Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #665778 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-04 14:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2025-09-06 16:48 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-04 14:40 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-04 16:26 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-05 08:16 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-05 11:05 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-05 09:41 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-04 23:39 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-05 14:31 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-06 10:39 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-06 12:56 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-07 10:26 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-07 08:37 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-09 08:35 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-09 14:38 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-12 07:51 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-12 05:56 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-13 08:33 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 08:45 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-14 10:25 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-14 20:21 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-15 08:38 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 21:25 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 22:26 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-16 20:07 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 20:20 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-15 13:01 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-15 13:29 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 22:49 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-15 14:13 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 06:55 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-15 17:16 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-15 17:28 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-15 18:35 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 11:54 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-08 14:23 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-10 10:40 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-10 20:57 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-10 21:25 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-12 08:07 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-12 12:54 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 12:58 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-12 14:27 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 14:31 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-13 14:06 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 14:08 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 12:31 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-15 20:01 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 21:01 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-13 09:05 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-13 21:37 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 22:23 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 20:30 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 06:34 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-14 07:44 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 10:36 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-14 10:35 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 13:16 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-14 11:13 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 12:14 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-14 21:10 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 22:56 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 12:04 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 16:09 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-15 13:37 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-16 08:33 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-16 11:42 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 09:35 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Dwan Szczepanski <aan@ezz.pl> - 2025-09-17 10:56 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-06 18:10 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 13:29 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-07 10:34 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-08 14:24 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-06 11:14 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 09:53 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 13:34 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 16:37 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 14:11 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-08 09:53 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 12:10 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 12:20 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 12:59 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 13:33 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 14:16 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 16:26 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 16:29 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-10 13:18 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-11 10:01 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-11 14:19 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-11 22:29 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 11:11 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 11:25 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 12:05 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 13:40 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 13:55 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 15:40 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 15:54 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 22:31 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 09:56 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-14 00:40 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-14 12:54 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-14 20:24 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 10:48 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 10:04 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-16 15:11 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-14 20:27 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 10:06 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 16:48 -0700
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 21:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2JZxQ.1728$fBn8.1572@fx18.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666068 |
Den 15.09.2025 08:38, skrev Thomas Heger: > > It starts with the lack of a proper definition of t_A and t_B. > > If disconnected local times are meant with 'A-time' and 'B-time' and t_A > was measured in 'A-time' and t_B by means of 'B-time', than > t_B-t_A would be an illegal operation to begin with. > > Therefore t_A and t_B must be based on 'A-time' only. And that in turn > would make 'B-time' irrelevant. > > That isn't bad at all, because the clock in B shall be synchronized with > the clock in A, anyhow. > quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity ------------------------------------------- | "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." An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A. An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B. Got it? quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity ------------------------------------------- | "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, | in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. | We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” It is not possible to compare the time of events at A and the time of event at B without further assumptions. Got it? So we have to make further assumptions: quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity ------------------------------------------- | "We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for | the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish | by definition that the “time” required by light to travel | from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from | B to A." The _definition_ of simultaneity is that light uses the same time to go from A to B and to go from from B to A. Got it? quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity ------------------------------------------- | "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." tA, tB and t'A are precisely defined as: tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A. tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B. t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected ray hits A. Got it? quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity ------------------------------------------- | " In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if | tB − tA = t′A − tB." For this equation to be true must tB = (tA + t′A)/2 = tA + (t'A - tA)/2 Note that Einstein says nothing about how to make asynchronous clocks synchronous. He only says that if tB − tA = t′A − tB (or TB = tA + (t'A - tA)/2) then the clock at A and the clock at B are synchronous. This is a definition of simultaneity, not a description of how to synchronise clock. -------- How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances, and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method which should be applicable for all cases in all future. To illustrate this problem let's ask: How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks? Let two clocks A and B be stationary at the geoid at equator. Clock B is a distance L east of clock A. We know that clock A is synchronous with UTC, and we want to synchronise clock B to UTC. How do w do it? The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame), they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame. But the clocks A and B are moving in the ECI-frame, and we can't stop the spinning of the Earth to sync the clocks. The following calculations are made in the ECI frame. v = 465.1 m/s v/c = 1.55e-6 We assume that at t = 0 the clocks are synonymous and show 0. That is at t = 0, tA = 0 and TB = 0. If we send a light pulse from clock A to clock B, clock B will move away from clock at the speed v. We can calculate the time the light pulse will use to hit B: ct = L + vt => t = L/(c-v) = (L/c)⋅(1 + 1.55e-6) That means that if clock A showed t1 when the light pulse was emitted, then, to be synchronous with clock A, clock B must show t1 + (L/c)⋅(1 + 1.55e-6) when the pulse hits it. TAI clocks are routinely synced after the basic principle shown above. (The details are different of course. Satellites, optic fibre, radio) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 22:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18658e94163122e7$1073658$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666093 |
On 9/15/2025 9:25 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 15.09.2025 08:38, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> It starts with the lack of a proper definition of t_A and t_B. >> >> If disconnected local times are meant with 'A-time' and 'B-time' and >> t_A was measured in 'A-time' and t_B by means of 'B-time', than >> t_B-t_A would be an illegal operation to begin with. >> >> Therefore t_A and t_B must be based on 'A-time' only. And that in turn >> would make 'B-time' irrelevant. >> >> That isn't bad at all, because the clock in B shall be synchronized >> with the clock in A, anyhow. >> > > quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > ------------------------------------------- > | "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." > > An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A. > An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B. > Got it? > > quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > ------------------------------------------- > | "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, > | in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. > | We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” > > It is not possible to compare the time of events at A and > the time of event at B without further assumptions. > Got it? > > So we have to make further assumptions: > > quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > ------------------------------------------- > | "We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for > | the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish > | by definition that the “time” required by light to travel > | from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from > | B to A." > > The _definition_ of simultaneity is that light uses the same > time to go from A to B and to go from from B to A. > Got it? > > quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > ------------------------------------------- > | "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." > > tA, tB and t'A are precisely defined as: > tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A. > tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B. > t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected ray hits A. > Got it? > > quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > ------------------------------------------- > | " In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if > | tB − tA = t′A − tB." > > For this equation to be true must > tB = (tA + t′A)/2 = tA + (t'A - tA)/2 > > Note that Einstein says nothing about how to make > asynchronous clocks synchronous. He only says that > if tB − tA = t′A − tB (or TB = tA + (t'A - tA)/2) > then the clock at A and the clock at B are synchronous. > This is a definition of simultaneity, not a description > of how to synchronise clock. > -------- > > How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances, > and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method > which should be applicable for all cases in all future. > > To illustrate this problem let's ask: > How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks? > > Let two clocks A and B be stationary at the geoid at equator. > Clock B is a distance L east of clock A. > We know that clock A is synchronous with UTC, and we want to > synchronise clock B to UTC. > > How do w do it? > The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in > the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame), > they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame. > But the clocks A and B are moving in the ECI-frame, and > we can't stop the spinning of the Earth to sync the clocks. What a pity that the nonsense of your idiot guru is practically unusable...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 20:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4GhyQ.6840$Ft95.3116@fx16.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666096 |
Den 15.09.2025 22:26, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/15/2025 9:25 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks? >> >> Let two clocks A and B be stationary at the geoid at equator. >> Clock B is a distance L east of clock A. >> We know that clock A is synchronous with UTC, and we want to >> synchronise clock B to UTC. >> >> How do w do it? >> The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in >> the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame), >> they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame. >> But the clocks A and B are moving in the ECI-frame, and >> we can't stop the spinning of the Earth to sync the clocks. >> >> The following calculations are made in the ECI frame. >> v = 465.1 m/s v/c = 1.55e-6 >> >> We assume that at t = 0 the clocks are synonymous and show 0. >> That is at t = 0, tA = 0 and TB = 0. >> If we send a light pulse from clock A to clock B, clock B >> will move away from clock A at the speed v. >> We can calculate the time the light pulse will use to hit B: >> ct = L + vt => t = L/(c-v) = (L/c)⋅(1 + 1.55e-6) >> >> That means that if clock A showed t1 when the light pulse >> was emitted, then, to be synchronous with clock A, clock B >> must show t1 + (L/c)⋅(1 + 1.55e-6) when the pulse hits it. >> >> TAI clocks are routinely synced after the basic principle shown above. >> (The details are different of course. Satellites, optic fibre, radio) > > What a pity that the nonsense of your idiot guru > is practically unusable... > Interesting, but not surprising, to see that you believe that Einstein invented the International Atomic Time which consists of hundreds of clocks kept in sync with each other. BTW, have you got a wristwatch? That clock is in sync with UTC, showing UTC + 2h. Is your wristwatch practically unusable? But thanks for yet another demonstration of your ignorance. Well done! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1865d642d53f5c76$2017919$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666115 |
On 9/16/2025 8:07 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 15.09.2025 22:26, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/15/2025 9:25 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks? >>> >>> Let two clocks A and B be stationary at the geoid at equator. >>> Clock B is a distance L east of clock A. >>> We know that clock A is synchronous with UTC, and we want to >>> synchronise clock B to UTC. >>> >>> How do w do it? >>> The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in >>> the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame), >>> they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame. >>> But the clocks A and B are moving in the ECI-frame, and >>> we can't stop the spinning of the Earth to sync the clocks. >>> >>> The following calculations are made in the ECI frame. >>> v = 465.1 m/s v/c = 1.55e-6 >>> >>> We assume that at t = 0 the clocks are synonymous and show 0. >>> That is at t = 0, tA = 0 and TB = 0. >>> If we send a light pulse from clock A to clock B, clock B >>> will move away from clock A at the speed v. >>> We can calculate the time the light pulse will use to hit B: >>> ct = L + vt => t = L/(c-v) = (L/c)⋅(1 + 1.55e-6) >>> >>> That means that if clock A showed t1 when the light pulse >>> was emitted, then, to be synchronous with clock A, clock B >>> must show t1 + (L/c)⋅(1 + 1.55e-6) when the pulse hits it. >>> >>> TAI clocks are routinely synced after the basic principle shown above. >>> (The details are different of course. Satellites, optic fibre, radio) >> >> What a pity that the nonsense of your idiot guru >> is practically unusable... >> > > Interesting, but not surprising, to see that you believe > that Einstein invented the International Atomic Time > which consists of hundreds of clocks kept in sync with each other. Or maybe it was comerade Lenin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10a9rao$25c73$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666068 |
On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: [...] One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from B that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of light. But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer because of all the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons are a straight line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the same time? I think not? However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 13:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10a9sue$25c73$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666094 |
On 9/15/2025 1:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > [...] > > One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from B > that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the > observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of light. > But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer because of all > the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons are a straight > line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the same time? I think > not? > > However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the same. It’s funny... Well, imagine two photons emitted from the same source, each taking slightly different starting directions to ride different “rails” through space. rails being "field lines" in the universe. One photon travels a relatively straight path, while the other weaves through gravitational fields. Even though the source is the same distance from Earth “as the crow flies,” the photons would arrive at different times. If we just measured travel time, we might think the second photon came from a more distant source, even though both originated from the exact same emitter. Fwiw, here an example 3d version I made using my experimental n-ary field. You can explore it in real time. It's not animated, so its a static view. However, it shows the rails that photons can ride. Not infinite here, but just a way to show it: https://skfb.ly/pyP9E Does it work for you? Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 22:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18658fd3112bbb0f$1092236$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666097 |
On 9/15/2025 10:29 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 9/15/2025 1:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> [...] >> >> One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from B >> that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the >> observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of >> light. But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer because >> of all the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons are a >> straight line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the same >> time? I think not? >> >> However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the >> same. > > It’s funny... Well, imagine two photons emitted from the same source, Well, imagine ONE foton from famous quantum experiment - a photon interferring with itself. It takes 2 different paths in the same time, does it have c speed on both? Quite impossible since they're different and the time is the same. Or isn't it the same?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10a9vhl$26msp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666099 |
On 9/15/2025 1:49 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 9/15/2025 10:29 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 9/15/2025 1:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from B >>> that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the >>> observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of >>> light. But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer >>> because of all the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons >>> are a straight line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the >>> same time? I think not? >>> >>> However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the >>> same. >> >> It’s funny... Well, imagine two photons emitted from the same source, > > Well, imagine ONE foton from famous quantum > experiment - a photon interferring with > itself. > It takes 2 different paths in the same time, > does it have c speed on both? Quite impossible > since they're different and the time is the same. > Or isn't it the same? Its odd to me. If we constantly observe a photon, it seems to take one rail in the continuous field, infinite rails for the photon to travel on. But, if we look away, it seems to take all rails at once. Its also strange thinking about being able to see a laser beam when we are not the target, but we can see the photons. Means its not perfect?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 06:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1865aa597aebf56a$357644$2996671$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666100 |
On 9/15/2025 11:13 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 9/15/2025 1:49 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> On 9/15/2025 10:29 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 9/15/2025 1:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from >>>> B that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the >>>> observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of >>>> light. But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer >>>> because of all the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons >>>> are a straight line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the >>>> same time? I think not? >>>> >>>> However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the >>>> same. >>> >>> It’s funny... Well, imagine two photons emitted from the same source, >> >> Well, imagine ONE foton from famous quantum >> experiment - a photon interferring with >> itself. >> It takes 2 different paths in the same time, >> does it have c speed on both? Quite impossible >> since they're different and the time is the same. >> Or isn't it the same? > > Its odd to me. If we constantly observe a photon, it seems to take one > rail in the continuous field, infinite rails for the photon to travel > on. But, if we look away, it seems to take all rails at once. Its also > strange thinking about being able to see a laser beam when we are not > the target, but we can see the photons. Means its not perfect? No perfection in the real world. Or maybe - almost? For sure no perfection in the mumble of physicists. And I wrote "foton" instead "photon". No perfection:(. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 17:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dJi-TFV7cVUqmyN9ef7HD3n4G2o@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666063 |
Le 14/09/2025 à 22:21, Python a écrit : > Le 14/09/2025 à 10:21, Thomas Heger a écrit : > the condition t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is the definition of synchronization. Synchronisation POUR qui? QUI mesure réellement, sur sa montre, que t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B? Ce n'est ni A, ni B. Mais alors QUI? R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6rs5lXGFhrzL4IWQrzVqSI8mgoc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666081 |
Le 15/09/2025 à 19:16, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 14/09/2025 à 22:21, Python a écrit : >> Le 14/09/2025 à 10:21, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >> the condition t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is the definition of synchronization. > > Synchronisation POUR qui? > > QUI mesure réellement, sur sa montre, que t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B? > > Ce n'est ni A, ni B. You've already forgot? t_A and t_A' are measured by clock at A t_B by clock at B Then these values can be sent to ANYONE And ANYONE can check.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 18:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <N_aC-uEF4ww8C5rbleGkT6xRKIc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666082 |
Le 15/09/2025 à 19:28, Python a écrit : > Le 15/09/2025 à 19:16, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> Le 14/09/2025 à 22:21, Python a écrit : >>> Le 14/09/2025 à 10:21, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> >>> the condition t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is the definition of synchronization. >> >> Synchronisation POUR qui? >> >> QUI mesure réellement, sur sa montre, que t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B? >> >> Ce n'est ni A, ni B. > > You've already forgot? > > t_A and t_A' are measured by clock at A > t_B by clock at B > > Then these values can be sent to ANYONE > And ANYONE can check. Je crois que tu n'a toujours pas compris où se trouve le problème. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 11:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <109pt4u$1603r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665861 |
On 9/8/2025 11:35 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Sonntag000007, 07.09.2025 um 10:37 schrieb Python: >> Le 07/09/2025 à 10:22, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python: >>> ... >>>>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets. >>>>> >>>>> Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago >>>>> in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt. >>>>> >>>>> That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some >>>>> comets consist of water. >>>>> >>>>> But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies. >>>>> >>>>> We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava >>>>> contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor. >>>> >>>> >>>> Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are >>>> partially true and mainly false. >>>> >>>> You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth >>>> and Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in >>>> Astronomy does not take light propagation delays into account. >>>> >>>> How come? >>>> >>> >>> That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly >>> functions. >> >> "impression" ? "seemingly" ? You didn't check ? > > Well, in part's I did. > > I used a technique to analyze Einstein's text, which is applicable to > other papers, too. > > For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that. > > I found several statements, that were in my opinion nonsense. > > This is actually all over the place and has to do with how physicists > think about their own profession. > > It is more like a medieval guild, which has apprentices and masters, > where non-initiated are not allowed to participate. > >> >>> Therefore, I think, that nonsense is taken to the next level and I >>> had to stay away from that. >> >> Did you consider that this nonsense is something you made up by >> yourself ? >> > > This is certainly a risk. > > But I think, that I'm not as stupid as you think. Fwiw, my n-ary field experiment can create some interesting Black Hole "like" things. Here are some examples in the form of 3d models. You can explore them... :^) https://skfb.ly/pyXH6 https://skfb.ly/pzTEC https://skfb.ly/pyP9E https://skfb.ly/pzzE6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 14:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jUzvQ.41059$JfAf.34505@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665818 |
Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger: > > It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do not > belong to the same time. Consider a star 10000 light years away. Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"? We can indeed find many patterns in that star. Like its spectrum. Photons from the star will be absorbed by the Sun, so the star will transfer energy to the Sun. Could we call that an interaction? Will this star interact with the Sun in a different way than the Sun will interact with the star? > > But that is actually done. > Can you please explain what you mean by: "Finding patterns in stars which do not belong to the same time is actually done." Specifically: Which stars "do not belong to the same time"? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-10 10:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <micrjdFcotpU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665840 |
Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do not >> belong to the same time. > > Consider a star 10000 light years away. > > Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"? No! We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as the Sun has been 8 minutes ago. That is a HUGE difference. The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while the universe isn't. Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do not belong to the same time. These impressions of remote events add up to a totally inconsistent picture of reality. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-10 20:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yRjwQ.37877$hUAc.10618@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665898 |
Den 10.09.2025 10:40, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> >>> It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do >>> not belong to the same time. >> >> Consider a star 10000 light years away. >> >> Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"? > > No! But we sure can "find patterns" in a star 10000 ly away. The spectrum of the star will tell us the following properties of the star 10000 years ago: its mass, temperature, if it was a new born star, a main sequence star, or a star approaching the end of its life- If it is a main sequence star with spectral class A0V, its lifespan will be ~ 100 million years. If it is a main sequence star with spectral class G2V, like the sun, its lifespan will be ~ 10 billion years. If it is a main sequence star with spectral class K9V, its lifespan will be ~ 70 billion years. The point is that if we see that the star was a main sequence star 10000 years ago, we can be pretty sure that it still is a main sequence star now. The radial speed of the star will be known by its Doppler shift, and several measurements of its position will reveal its proper motion. That weans that we will know where the star is now. We know that the Sun was a main sequence star 10000 years ago. > > We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and where they > had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as the Sun has been 8 > minutes ago. That is a HUGE difference. > > The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while the universe isn't. > > > Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do not belong to > the same time. We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real main sequence star now. It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years ago is not real now. What do you think stars we see in the telescope are? Mirages? You snipped this:> Photons from the star will be absorbed by the Sun, > so the star will transfer energy to the Sun. > Could we call that an interaction? > > Will this star interact with the Sun in a different way > than the Sun will interact with the star? We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other. And for million years the two stars have transferred energy (light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million of years. The stars are at any time living side by side 10000 light years from each other. That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them "belong to separate times." They are both living at the same time. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-10 21:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1864025672041adb$9263237$2360894$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665906 |
On 9/10/2025 8:57 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 10.09.2025 10:40, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do >>>> not belong to the same time. >>> >>> Consider a star 10000 light years away. >>> >>> Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"? >> >> No! > > But we sure can "find patterns" in a star 10000 ly away. > The spectrum of the star will tell us the following properties > of the star 10000 years ago: > its mass, temperature, if it was a new born star, a main sequence star, > or a star approaching the end of its life- > If it is a main sequence star with spectral class A0V, its lifespan > will be ~ 100 million years. > If it is a main sequence star with spectral class G2V, like the sun, > its lifespan will be ~ 10 billion years. > If it is a main sequence star with spectral class K9V, its lifespan > will be ~ 70 billion years. > > The point is that if we see that the star was a main sequence star > 10000 years ago, we can be pretty sure that it still is > a main sequence star now. The radial speed of the star will be > known by its Doppler shift, and several measurements of its position > will reveal its proper motion. That weans that we will know where > the star is now. > > We know that the Sun was a main sequence star 10000 years ago. > >> >> We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and where they >> had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as the Sun has been 8 >> minutes ago. That is a HUGE difference. >> >> The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while the universe >> isn't. >> >> >> Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do not belong to >> the same time. > > We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was > a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real > main sequence star now. > > It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years > ago is not real now. > > What do you think stars we see in the telescope are? > Mirages? > > > You snipped this:> Photons from the star will be absorbed by the Sun, >> so the star will transfer energy to the Sun. >> Could we call that an interaction? >> >> Will this star interact with the Sun in a different way >> than the Sun will interact with the star? > > We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years > from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star > and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other. > > And for million years the two stars have transferred energy > (light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million > of years. Have you ever heard of an idiot babbling that what is a million years for one observer may be easily 500 000 years for another?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 08:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mihrdoF8bv4U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665906 |
Am Mittwoch000010, 10.09.2025 um 20:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 10.09.2025 10:40, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do >>>> not belong to the same time. >>> >>> Consider a star 10000 light years away. >>> >>> Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"? >> >> No! > > But we sure can "find patterns" in a star 10000 ly away. You cannot find patterns in star configurations in a single star!! To find patterns you need to have masses of stars in your collection. But how do you know, whether these stars all belong to the same time? It is actually an assumption, based on apparent connections and similar red-shift (or something equivalent). But how could we possibly know, that the distances to all the stars in a collection are all the same? More likely: physicists/cosmologists swept the 'little' problem silently under the rug and continued thinking about a starformation, that never existed. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 12:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <aYSwQ.46946$hUAc.29959@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665970 |
Den 12.09.2025 08:07, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Mittwoch000010, 10.09.2025 um 20:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 10.09.2025 10:40, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> >>>>> It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do >>>>> not belong to the same time. >>>> >>>> Consider a star 10000 light years away. >>>> >>>> Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"? >>> >>> No! >> >> But we sure can "find patterns" in a star 10000 ly away. > > You cannot find patterns in star configurations in a single star!! > You snipped everything I wrote and repeat what you have said before. Please address the following: =============================== Consider a star 10000 light years away. The spectrum of the star will tell us the following properties of the star 10000 years ago: its mass, temperature, if it was a new born star, a main sequence star, or a star approaching the end of its life- If it is a main sequence star with spectral class A0V, its lifespan will be ~ 100 million years. If it is a main sequence star with spectral class G2V, like the sun, its lifespan will be ~ 10 billion years. If it is a main sequence star with spectral class K9V, its lifespan will be ~ 70 billion years. The point is that if we see that the star was a main sequence star 10000 years ago, we can be pretty sure that it still is a main sequence star now. The radial speed of the star will be known by its Doppler shift, and several measurements of its position will reveal its proper motion. That weans that we will know where the star is now. We know that the Sun was a main sequence star 10000 years ago. Thomas Heger wrote: | We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and | where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as | the Sun has been 8 minutes ago. | That is a HUGE difference. | | The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while | the universe isn't. | | Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do | not belong to the same time. We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real main sequence star now. It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years ago is not real now. What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are? Mirages? We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other. And for million years the two stars have transferred energy (light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million of years. The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years from each other. That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them "belong to separate times." They are both living at the same time. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 12:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186483d97ca2609a$10964008$2360894$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665984 |
On 9/12/2025 12:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years > from Each other 10000 years ago, Have you ever heard of some idiot babbling that what is 1000 years for one observer may be easily 500 years for another one?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web