Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #567555 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-11-22 22:25 +0000 |
| Last post | 2021-12-01 16:03 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 115 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-22 22:25 +0000
Re: Watch problem robby <me@pla.net.invalid> - 2021-11-23 08:15 +0100
Re: Watch problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-11-23 08:18 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 00:57 -0800
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 13:09 +0000
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 05:37 -0800
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-23 20:39 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-11-24 01:44 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-24 12:25 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-24 17:24 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-25 13:46 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-25 14:09 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-25 16:19 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-25 19:52 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 02:20 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-26 14:24 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 14:37 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-26 18:18 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 19:34 +0000
Re: Watch problem rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 11:45 -0800
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-26 21:32 +0000
Re: Watch problem rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 14:02 -0800
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-28 20:49 +0000
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-28 20:47 +0000
Re: Watch problem "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2021-11-28 10:03 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-28 14:06 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 14:13 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-28 14:49 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 15:11 +0000
Re: Watch problem rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 06:13 -0800
Re: Watch problem Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-28 10:53 -0500
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 16:32 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-01 15:57 +0000
Re: Watch problem Harif Kuloo <bbcs@uioas.ar> - 2021-12-02 19:42 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-28 19:13 +0000
Re: Watch problem Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-28 20:49 -0500
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-29 13:53 +0000
Re: Watch problem Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-29 11:06 -0500
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-29 17:14 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-29 16:52 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-29 17:08 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-11-30 00:10 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-30 13:04 +0000
Re: Watch problem Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-30 10:33 -0500
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-30 16:41 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 16:51 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-30 18:08 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 18:44 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-30 18:55 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 19:30 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-11-30 23:00 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 23:12 -0800
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-01 16:13 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-01 15:29 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-25 14:47 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-25 16:19 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-25 19:56 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-11-25 21:02 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-11-25 20:52 +0000
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 02:20 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-11-25 07:49 +0100
Re: Watch problem Nabor Nave <er@cwe.re> - 2021-11-27 18:22 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-11-28 07:45 +0100
Re: Watch problem rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 06:04 -0800
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-28 20:01 +0000
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-28 20:15 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-11-29 08:24 +0100
Re: Watch problem rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2021-11-29 06:24 -0800
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-29 23:03 +0000
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-29 23:13 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-11-30 00:18 +0100
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-29 23:27 +0000
Re: Watch problem Chason Aceta <pipre@cvbe.er> - 2021-11-29 23:23 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-01 09:23 +0100
Re: Watch problem Justo Lugo <rety@cvb.rt> - 2021-12-01 10:47 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-02 07:53 +0100
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-12-02 10:06 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-02 04:04 -0800
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-03 09:23 +0100
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-03 09:47 +0100
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-12-03 10:47 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-03 02:11 -0800
Re: Watch problem Harif Kuloo <bbcs@uioas.ar> - 2021-12-03 12:12 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-04 16:21 +0000
Re: Watch problem Harif Kuloo <bbcs@uioas.ar> - 2021-12-03 12:02 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-04 07:42 +0100
Re: Watch problem Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-04 02:30 -0500
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-04 01:15 -0800
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-12-04 14:29 +0100
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-05 21:38 +0100
Re: Watch problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2021-12-04 16:58 +0000
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-04 11:29 -0800
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-12-04 20:06 +0100
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-05 20:47 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-04 16:41 +0000
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-04 16:51 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@python.invalid> - 2021-12-05 13:21 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-05 13:08 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@example.invalid> - 2021-12-07 16:42 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-07 07:51 -0800
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-07 16:47 +0000
Re: Watch problem Reese Page <uteb@dlwcrt.ca> - 2021-12-07 16:53 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-12-08 03:20 +0100
Re: Watch problem Reese Page <uteb@dlwcrt.ca> - 2021-12-08 20:39 +0000
Re: Watch problem Reese Page <uteb@dlwcrt.ca> - 2021-12-07 16:48 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-12-08 03:22 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-07 22:38 +0000
Re: Watch problem Python <python@example.invalid> - 2021-12-07 23:56 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 07:06 -0800
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-08 08:53 +0100
Re: Watch problem Python <python@example.invalid> - 2021-12-08 12:56 +0100
Re: Watch problem Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-08 04:35 -0800
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-08 13:47 +0000
Re: Watch problem Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-12-10 06:49 +0100
Re: Watch problem Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2021-12-01 16:03 +0000
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-03 10:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <61a9e7a0$0$1346$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #568464 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger: >> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python: >>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>> ... >>>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading >>>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location. >>> >>> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times >>> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light >>> propagation time. >> >> Sure, that is correct. >> >> But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the >> remote clock. >> >> >> I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention >> to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find >> any hint. >> >> Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want. >> > > > let me try to explain this statement: > > I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second > to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury. > > That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs, > which commonly communicate with us. This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are supposed to be used everywhere. > This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition. Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason. > The clock is now able to sent coded signals, which we can receive. The > signals contain also the current time at that location (as measured by > our clock there). > > The remote time is called t_B and the local time is called t_A. > > So: a signal from there would reach us with a delay of three years. > > Which was the assumption of Einstein about t_B, if the signal contains > the time t_A - 3years ? > > He should have added 3 years, of course, but apparently didn't. He did, look below : t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + (3 years) > If he had actually calculated this delay and added it to the remote > reading, than I could, at least, not find his calculation. > > Would you be so kind and tell me, where that calculation can be found? Again, just apply equations from part I.1 in the original paper, I've shown you this numerous times, this is basic algebra: 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper) t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper) implies: t_B = t_A + (AB)/c (AB)/c is the delay. Apply these equations, which are DIRECT consequences of equations in part I.1. in Einstein's article to your specific case you'll end up with: t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + (3 years) How come you cannot understand something that is SO OBVIOUS Thomas?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-03 02:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8c6758f5-ae42-4c8e-b236-b821a80135c6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568465 |
On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:47:15 UTC+1, Python wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger: > >> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python: > >>> Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> ... > >>>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading > >>>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location. > >>> > >>> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times > >>> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light > >>> propagation time. > >> > >> Sure, that is correct. > >> > >> But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the > >> remote clock. > >> > >> > >> I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention > >> to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find > >> any hint. > >> > >> Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want. > >> > > > > > > let me try to explain this statement: > > > > I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second > > to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury. > > > > That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs, > > which commonly communicate with us. > This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually > at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single > person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs > or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are > supposed to be used everywhere. In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your moronic religion non-identical GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Harif Kuloo <bbcs@uioas.ar> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-03 12:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sod1k1$jd4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568466 |
Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:47:15 UTC+1, Python wrote: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >> > Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger: >> >> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python: >> >>> Thomas Heger wrote: >> > That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs, >> > which commonly communicate with us. >> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks >> mutually at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by >> a single person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more >> labs or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit >> are supposed to be used everywhere. > > In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your moronic agree, Python is a stupid nym'shifting troll. A wannabe physicist, uneducated like hell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-04 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u9OcJ5yEMUrLrbKo9-o6GdKxiFU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #568469 |
Le 03/12/2021 à 13:12, Harif Kuloo a écrit : > agree, Python is a stupid nym'shifting troll. Certainly yes. But when did you find out? In France, we've known that for 27 years. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Harif Kuloo <bbcs@uioas.ar> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-03 12:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sod10f$8ks$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568465 |
the stupid wannabe physicist troll, former JPB, now Python wrote: >> I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second >> to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury. >> >> That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs, >> which commonly communicate with us. > > This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually > at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single shut the fuck up, you stupid frog troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-04 07:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j10gvhF1brsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #568465 |
Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger: >>> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python: >>>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading >>>>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location. >>>> >>>> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times >>>> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light >>>> propagation time. >>> >>> Sure, that is correct. >>> >>> But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the >>> remote clock. >>> >>> >>> I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention >>> to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find >>> any hint. >>> >>> Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want. >>> >> >> >> let me try to explain this statement: >> >> I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second >> to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury. >> >> That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs, >> which commonly communicate with us. > > This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually > at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single > person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs > or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are > supposed to be used everywhere. No. SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!! SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think about how nature functions. So. Einstein wrote not about certain experiments, but about the nature of space and time. The question is, whether or not his method makes sense. I would say: no SRT is a piece of garbadge, which is seemingly intentionally created, to prevent people from doing exactly that: thinking about the nature of space and time. If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance would have been mandatory. But in fact he ascribed the effects of relative motion erroneously to the real behaviour of objects on the remote side. But that is not even nonsense, but pure bunk, because the objects on the remote side cannot possibly be affected by relative motion of a remote observer >> This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition. > > Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until > you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein > wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason. No, things do not exist, because we can see them. Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the requirement, that something real must also be visible. And: in fact we could synchronize clocks in cosmological distances only, if we had communication partners there. But the required procedure would not function like Einstein wrote it would function. Einstein erroneously assumed, that time is universal and remote observers could measure the same absolute time, hence only velocity (also meant as relative to the universe) would make a difference. But in fact only local time makes sense and we have neither absolute time, nor absolute space, against which velocity could eventually be measured. So, we had to communicate with someone remote. And I assumed three-legged aliens. (But you can assume whatever you like.) Now we send signals and receive answers. To synchronize clocks, we first need to negotiate the meaning of the term 'clock' and how that should look like. Now we cannot assume, that processes here on Earth have the same frequency as processes at that remote location. We cannot even assume, that future for us is future there, too. So we need to find out the relation of frequency in equivalent processes. That could eventually be a certain frequency of a gas, which we could identify as similar. From this we could built a clock, on which both sides could agree. Then we needed to estimate the distance and relative velocity of the remote system. We could do that by sending a signal there, which is immidiatly retransmitted there. Then we could measure the delay and calculate the distance. Next we need to fix a certain reference point in time, from where the local calender starts the new year and the calender itself (here: birth of Christ, there: ???). This year has most likely a diffent length, hence we need to maintain a system, that translates our dates into dates there. We could also measure Doppler shift and calcule relative motion. Then we could create a system here, which is in synch with the remote clocks there and those aliens could do the same, but with our clocks. If we now calculate the current time at the remote location, we could generate a time-coded signal, which is in synch with the remote clock, once or signal arrives there. This signal would be composed from the results of several calculations. For instance we had to calculate the position of that planet in the local orbit at the time of arrival of the signal. Than we can calculte the precise distance from our position in our orbit towards that position. Then we need to figure out the local speed of light in relation to our planet and to our local solar system (because of local gravity). We should do the same for the remote side, too. After a number of iterations we can figuere out, how that signal should look like and when we should send it. Would be a little difficult, but we have actually computers. But nothing of this procedure was mentioned in Einstein's text. Einstein wrote nowhere, that the addition of the dealy would be required. He did not even calculate this delay or even mentioned it. Now you say, he had done that and only forgot to write something about that delay, because it is so obvious. But what is written in a text is relevant, and not, what you think it should contain. Therefore a required statement is missing, if it is missing in the text. A reader must not alter a paper, only because it should contain something which it does not. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-04 02:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sof5fa$1d5t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568526 |
On 12/4/2021 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python: >> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually >> at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single >> person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs >> or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are >> supposed to be used everywhere. > > No. > > SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!! > > SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think > about how nature functions. Python was writing about a theoretical experiment when he wrote "some experiment". Say measuring something happening on Alpha Centauri and needing accurate time measurements of the events for the data to be useful. You'd want synchronized clocks for that. > > So. Einstein wrote not about certain experiments, but about the nature > of space and time. > > The question is, whether or not his method makes sense. Since relativity has never failed when GR/SR are used within their domains, then yes it does make sense. > > I would say: > > no SRT is a piece of garbadge, which is seemingly intentionally created, > to prevent people from doing exactly that: thinking about the nature of > space and time. Scientists don't care what you think. Scientists care whether it makes accurate predictions and is consistent with existing results. As I stated, relativity hasn't failed so far, nor is there anything better yet. But you must be popular with the anti-relativity cranks. > > If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how > that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the > distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance would > have been mandatory. The "distortion" is Einstein's relativity! > > But in fact he ascribed the effects of relative motion erroneously to > the real behaviour of objects on the remote side. No, on the relative motion of both sides. > > But that is not even nonsense, but pure bunk, because the objects on the > remote side cannot possibly be affected by relative motion of a remote > observer ??? Relative to what, the local observer? > >>> This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition. >> >> Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until >> you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein >> wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason. > > No, things do not exist, because we can see them. > > Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the > requirement, that something real must also be visible. It must be visible for us to know about the real thing. > > And: in fact we could synchronize clocks in cosmological distances only, > if we had communication partners there. > > But the required procedure would not function like Einstein wrote it > would function. > > Einstein erroneously assumed, that time is universal and remote > observers could measure the same absolute time, There is no absolute time in relativity! > hence only velocity > (also meant as relative to the universe) would make a difference. > > But in fact only local time makes sense and we have neither absolute > time, nor absolute space, against which velocity could eventually be > measured. Velocity is relative, between the observer and observed. > > So, we had to communicate with someone remote. And I assumed > three-legged aliens. > > (But you can assume whatever you like.) > > Now we send signals and receive answers. Why are the three legged aliens necessary? We send signals and receive answers from the Moon without any aliens there. (Except us, when Apollo missions planted the laser reflectors we're still using) > > To synchronize clocks, we first need to negotiate the meaning of the > term 'clock' and how that should look like. > > Now we cannot assume, that processes here on Earth have the same > frequency as processes at that remote location. Clocks are what measure time. > > We cannot even assume, that future for us is future there, too. ???? > > So we need to find out the relation of frequency in equivalent processes. First Postulate states the laws of physics and the processes are identical both here and there. > > That could eventually be a certain frequency of a gas, which we could > identify as similar. From this we could built a clock, on which both > sides could agree. No "both sides" needed. In Einstein's work, the clocks are assumed identical. In reality they need to have the same accuracy and tick the same units. > > Then we needed to estimate the distance and relative velocity of the > remote system. > > We could do that by sending a signal there, which is immidiatly > retransmitted there. As the Apollo laser reflectors do. > > Then we could measure the delay and calculate the distance. > > Next we need to fix a certain reference point in time, from where the > local calender starts the new year and the calender itself (here: birth > of Christ, there: ???). Irrelevant. We use our time. > We could also measure Doppler shift and calcule relative motion. Yes. > > Then we could create a system here, which is in synch with the remote > clocks there and those aliens could do the same, but with our clocks. If there are any aliens, and if so, if they wish to do so. But they aren't needed, just like with the Moon. We just use our time system. <bla bla bla> > Einstein wrote nowhere, that the addition of the dealy would be required. > > He did not even calculate this delay or even mentioned it. It's part of his time synchronization test procedure! > > Now you say, he had done that and only forgot to write something about > that delay, because it is so obvious. It's part of his time synchronization test procedure! > > But what is written in a text is relevant, and not, what you think it > should contain. > > Therefore a required statement is missing, if it is missing in the text. > A reader must not alter a paper, only because it should contain > something which it does not. It's in there. Remember the paper was written for other scientists of his time, not ignoramuses 115 years later. Einstein didn't write down 2+2=4, either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-04 01:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f08e1c10-7b58-4094-bb4c-b2e0b4d82ae8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568527 |
On Saturday, 4 December 2021 at 08:30:53 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 12/4/2021 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python: > > >> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually > >> at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single > >> person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs > >> or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are > >> supposed to be used everywhere. > > > > No. > > > > SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!! > > > > SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think > > about how nature functions. > Python was writing about a theoretical experiment when he wrote "some > experiment". Say measuring something happening on Alpha Centauri and > needing accurate time measurements of the events for the data to be > useful. You'd want synchronized clocks for that. > > > > So. Einstein wrote not about certain experiments, but about the nature > > of space and time. > > > > The question is, whether or not his method makes sense. > Since relativity has never failed when GR/SR are used within their > domains, then yes it does make sense. In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. > Scientists don't care what you think. Scientists care whether it makes > accurate predictions and is consistent with existing results. As I > stated, relativity hasn't failed so far, nor is there anything better > yet. In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. > It must be visible for us to know about the real thing. Isn't a gedanken of your idiot guru enough? > No "both sides" needed. In Einstein's work, the clocks are assumed > identical. In reality they need to have the same accuracy and tick the > same units. In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your insane religion GPS non-identical clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-04 14:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <61ab6d28$0$29493$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #568527 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > On 12/4/2021 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: ... For some reason Thomas' post does not appear on the nttp server I'm using, so I didn't see it before Michael's answer. >> If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how >> that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the >> distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance >> would have been mandatory. This is not about distortion. It is about how you make sense of reading of distant co-moving clocks in order to be able to label distant events with a consistent time coordinate. You definitely completely overlook part I.1. of Einstein's paper even if it is referenced all over the article when dealing with time and space coordinates of distant events in a single frame of reference. >> Now you say, he had done that and only forgot to write something about >> that delay, because it is so obvious. > > It's part of his time synchronization test procedure! Michael is right. >> But what is written in a text is relevant, and not, what you think it >> should contain. >> >> Therefore a required statement is missing, if it is missing in the >> text. A reader must not alter a paper, only because it should contain >> something which it does not. What is written in the text is relevant, right. When it comes to time-labelling events in a single frames, here are the equations in the text: 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B These equations obviously imply t_B = t_A + (AB)/c (AB)/c is the delay you pretend is not taken into account. I've already explained you why it make more sense to consider the synchronization that way instead of postulating that one-trip light speed is constant, I doubt you even read it, and if you did I'm sure you didn't try to understand it. Like all cranks you, Thomas, always prefer to stick to whatever ill-defined "concept" you've pulled out of your ass instead of trying to understand what *others* are stating. It's one of the worst pathological symptom of autism. So when pretending that Einstein didn't take into account light propagation delays you are the one making up something that is not in the text, moreover you are making up something that is in direct contradiction with what is actually in the original text, Thomas. You are not intellectually able to understand what is in Einstein's article, and why it is presented in such a way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-05 21:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j14ma3FpsmqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #568527 |
Am 04.12.2021 um 08:30 schrieb Michael Moroney: > On 12/4/2021 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python: > >>> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually >>> at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single >>> person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs >>> or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are >>> supposed to be used everywhere. >> >> No. >> >> SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!! >> >> SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we >> think about how nature functions. > > Python was writing about a theoretical experiment when he wrote "some > experiment". Say measuring something happening on Alpha Centauri and > needing accurate time measurements of the events for the data to be > useful. You'd want synchronized clocks for that. I wrote, that 'time dilation' and relativist length contraction and so forth make more sense in cosmology. Therefore I use distances, which are a little larger than those, that you could place in a laboratory. Our nearest star Alpha Centaury and a hypothetical planet there, which is inhabited by aliens with clocks is my usual setting. This makes the required procedures for synchronisation a little more obvious then an experiment in a lab could do. >> So. Einstein wrote not about certain experiments, but about the nature >> of space and time. >> >> The question is, whether or not his method makes sense. > > Since relativity has never failed when GR/SR are used within their > domains, then yes it does make sense. I'm actually not discussing SRT per se, but a certain text, which Einstein wrote (called 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'). (I personally think, that Einstein actually mocked his audience, because he used an encoded message in the title, which actually means 'sex'.) So, I cannot tell you, wether or not other versions of SRT make more sense, because that was not my subject. I meant: the prodecure, which Einstein described in his text, would not enable humans to synchronize clocks with Alpha Centaury. Since the requirement to synchronize clocks there with our clocks is rather mild (it is actually our closest star), I cannot agree, that SRT would not fail cosmology. Sure, most likely such a scenario was not intended by Einstein. But what else did he want to do with his theory, if it is not applicable in cosmology? >> I would say: >> >> no SRT is a piece of garbadge, which is seemingly intentionally >> created, to prevent people from doing exactly that: thinking about the >> nature of space and time. > > Scientists don't care what you think. Scientists care whether it makes > accurate predictions and is consistent with existing results. As I > stated, relativity hasn't failed so far, nor is there anything better > yet. But you must be popular with the anti-relativity cranks. No. You are talking about your own profession and call that 'science', even if you are not doing any research in nature. I'm also not an 'anti-relativity crank', because I have based my own 'book' on relativity (but not on SRT). >> If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how >> that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the >> distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance >> would have been mandatory. > > The "distortion" is Einstein's relativity! No. I think, that Einstein erroneously ascribed the effects of relative motion to the 'far end' of the observation, while he should have researched the effect of motion on the perception on the 'near side'. The effect of movement on vision is closely related to the Doppler effect. This would make things look distorted, while the thing itself is not. The reason is, that the IMAGE is distorted, not the thing observed. So the effects occur on the side of the observer, while the observed thing is not affected, because a thing can simply ignore observers passing by at a distance. But Einstein wrote about real length contraction, which apparently meant the observed thing itself, which should become shorter. >> >> But in fact he ascribed the effects of relative motion erroneously to >> the real behaviour of objects on the remote side. > > No, on the relative motion of both sides. ??? 'Length contraction' is depending of 'length', which is an attribute of an object, but 'relative motion' is not an object, hence cannot get shorter. >> But that is not even nonsense, but pure bunk, because the objects on >> the remote side cannot possibly be affected by relative motion of a >> remote observer > > ??? Relative motion can affect the observation of an observer, but not possibly the observed thing itself, if that is far away. > > Relative to what, the local observer? I usually use a scheme, where the observer is halted and regarded as not moving, while the observed thing is moving. The opposite is also possible, but less practical. So I always halt the observer and let the observed thing move. That is just a possible setting, but one, which makes sense. >>>> This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition. >>> >>> Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until >>> you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein >>> wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason. >> >> No, things do not exist, because we can see them. >> >> Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the >> requirement, that something real must also be visible. > > It must be visible for us to know about the real thing. Sure. But whether you regard something real or not is irrelevant at the remote side. >> And: in fact we could synchronize clocks in cosmological distances >> only, if we had communication partners there. >> >> But the required procedure would not function like Einstein wrote it >> would function. >> >> Einstein erroneously assumed, that time is universal and remote >> observers could measure the same absolute time, > > There is no absolute time in relativity! > >> hence only velocity (also meant as relative to the universe) would >> make a difference. >> >> But in fact only local time makes sense and we have neither absolute >> time, nor absolute space, against which velocity could eventually be >> measured. > > Velocity is relative, between the observer and observed. >> >> So, we had to communicate with someone remote. And I assumed >> three-legged aliens. >> >> (But you can assume whatever you like.) >> >> Now we send signals and receive answers. > > Why are the three legged aliens necessary? We send signals and receive > answers from the Moon without any aliens there. (Except us, when Apollo > missions planted the laser reflectors we're still using) That's is why we don't know the time, when the signal arrives on the Moon. We only assume, they arrive in the middle between sending them out and receiving the reflected signal. That is a very plausible guess, but not exactly knowledge. So, in fact we don't know the local time of arrival of a signal on the Moon. Instead we calculate the middle between emission and return time with our own clocks, while possible clocks on the Moon are not involved. >> To synchronize clocks, we first need to negotiate the meaning of the >> term 'clock' and how that should look like. >> >> Now we cannot assume, that processes here on Earth have the same >> frequency as processes at that remote location. > > Clocks are what measure time. >> >> We cannot even assume, that future for us is future there, too. > > ???? It is actually possible, that remote systems have a future, where we have our past. IOW: the arrow of time does not point into the same direction everywhere (in the universe). >> >> So we need to find out the relation of frequency in equivalent processes. > > First Postulate states the laws of physics and the processes are > identical both here and there. Sure, but the environment is different. Think about 'Gullivers travels'. Gulliver could feel big or small, depending on the environment and its inhabitants, without any change of his own body. If you allow different timelines, then also similar processes can be looking much faster in our view, then how they are perceived there. Also processes may be observed, which run backwards in our understanding, while we do in the understanding of observers there. Now this would make synchronization of clocks in cosmological distances very difficult, because the remote side could have such a 'tilted axis of time' in their local environment, even if the laws of nature are the same there. >> That could eventually be a certain frequency of a gas, which we could >> identify as similar. From this we could built a clock, on which both >> sides could agree. > > No "both sides" needed. In Einstein's work, the clocks are assumed > identical. In reality they need to have the same accuracy and tick the > same units. sure. But how could you get our clocks to Alpha centaury? >> >> Then we needed to estimate the distance and relative velocity of the >> remote system. >> >> We could do that by sending a signal there, which is immidiatly >> retransmitted there. > > As the Apollo laser reflectors do. >> >> Then we could measure the delay and calculate the distance. >> >> Next we need to fix a certain reference point in time, from where the >> local calender starts the new year and the calender itself (here: >> birth of Christ, there: ???). > > Irrelevant. We use our time. If you do NOT want to negotiate the synchronization procedure with remote observers in cosmolgical distances, you could als leave that and do other things, that are more relevant to you (like e.g. playing soccer). But I was talking about procedures, which were required, to synchronize clocks in cosmological distances. >> We could also measure Doppler shift and calcule relative motion. > > Yes. Actually not, because prior to that calculation we need to figure out, whether or not same processes here tick at the same rate in the remote system. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-04 16:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sog6nj$16kt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568526 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger: >>>> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python: >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading >>>>>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location. >>>>> >>>>> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times >>>>> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light >>>>> propagation time. >>>> >>>> Sure, that is correct. >>>> >>>> But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the >>>> remote clock. >>>> >>>> >>>> I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention >>>> to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find >>>> any hint. >>>> >>>> Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want. >>>> >>> >>> >>> let me try to explain this statement: >>> >>> I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second >>> to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury. >>> >>> That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs, >>> which commonly communicate with us. >> >> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually >> at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single >> person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs >> or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are >> supposed to be used everywhere. > > No. > > SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!! Well, yeah it is. All theories are about observations and experiments. > > SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think > about how nature functions. > > So. Einstein wrote not about certain experiments, but about the nature > of space and time. Well, he hypothesized about space and time based on observations. > > The question is, whether or not his method makes sense. As long as it agrees with observations, yes it makes sense. That’s how science works. > > I would say: > > no SRT is a piece of garbadge, which is seemingly intentionally created, > to prevent people from doing exactly that: thinking about the nature of > space and time. Now, Thomas, you’ll have to explain to me how anybody thinking about the nature of space and time would PREVENT anyone else from thinking about it. > > If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how > that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the > distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance would > have been mandatory. > > But in fact he ascribed the effects of relative motion erroneously to > the real behaviour of objects on the remote side. > > But that is not even nonsense, but pure bunk, because the objects on the > remote side cannot possibly be affected by relative motion of a remote > observer > >>> This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition. >> >> Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until >> you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein >> wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason. > > No, things do not exist, because we can see them. > > Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the > requirement, that something real must also be visible. > > > And: in fact we could synchronize clocks in cosmological distances only, > if we had communication partners there. > > But the required procedure would not function like Einstein wrote it > would function. > > Einstein erroneously assumed, that time is universal and remote > observers could measure the same absolute time, hence only velocity > (also meant as relative to the universe) would make a difference. > > But in fact only local time makes sense and we have neither absolute > time, nor absolute space, against which velocity could eventually be > measured. > > So, we had to communicate with someone remote. And I assumed > three-legged aliens. > > (But you can assume whatever you like.) > > Now we send signals and receive answers. > > To synchronize clocks, we first need to negotiate the meaning of the > term 'clock' and how that should look like. > > Now we cannot assume, that processes here on Earth have the same > frequency as processes at that remote location. > > We cannot even assume, that future for us is future there, too. > > So we need to find out the relation of frequency in equivalent processes. > > That could eventually be a certain frequency of a gas, which we could > identify as similar. From this we could built a clock, on which both > sides could agree. > > Then we needed to estimate the distance and relative velocity of the > remote system. > > We could do that by sending a signal there, which is immidiatly > retransmitted there. > > Then we could measure the delay and calculate the distance. > > Next we need to fix a certain reference point in time, from where the > local calender starts the new year and the calender itself (here: birth > of Christ, there: ???). > > This year has most likely a diffent length, hence we need to maintain a > system, that translates our dates into dates there. > > We could also measure Doppler shift and calcule relative motion. > > Then we could create a system here, which is in synch with the remote > clocks there and those aliens could do the same, but with our clocks. > > If we now calculate the current time at the remote location, we could > generate a time-coded signal, which is in synch with the remote clock, > once or signal arrives there. > > This signal would be composed from the results of several calculations. > > For instance we had to calculate the position of that planet in the > local orbit at the time of arrival of the signal. > > Than we can calculte the precise distance from our position in our orbit > towards that position. > > Then we need to figure out the local speed of light in relation to our > planet and to our local solar system (because of local gravity). > > We should do the same for the remote side, too. > > After a number of iterations we can figuere out, how that signal should > look like and when we should send it. > > Would be a little difficult, but we have actually computers. > > > But nothing of this procedure was mentioned in Einstein's text. > > Einstein wrote nowhere, that the addition of the dealy would be required. > > He did not even calculate this delay or even mentioned it. > > Now you say, he had done that and only forgot to write something about > that delay, because it is so obvious. > > But what is written in a text is relevant, and not, what you think it > should contain. > > Therefore a required statement is missing, if it is missing in the text. > A reader must not alter a paper, only because it should contain > something which it does not. > > ... > > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-04 11:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <23250bc6-d53c-49b5-a72e-ac6ed25a965an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568544 |
On Saturday, 4 December 2021 at 17:58:36 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote: > > Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python: > >> Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger: > >>>> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python: > >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>> ... > >>>>>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading > >>>>>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location. > >>>>> > >>>>> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times > >>>>> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light > >>>>> propagation time. > >>>> > >>>> Sure, that is correct. > >>>> > >>>> But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the > >>>> remote clock. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention > >>>> to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find > >>>> any hint. > >>>> > >>>> Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> let me try to explain this statement: > >>> > >>> I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second > >>> to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury. > >>> > >>> That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs, > >>> which commonly communicate with us. > >> > >> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually > >> at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single > >> person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs > >> or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are > >> supposed to be used everywhere. > > > > No. > > > > SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!! > Well, yeah it is. All theories are about observations and experiments. > > > > SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think > > about how nature functions. > > > > So. Einstein wrote not about certain experiments, but about the nature > > of space and time. > Well, he hypothesized about space and time based on observations. But in the real world, forbidden by your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. > As long as it agrees with observations, yes it makes sense. That’s how > science works. Thinkers more advanced than a poor idiot woodworker (Poincare, Kuhn, Lakatos) knew better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-04 20:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <61abbc4a$0$8895$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #568526 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python: > ... I've already answered to most of your nonsense, or Michael did, in my answer to Michael's answer. Until a few minutes ago your post wasn't visible on the nntp server I'm using. >>> This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition. >> >> Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until >> you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein >> wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason. > > No, things do not exist, because we can see them. > > Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the > requirement, that something real must also be visible. Sorry, Thomas, I cannot make any sense of your anser here. It is even remotely related to what I wrote, or part I.1. in Einstein's paper. What the hell are you talking about? How could this nonsense about things being seen of invisible is related in any way to part I.1. in Einstein's paper? In other words: what kind of demented nonsense did your ill brain produced, again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-05 20:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j14ja1Fpa7uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #568548 |
Am 04.12.2021 um 20:06 schrieb Python: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python: >> ... > > I've already answered to most of your nonsense, or Michael did, > in my answer to Michael's answer. Until a few minutes ago your > post wasn't visible on the nntp server I'm using. > >>>> This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition. >>> >>> Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until >>> you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein >>> wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason. >> >> No, things do not exist, because we can see them. >> >> Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the >> requirement, that something real must also be visible. > > Sorry, Thomas, I cannot make any sense of your anser here. > It is even remotely related to what I wrote, or part I.1. in > Einstein's paper. > > What the hell are you talking about? How could this nonsense > about things being seen of invisible is related in any way > to part I.1. in Einstein's paper? In other words: what kind > of demented nonsense did your ill brain produced, again? > You insisted on 'a common procedure to check..' (if something is the case). This way you raise the requirement that such a something should be measurable, before you regard it as real. I wrote, that invisible (unmeasurable) things could also be real. Things can 'live' in a different world, to where we have no access, but are still real. Such invisible things (like behind the event horizon of a black hole) do not belong to the realm, to which we possibly make contact, hence cannot measure anything there, while this realm and its content might built a real world. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-04 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <S25ix9aifL080GQGnw2umB_HXuY@jntp> |
| In reply to | #568465 |
Le 03/12/2021 à 10:47, Python a écrit : > 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper) > t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper) > > implies: > > t_B = t_A + (AB)/c One day, someone will have to devote himself to teaching the theory of relativity to Jean-Pierre Messager (as Python) Me, I gave up. C'est des équations qu'on écrit sur les bancs du collège entre 12 et 14 ans, ça. Faut pas être bien dans sa tête pour colporter des conneries pareilles dans une théorie beaucoup plus belle, plus profonde, plus étrange, et beaucoup moins évidente par rapport aux montres habituelles. J'en arrive à me demander si Jean-Pierre a compris quelque chose de la notion d'anisochronie spatiale, et de relativité de la simultanéité. Bon, Jean-Pierre, mon chéri, maintenant, tu arrêtes. Repends-toi, Jean-Pierre. Sois bon avec toi-même. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-04 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r_kY_WxbvqeQsOdiS3SwKKCbwro@jntp> |
| In reply to | #568465 |
Le 03/12/2021 à 10:47, Python a écrit : > Again, just apply equations from part I.1 in the original paper, I've > shown you this numerous times, this is basic algebra: > > 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper) Einstein was right. And my grand mother Anatolphine too. > t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper) Et mes couilles? Il y a des gens qui ne peuvent pas être enseignés. Même à grandes claques dans la gueule, même avec de grands coups de genoux dans les couilles. Tu peux pas. Ils continueront sans cesse à radoter leurs conneries et leur débilités. Jean-Pierre! Mon tendre chéri darling! Je te supplie de comprendre quelque chose. OUI, on peut dire 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c. NON, on ne peut pas en conclure t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B. Ce serait vrai pour une troisième montre placée en C, orthogonale sur la médiane AB. Ce n'est vrai ni pour A, ni pour B. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-05 13:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <61acaec8$0$3748$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #568541 |
Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/12/2021 à 10:47, Python a écrit :
>
>> Again, just apply equations from part I.1 in the original paper, I've
>> shown you this numerous times, this is basic algebra:
>>
>> 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper)
>
> Einstein was right.
>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper)
...
> OUI, on peut dire 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.
> NON, on ne peut pas en conclure t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B.
You didn't read seriously the article. t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is
NOT deduced from 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.
This is a typical problems with cranks of your kind. You always
make up stuff then argue against this stuff that was not claimed
by anyone in the first place. This is something that makes
discussion with you cranks impossible.
Remember when you were first, more than a decade ago, presented
to this equation (t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B) you interpreted it as
meaning that clock A and clock B are running at the same rate?
Do you really get, now, that this is completely WRONG? Equality
of clock rates is stated BEFORE in the text:
"the clock [at B] is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
You were unable to read back then, you still are Lengrand.
Considering the logical relation between these two equations, Einstein
is very clear in part I.1 :
2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c is assumed in accordance with experiments
(it refers to actual measures of round-trip time of light signals
in experiments involving a single clock).
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is ASSUMED as a convention about initialization
of clock readings in order to obtain a consistent synchronization
between a network of co-moving clocks in a given frame of reference.
There is NOTHING said about the second equation being a consequence
of the first one, nor the other way around.
You pretend that t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is impossible with absolutely
NO ARGUMENT but "ME, Richard Lengrand 'Hachel' say so". This is
ridiculous.
Not only it is possible; it's routinely done in real setups to configure
clocks preparing an actual experiment, it can be shown mathematically
that this convention, under the hypothesis of the other one
(2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c, insures that Einstein is RIGHT in stating this:
"We assume that this definition of synchronism is possible without
involving any inconsistency, for any number of points, therefore
the following relations hold:
1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the
clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A be synchronous with the clock at B as well as
with the clock at C, then also the clocks at B and C are
synchronous."
(a part that, again, you completely misunderstood 15 years ago)
Einstein assumed it, it can actually being (mathematically) proven. It
means that your claim about (un)consistency of synchronisation is WRONG.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-05 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pgUyxP7uCHbZytZrOfa1dr2y5u4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #568566 |
Le 05/12/2021 à 13:21, Python a écrit :
> 1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the
clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B.
C'est faux.
Tu le fais exprès Jean-Pierre Messager?
J'ai pris l'exemple d'une horloge solaire.
L'heure solaire, à Berlin, Paris et Denver n'est pas la même.
MAIS, on peut faire en sorte qu'elle soit la même, en modifiant la
position du socle.
On aura donc une parfaite simultanéité des heures notées.
Mais bon, on peut aussi dire que deux joints à sept font neuf.
Selon qu'il est saintement écrit : "La précision mathématique de ses
réponses entraîne l'épouvante".
Mais une fois cela dit? Que dit-on de plus?
L'heure solaire, à Berlin, à Paris, et à Denver n'est pas la même.
Et c'est pas Jean-Pierre qui va y changer quelque chose.
Il y a dans le monde, certaine réalité immuable.
Même Einstein, le petit employé de Berne, qui recopiait les brevets
(c'était sa fonction en 1905 à l'Institut des brevets de Berne), s'y est
frotté.
Il a perdu.
Le génie, c'était Poincaré. Le plus grand mathématicien que le monde
ait porté, et le dernier capable
(parce qu'après ça progresse trop vite) de maîtriser l'ensemble de
toutes les sciences de son époque.
Faut arrêter, Jean-Pierre.
Mais je suis sûr que tu vas continuer selon qu'il est saintement écrit
: "Là où il n'y a pas de bornes, ils n'auront plus de limites".
R.H.
--
L'important, c'est l'essentiel.<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=pgUyxP7uCHbZytZrOfa1dr2y5u4@jntp>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-07 16:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sonvdd$1mhf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568567 |
Richard 'Hachel' Lengrand wrote: > Le 05/12/2021 à 13:21, Python a écrit : > >> 1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the >> clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B. > > C'est faux. With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's definition it is true. Your definition if inconsistent. EOS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-07 07:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c4b7b006-1458-4f6c-b0bc-0ad826e667b7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568632 |
On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 at 16:43:17 UTC+1, Python wrote: > Richard 'Hachel' Lengrand wrote: > > Le 05/12/2021 à 13:21, Python a écrit : > > > >> 1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the > >> clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B. > > > > C'est faux. > > With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's > definition it is true. In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web