>> Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light >>>>>>>> to go from A to B, or from B to A. >>>> >>>> Do you think that pretending not to understand that >>>> the 'transit time' is the same as your 'delay' can >>>> make it correct that the your 'delay' is never mentioned? :-D >>> >>> >>> But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither! >> >> If you cannot spot that when t_A, t_B and t'_A are defined as such : >> >> "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” t_A from A towards B, let it >> at the “B time” t_B be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive >> again at A at the “A time” $t'_A." >> >> And then that when t_B - t_A, t'_A - t_B and t'_A - t_A (all being >> subtractions of times) are mentioned they all are (on some conditions >> that Einstein specified) TRANSIT TIME i.e. delay then you definitely are >> not part of the intended audience of this article. > > > No, because Einstein used the symbol 't' for 'points in time', which > were measured in system K as 'A-time'. > > The remote system in relative motion had also a local time, but which > had a different symbol 'tau'. > > Now it is very important, to keep track of the frames of reference, > which were addressed by Einstein's variables. > > We have two coordinate systems (K and k) and two different symbols for > time coordinates (t and tau). We are not dealing yet with systems in relative motion in this section. t and tau are defined for both systems K and k in the exact same way: by considering mutually at rests clocks in both frames of reference. Einstein wrote it explicitly: "We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in §1" But it is pointless to talk about what is beyond §1 if you've already completely missed the point of §1. Right? > Einstein used the term 'time' not as intervals, but meant 'points in time'. He meant what a local clock reads. PERIOD. > This was also wrong, of course, because time is always an interval and > absolute points in time make no sense. > > But Einstein meant actually 'points in time' with t. > > Therefore, you were wrong, because those t in "t_B - t_A, t'_A - t_B and > t'_A - t_A" were actually not all 'subtractions of times'. > > Einstein meant points in time. > > Duration was therefore a difference between t'_A and t_A (for instance). > > BUT (VERY IMPORTANT!) all of these t were based and measured with > 'A-time' and by the observer in A. > > This made t_B in measures of 'B-time' irrelevant. Your sentence is utterly asinine. The whole point of this section is to insure (or check) that B-time and A-time are "compatible", i.e. can be combined in formula. This is the whole point of synchronization. > The remote clock at B should be turned to 'A-time' anyhow (what was > regarded as 'synchronization'). > > But to do this, we would need to tell an observer at point B the value > of t_B, to which he had to set the local clock at the time of arrival of > the signal. The observer at B does not need to be told what t_B is. He *observes* it on his clock. How can you be sooo confused on such basic stuff? > This could be done, if the observer at point A measures the delay, adds > the value to the local time in A, sends the result encoded to the remote > station, where the local observer there turns the clock at point B > accordingly. This is exactly what he could do when he'll get the value of tA and t'A from observer A (this can be done by any mean, at any future time). He can then use Einstein formula to compute the offset to apply to his clock in order to insure that t'A - tB = tB - tA in case it was not true. >> Your interpretation of the text, which has absolutely no ground in the >> paper itself, is even ruled out at the very beginning of this section: > > > Sure, but that wasn't 'interpretation of the text'. > > Instead I had created the correct method for synchronization myself and > compared Einstein's method with that. You completely misunderstood Einstein procedure. Your own may make sense or not, but is irrelevant. > And, sure, there was a difference. > >> "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." >> >> Einstein EXPLICITLY rejects the interpretation you pulled out of nowhere. > I interpreted Einstein's word, as if he wanted to take the actually > reading of the remote clock as remote time. > > This follows from his procedure, where he 'reads' the remote clock > (apparently by means of a telescope or similar). > > This time value, which he reads from the remote clock, was assumed to be > depending upon the distance between the observer and the clock. > > But that would require, that Einstein didn't want to correct the > received signal of the error caused by the transit delay. > > This was in fact my interpretation of Einstein's text. So your "interpretation" is that Einstein applied a procedure that he explicitly ruled out at the beginning of the section about synchronization. You are insane, aren't you? > If you have any other, than, please, let me know. I already dit, several time. You could even experiment it there : https://noedge.net/e/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 09:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgt89lFc58bU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665571 |
Am Freitag000022, 22.08.2025 um 19:07 schrieb Python: ... >>>>>>>>> Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light >>>>>>>>> to go from A to B, or from B to A. >>>>> >>>>> Do you think that pretending not to understand that >>>>> the 'transit time' is the same as your 'delay' can >>>>> make it correct that the your 'delay' is never mentioned? :-D >>>> >>>> >>>> But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither! >>> >>> If you cannot spot that when t_A, t_B and t'_A are defined as such : >>> >>> "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” t_A from A towards B, let >>> it at the “B time” t_B be reflected at B in the direction of A, and >>> arrive again at A at the “A time” $t'_A." >>> >>> And then that when t_B - t_A, t'_A - t_B and t'_A - t_A (all being >>> subtractions of times) are mentioned they all are (on some conditions >>> that Einstein specified) TRANSIT TIME i.e. delay then you definitely >>> are not part of the intended audience of this article. >> >> >> No, because Einstein used the symbol 't' for 'points in time', which >> were measured in system K as 'A-time'. >> >> The remote system in relative motion had also a local time, but which >> had a different symbol 'tau'. >> >> Now it is very important, to keep track of the frames of reference, >> which were addressed by Einstein's variables. >> >> We have two coordinate systems (K and k) and two different symbols for >> time coordinates (t and tau). > > We are not dealing yet with systems in relative motion in this section. Sure, relative motion was introduced in §3 (together with v, tau and system k)> > t and tau are defined for both systems K and k in the exact same way: by > considering mutually at rests clocks in both frames of reference. > Einstein wrote it explicitly: NO! Quote: " ...(this 't' always denotes a time of the stationary system).." The stationary system was named 'K' Quote: "...similarly let the time τ of the moving system be determined for all points of the moving system at which there are clocks..." The moving system had the name 'k'. > "We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and > that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in §1" The quote was: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the "time of the stationary system" at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore synchronous in the stationary system. We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer,..." This is a different situation, where a rod flies by at a distance and with significant velocity. > But it is pointless to talk about what is beyond §1 if you've already > completely missed the point of §1. Right? Well, actually no. I counted roughly 380 errors in Einstein's text. It would have been justified to stop after the first error and throw the paper into the dustbin. But somehow I wanted to find ALL errors. This would require to continue with an already messed up paper. Therefore I was forced to take Einstein's words verbatim and had to isolate all statements to what they actually said. >> Einstein used the term 'time' not as intervals, but meant 'points in >> time'. > > He meant what a local clock reads. PERIOD. Clocks don't show absolute time, but clocks are kind of counters, which count periods of some sort of rhythms, which occur in a constant and known frequency. 'To Count' requires to start the process somewhere and to end it. Therefore time is actually an interval and has a starting point (which is usually not mentioned) and an endpoint (which the clocks could show). But there are no such things as 'absolute points in time'. That why clocks can't show or measure them. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 13:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <BCoEHJ6oAaUgS9J4Ez6jRACNqzA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665545 |
Herr Thomas Heger, while waiting for the call for his train departure in some German station, then it is announced that the train will depart at 12:30 instead of 12:00. Arrived at destination, Thomas went to Deutsche Bahn deck to complain: "You didn't announce that my train would be delayed!" - But it was announced that your train will depart at 12:30 instead of 12:00 ! - Right, but you didn't mention the word "delay"! I'm suing you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 14:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <976QKzIpniizAqQ8BML7Z9zbTl0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665548 |
Le 21/08/2025 à 15:37, Python a écrit : > Herr Thomas Heger, while waiting for the call for his train departure in some > German station, then it is announced that the train will depart at 12:30 instead > of 12:00. > > Arrived at destination, Thomas went to Deutsche Bahn deck to complain: "You > didn't announce that my train would be delayed!" > - But it was announced that your train will depart at 12:30 instead of 12:00 ! > - Right, but you didn't mention the word "delay"! I'm suing you! The problem with Einstein, that is, with German relativistic thought of 1905, is that he seems to consider the photon to be a kind of small particle which, like a carriage, travels through space and time the distance from Paris to Marseille, then returns. Since the journey is made at a finite speed, there is therefore a delay between the instant of departure and the instant of return. The journey lasted ten days. And since the horse travels at the same speed, and the outward journey is the same as the return journey, it's simple, we divide by two. We are in the midst of Galilean reflection. This comparison is obviously scientifically dramatic. I have explained a thousand times why, and what the relativity of the notion of simultaneity is within a simple physical frame of reference, I won't go over it again. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-22 08:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgqglpFsv4sU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665548 |
Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 15:37 schrieb Python: > Herr Thomas Heger, while waiting for the call for his train departure in > some German station, then it is announced that the train will depart at > 12:30 instead of 12:00. > > Arrived at destination, Thomas went to Deutsche Bahn deck to complain: > "You didn't announce that my train would be delayed!" > - But it was announced that your train will depart at 12:30 instead of > 12:00 ! > - Right, but you didn't mention the word "delay"! I'm suing you! > > Well, we were still talking about a certain text of some fame, which has the title 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. Now you apparently want to say, that Einstein used other means to express the meant delay in his paper. Well,the delay is: delay=(t'_A - t_A)/2 Were exactly have you found that in this article? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-22 16:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qtGl8krSF0_1wyNKX2JN8MPuFgI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665560 |
Le 22/08/2025 à 08:22, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 15:37 schrieb Python: >> Herr Thomas Heger, while waiting for the call for his train departure in >> some German station, then it is announced that the train will depart at >> 12:30 instead of 12:00. >> >> Arrived at destination, Thomas went to Deutsche Bahn deck to complain: >> "You didn't announce that my train would be delayed!" >> - But it was announced that your train will depart at 12:30 instead of >> 12:00 ! >> - Right, but you didn't mention the word "delay"! I'm suing you! >> >> > Well, we were still talking about a certain text of some fame, which has > the title 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. > > Now you apparently want to say, that Einstein used other means to > express the meant delay in his paper. > > Well,the delay is: > > delay=(t'_A - t_A)/2 > > Were exactly have you found that in this article? I do not have to be spoon fed, I can deduce it from 2(AB)/(t'A - tA) is invariant and from t'A - tB = tB -tA which are both found in the article.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 09:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgt747Fc58bU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665569 |
Am Freitag000022, 22.08.2025 um 18:53 schrieb Python: > Le 22/08/2025 à 08:22, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 15:37 schrieb Python: >>> Herr Thomas Heger, while waiting for the call for his train departure >>> in some German station, then it is announced that the train will >>> depart at 12:30 instead of 12:00. >>> >>> Arrived at destination, Thomas went to Deutsche Bahn deck to >>> complain: "You didn't announce that my train would be delayed!" >>> - But it was announced that your train will depart at 12:30 instead >>> of 12:00 ! >>> - Right, but you didn't mention the word "delay"! I'm suing you! >>> >>> >> Well, we were still talking about a certain text of some fame, which >> has the title 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. >> >> Now you apparently want to say, that Einstein used other means to >> express the meant delay in his paper. >> >> Well,the delay is: >> >> delay=(t'_A - t_A)/2 >> >> Were exactly have you found that in this article? > > I do not have to be spoon fed, I can deduce it from 2(AB)/(t'A - tA) is > invariant and from t'A - tB = tB -tA which are both found in the article. YOU can. But that wasn't the question. The question was, whether Einstein could (or not). Einstein had actually the (strange) idea, to make time dependent of the location. Quote: " The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event,..." (from page 3, lower third. End of §1). To make time 'location dependent' would make only sense, if Einstein wanted to ignore the delay and take the actual reading of the remote clock as remote time. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 21:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1087r06$14ffj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665545 |
Den 21.08.2025 08:39, skrev Thomas Heger:
>
>>>>> Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light
>>>>>> to go from A to B, or from B to A.
>
> But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither!
Quite right.
Einstein never mentioned 'transit time' in his paper
which was written in German.
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamik.pdf
Einstein wrote:
"die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"
and:
"der "Zeit", welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen."
Translated to English:
"the “time” required by light to travel from A to B"
and:
"the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.
Is your 'delay' anything different from: "die Zeit, welche
das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"?
In that case, please explain what 'delay' means.
>
> But if you want to treat Einstein's paper properly, you need to search
> for what Einstein had actually written and must ignore, what you think
> he should have written.
Quite. I found :
"die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"
which in the English translation not made by Einstein is:
"the “time” required by light to travel from A to B"
>
> And after very careful search I haven't found, what you wrote the text
> would contain.
Of course you didn't.
One can't expect an ignoramus to understand that
the statements:
"die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B
zu gelangen"
and
"the time required by light to travel from A to B"
and
"the transit time of light to go from A to B"
mean exactly the same.
>
> So, you should take the possibility into consideration, that your guess
> about the text was wrong.
Says one who can read Einstein's paper very careful without
noticing that the definition of simultaneity is all about
the transit time.
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB −tA = t′A − tB."
The two clocks are synchronous if the transit time of light
is the same in both direction.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Samsath Bakalov <msml@svalsa.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1087s7f$155dg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665552 |
Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 21.08.2025 08:39, skrev Thomas Heger: >> But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither! > > Quite right. > Einstein never mentioned 'transit time' in his paper which was written > in German. https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamik.pdf > > Einstein wrote: > "die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" > and: "der "Zeit", welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." > Translated to English: > "the “time” required by light to travel from A to B" > and: "the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. not true, it reveals the imbecile Einstine didnt know what propagation delay is. As light doesnt implies propagation delay nor "the time required". The gypsy khazar was an imbecile. Nor it was sabotage, as Norway never declared war to Russia, nor america, nor any in the collective_vest. as such, it was terrorism, nato terrorism and state sponsored terrorism. Here we go with some proofs BALTOPS22 (nato Baltic Operations 2022) These countries will exercise a myriad of capabilities, demonstrating the inherent flexibility of maritime forces. Exercise scenarios include amphibious, gunnery, anti-submarine, air defense, and mine clearance operations, as well as explosive ordnance disposal, unmanned underwater and surface vehicle exercises, and medical responses. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/baltops-2023-exercise-kicks-off-in-the-baltic-sea/ Participating nations include Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v_Y88mrtamrWX-yG6kJmA0twVuM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665553 |
Le 21/08/2025 à 21:32, Samsath Bakalov a écrit : > Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> "the “time” required by light to travel from A to B" >> and: "the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. False in point of view of A, and point of view of B. Only for C, an transversal observer. > not true, it reveals the imbecile Einstine didnt know what propagation delay is. Absolutely. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5iH_f10rWtwz0esutdpwjIzxiQA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665552 |
Le 21/08/2025 à 21:11, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 21.08.2025 08:39, skrev Thomas Heger: > The two clocks are synchronous if the transit time of light > is the same in both direction. This is stupid. The transit time of light (information) is the same in both direction A to B (for A) and B to A (for A). You can't harmonize two watches placed in different locations because of a strange property of space that ancient philosophers and scientists were unaware of: spatial anisochrony. A very bad example, but one that can help you understand, is that of two sundial clocks, one placed in Paris, the other in Moscow. NATURALLY, we can never harmonize them because of the Earth's roundness. Of course, the shadow of their arms will rotate at the same speed, which means they will have the same chronotropy, but they will never mark the same time. The same is true of two clocks placed in the same frame of reference, but in different locations. Each sees the other slightly behind. The notion of present time is not "absolute." It's not a problem of delay or transmission, but of a real, physical, unavoidable difference. Let's return to the idea of our solar clock. In Paris, it is noon, but in Moscow, it is 3:00 (the Earth rotates from east to west). A space observer observes both clocks through his telescope, and reports that the Moscow clock is ahead, and that it must conform to the Paris clock. The observer then sees two synchronous clocks in his telescope, except that the Moscow observer is surprised to see the sun set earlier and rise three hours later. Etc. But if we ask the Parisian observer to synchronize, it is this new observer who will locally discover that there is a problem, and that his clock shows 3:00 at noon. We will therefore NEVER be able to "absolutely" match two solar clocks, just as we will never be able, because of anisochrony, that is, the relativity of local simultaneity, to match two atomic clocks. Each will be slightly ahead of the other, and more noticeably so with distance. This is a real, reciprocal phenomenon, and not due to a delay in light, which we would compare to a small carriage taking time to travel from Paris to Marseille. This is why the word "delay" in Einstein's writings is very biased and never properly explained. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-22 08:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgqhl8Fsv4sU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665552 |
Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 21:11 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > Den 21.08.2025 08:39, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >>>>>> Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light >>>>>>> to go from A to B, or from B to A. > >> >> But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither! > > Quite right. > Einstein never mentioned 'transit time' in his paper > which was written in German. > https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamik.pdf > > Einstein wrote: > "die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" > and: > "der "Zeit", welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." > > Translated to English: > "the “time” required by light to travel from A to B" > and: > "the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. > > Is your 'delay' anything different from: "die Zeit, welche > das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"? > > In that case, please explain what 'delay' means. The problem was, that Einstein equated these transit times (from A to B and from B to A), but didn't take the 'one way delay' into consideration. We would need this 'one way delay', because otherwise we couldn't correct the error caused by the finite speed of light. That these values are equal, that is quite a logical requirement, even if that isn't necessarily the case. (This is so, because the delays are only equal on both ways, if the sender and the remote station do not move in respect to each other.) But we need the 'one way delay' as a numerical value, because if we don't have that, we cannot correct the time value of a remote clock. Let's take a cosmological example: a planet near Alpha Centaury. The delay of a signal from there to here shall be three years, for instance. Now we receive a timing signal, which is based on 'Alpha Centaury Mean Time' and its value is three years late, once it arrives here. We simply cannot use the actual value, because we know, that it had to be wrong. We must correct that value 'by hand' and add three years to the received time value. To do this, it is essential to know this delay, which therefor needs to be measured. This can be done by sending a 'ping' to the remote station, measure the delay for the total 'round trip' and cut that in half. But no such thing was done or even mentioned by Einstein. TH ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-22 19:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <108ab4b$1mlaq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665561 |
Den 22.08.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 21:11 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >> >> Einstein wrote: >> "die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" >> >> Translated to English: >> "the “time” required by light to travel from A to B" >> >> Is your 'delay' anything different from: "die Zeit, welche >> das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"? >> >> In that case, please explain what 'delay' means. > > The problem was, that Einstein equated these transit times (from A to B > and from B to A), but didn't take the 'one way delay' into consideration. You didn't answer the question: Is your 'one way delay' different from: "die Zeit, welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" ? In the case your 'one way delay' is the same as "the time required by light to travel from A to B", why do you keep insisting that the 'delay' was never mentioned or 'taken into consideration' by Einstein ? In the case your 'one way delay' is different from "the time required by light to travel from A to B", please explain what your 'one way delay' is. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-24 08:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgvo6lFppblU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665574 |
Am Freitag000022, 22.08.2025 um 19:59 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > Den 22.08.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 21:11 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>> >>> Einstein wrote: >>> "die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" >>> >>> Translated to English: >>> "the “time” required by light to travel from A to B" >>> >>> Is your 'delay' anything different from: "die Zeit, welche >>> das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"? >>> >>> In that case, please explain what 'delay' means. > >> >> The problem was, that Einstein equated these transit times (from A to >> B and from B to A), but didn't take the 'one way delay' into >> consideration. > > You didn't answer the question: sure I did. I was missing a statement about the transit delay from A to B. > Is your 'one way delay' different from: "die Zeit, welche > das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" ? (the German part means: the time which light needs to get from A to B) Sure, that would have been delay. You have given the exact quote about what Einstein had actually written about this delay. But: where is 'delay'? I mean: how long is that time? It was, of course, easy to calculate and would be delay =(t'_A - t_A)/2 This delay should have been used to correct the apparent time at the remote clock. But Einstein didn't do that and made absolutely no attempts to do that, nor even mentioned the requirement or the word 'delay' itself. Instead he actually made statements, that time should be depending on the location. This would only make sense, if he didn't wanted to correct the error caused by the transit delay. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-24 22:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <KUKqQ.4903$Zpmc.2416@fx11.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665595 |
Den 24.08.2025 08:05, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Freitag000022, 22.08.2025 um 19:59 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>> Den 22.08.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 21:11 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>>
>>>> Einstein wrote:
>>>> "die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"
>>>>
>>>> Translated to English:
>>>> "the “time” required by light to travel from A to B"
>>>>
>>>> Is your 'delay' anything different from: "die Zeit, welche
>>>> das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"?
>>>>
>>>> In that case, please explain what 'delay' means.
>>
>>>
>>> The problem was, that Einstein equated these transit times (from A to
>>> B and from B to A), but didn't take the 'one way delay' into
>>> consideration.
>>
>> You didn't answer the question:
>
>
> sure I did.
>
> I was missing a statement about the transit delay from A to B.
>
>
>> Is your 'one way delay' different from: "die Zeit, welche
>> das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" ?
>
> (the German part means:
> the time which light needs to get from A to B)
>
> Sure, that would have been delay.
>
> You have given the exact quote about what Einstein had actually written
> about this delay.
>
> But: where is 'delay'?
'delay' is a wrong word used on a transits time.
Webster: delay (noun)
a: the act of postponing, hindering, or causing something
to occur more slowly than normal : the state of being delayed
b: an instance of being delayed
>
> I mean: how long is that time?
Good grief!
You have been told umpteen time!
Einstein:
"Es gehe nämlich ein Lichtstrahl zur "A-Zeit" tA von A nach B ab,
werde zur "B-Zeit" tB in B gegen A zu reflektiert und gelange zur
"A-Zeit" t'A nach A zurück. Die beiden Uhren laufen definitionsgemäß
synchron, wenn tB − tA = t′A − tB "
Translated to English:
"Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′A. In accordance with
definition the two clocks are synchronous if tB − tA = t′A − tB "
The 'one way delay' from A to B = tB − tA
The 'one way delay' from B to A = t′A − tB
If tB − tA = t′A − tB, then the two clocks are synchronous
If the 'one way delay', measured with the clocks at A and B,
is the same in both direction, then the clocks at A and B
are synchronous.
Still not got it?
>
> It was, of course, easy to calculate and would be
>
> delay =(t'_A - t_A)/2
>
> This delay should have been used to correct the apparent time at the
> remote clock.
Good grief! The 'remote clock' again. Do you never learn?
Einstein:
"Befindet sich in Punkte A des Raumes eine Uhr, so kann ein in A
befindlicher Beobachter die Ereignisse in der unmittelbaren
Umgebung von A zeitlich werten durch Aufsuchen der mit diesen
Ereignissen gleichseitigen Uhrsteigerstellungen.
Befindet sich in Punkte B des Raumes eine Uhr - wir wollen
hinzufügen, "eine Uhr von genau derselben Beschaffenheit wie
die in A befindliche" - so ist auch eine zeitliche Wertung
der Ereignisse in der unmittelbaren Umgebung von B durch
einen in B befindlicher Beobachter möglich."
Translated to Enlish:
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A
can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity
of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous
with these events. If there is at the point B of space another
clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible
for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
the immediate neighbourhood of B."
There is no "apparent time" at the "remote clock" to correct.
The observer at B reads the clock at B to show tB.
There is nothing "apparent" about tB.
>
>
> But Einstein didn't do that and made absolutely no attempts to do that,
> nor even mentioned the requirement or the word 'delay' itself.
'delay' is not the correct word for travel time or transit time.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web