Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671884 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-07 19:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2026-08-11 14:38 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 174 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-07 19:50 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-08 19:03 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-09 07:08 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-09 15:00 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-09 06:19 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-09 22:05 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-09 16:19 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-09 21:55 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-09 22:40 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-10 19:09 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Cleaborn Moletotov <mllm@mrooo.ru> - 2026-08-09 14:24 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-10 15:41 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 16:36 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 15:43 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 10:00 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 17:05 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 13:08 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 23:21 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 17:43 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 17:54 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 20:46 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:06 +0800
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-19 18:19 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:04 +0800
Re: space-telescopes and running-constants and BB/SS and DM/DE, Was "... predict any measurement results or not" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-19 07:29 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 06:08 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 12:37 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 15:50 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 14:02 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 17:04 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 15:13 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 18:17 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 16:23 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 18:37 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 16:42 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 19:01 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 17:04 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 19:24 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 17:30 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-11 17:43 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 20:13 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-12 15:56 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-12 18:15 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-12 16:34 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-12 19:48 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-12 17:57 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-12 20:27 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 11:33 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 14:46 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 13:03 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 15:28 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-13 07:39 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 13:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 16:27 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 14:48 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 17:30 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 15:39 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 18:23 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 16:30 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-13 18:59 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-13 23:57 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 08:13 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 08:40 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 12:51 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 10:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 13:13 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 11:32 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 13:50 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 11:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 14:18 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 12:31 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 14:37 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 12:42 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 15:02 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 13:09 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 18:36 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 16:42 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 19:14 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 19:38 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-14 17:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-14 20:17 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-15 20:33 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-15 21:41 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-15 21:33 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 06:55 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-16 10:24 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 12:32 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-16 10:43 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 13:03 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-16 11:08 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 16:32 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-16 22:57 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 23:10 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-16 15:34 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-16 22:29 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-16 22:47 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-16 23:35 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-16 15:40 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Hilder Bazulev <euele@bivzrb.ru> - 2026-08-16 21:45 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 17:55 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Sammie Niemczyk <anze@isa.pl> - 2026-08-17 19:12 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Tronny Bobienski <kyekbn@sknny.pl> - 2026-08-19 12:38 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 07:52 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-16 22:52 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 14:40 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 18:19 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-14 16:33 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-15 10:51 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-15 11:18 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-15 14:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-15 12:22 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-15 17:59 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 09:16 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 09:29 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 08:56 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-16 08:34 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-16 10:04 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-18 09:02 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 11:26 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 14:35 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 12:46 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 15:06 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 15:25 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:29 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 15:37 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:51 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 15:57 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 14:09 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 16:15 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 14:27 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 16:43 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 14:50 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 16:56 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:03 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 17:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:22 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 17:26 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:34 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 17:37 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-19 16:34 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-18 07:52 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lowen Chukhnov <enuh@hlclk.ru> - 2026-08-16 21:54 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Shea Lupov <alell@eus.ru> - 2026-08-14 16:26 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-14 16:29 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 06:58 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 07:07 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-13 07:37 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 20:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-12 15:55 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 18:23 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 01:59 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Torre Kaczka <rz@oktreka.pl> - 2026-08-12 19:53 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-12 14:00 -0600
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Clayburn Ruzanov <nuc@braonala.ru> - 2026-08-12 21:29 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-11 21:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 22:15 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-12 21:11 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-12 21:14 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:07 +0800
Re: Light-Speed Rest-Frame theory, Was: "... predict any measurement results or not" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-19 07:38 -0700
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 19:21 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 17:51 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 20:12 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 18:17 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 20:27 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-10 23:34 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 23:19 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 06:03 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-11 20:04 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-11 10:53 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-11 12:14 +0200
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Peter Balagurov <pvaepgt@eaatp.ru> - 2026-08-11 14:41 +0000
Re: Doees The Shit of Einstein predict any measurement results or not Elwood Bahtov <lehtb@oato.ru> - 2026-08-11 14:38 +0000
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 17:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1rzzy8o.1pqbic11qas7mtN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672093 |
Hilder Bazulev <euele@bivzrb.ru> wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > Den 16.08.2026 22:47, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: > >>> So it is a bit complicated to keep the reported time from the > >>> satellites in sync. > >>> It doesn't help if an engineer 'postulates' them to be in sync. ? > > > > I have a hard time believing that it is possible to be as stupid and > > ignorant as you appear (pretend?) to be. > > > > You claim that everything in the GPS Interface Specification Document is > > wrong and thus the GPS cannot work. > > dont bother, as he is correct; you rarely will find now a cellphone with > working GPS. Good to see some real-life Russian experience reported. Keep it up, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sammie Niemczyk <anze@isa.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 19:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <115vmf0$213oq$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #672136 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: > Hilder Bazulev <euele@bivzrb.ru> wrote: > >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> > Den 16.08.2026 22:47, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >> >>> So it is a bit complicated to keep the reported time from the >> >>> satellites in sync. >> >>> It doesn't help if an engineer 'postulates' them to be in sync. ? >> > >> > I have a hard time believing that it is possible to be as stupid and >> > ignorant as you appear (pretend?) to be. >> > >> > You claim that everything in the GPS Interface Specification Document >> > is wrong and thus the GPS cannot work. >> >> dont bother, as he is correct; you rarely will find now a cellphone >> with working GPS. > > Good to see some real-life Russian experience reported. > > Keep it up, lol, you are a liar saying that your GPS works, unless they changed the standard to match the new cellphones keep it up the good work, the natzi ukrane fucks your ass publicly as there is no day tomorrow; what an idiot, and he pretends he understand relativity
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tronny Bobienski <kyekbn@sknny.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 12:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <116483o$28m7h$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #672136 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: > Hilder Bazulev <euele@bivzrb.ru> wrote: >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> > I have a hard time believing that it is possible to be as stupid and >> > ignorant as you appear (pretend?) to be. >> > >> > You claim that everything in the GPS Interface Specification Document >> > is wrong and thus the GPS cannot work. >> >> dont bother, as he is correct; you rarely will find now a cellphone >> with working GPS. > > Good to see some real-life Russian experience reported. > > Keep it up, said the russian; you are russian, fucking traitor, refusing to admit what you are, a russian in a province misnamed gay poland; making so much bad to europe, you little man. The ukrans just killed again a few hundred thousand stupid polakers, as they did in valushia, second world war have shame, you stupid little man, the least you can do in your stinking precarious situation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 07:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cc81e4823b5c31$2085772$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672091 |
On 8/16/2026 11:35 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 16.08.2026 22:47, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 8/16/2026 10:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 15.08.2026 21:41, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >>>>>> the engineers postulated them to be. >>>>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >>>>>> madmen. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate" >>>>> and "synchronise" mean. >>>> >>>> Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected >>>> from a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit. >>> >>> So you snip everything I wrote without reading it, >>> and call it a lie. Pathetic! >> >> Sorry, poor piece of shit, snipping >> impudent lies is no way pathetic. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> I challenge you: >>> Read the following, and if you find something which you think >>> is wrong, quote me literally and explain exactly what is wrong. >>> >>> >>> Let's see what engineers _specify_ about the GPS SV clocks: >>> (SV = Space Vehicle, satellite) >>> >>> GPS Interface Specification Document: >>> https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf >>> >>> Quote from 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan: >>> "The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be >>> coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV." >>> >>> It is a frequency standard which defines the rate of the SV-clock. >>> This frequency standard is an atomic clock (oscillator) with the >>> SI-definition of second inbuilt. >> >> A lie, of course - your SI idiocy >> is demanding 9 192 631 770 , SV >> clock have 9 192 631 774. You were admitting >> it many times, pathetic lying piece of shit. >> >> >> >>> "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an >>> observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz." >>> >>> This means that the frequency standard is 10.23 MHz whether it is >>> in the SV or on the ground. This is according to the SI-definition >>> of second. 10.23 MHz = 10230000 cycles per SI-second. >>> The SI-definition of second is the same in the SV, on the ground >>> and everywhere. >> >> Nobody cares what your SI idiocy is. >> The second of GPS is different. Engineers >> made it according to their own postulates, >> not the postulates of your idiot guru. >> >> >> >>> "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates >>> -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV >> >> >> >> >> >>> -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. >>> The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10. >>> This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz." >>> >>> NOTE THIS: >>> ========== >>> This means: >>> If the SV-clock were emitting the frequency 10.23 MHz, >>> then the frequency received on the ground would be >>> 10.23*(1 + 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2300000045674 MHz. >> >> No, poor trash, that doesn't mean. >> >> >> >>> So to make the clock in the SV have the same rate >>> as a clock on the ground, the frequency standard in >>> the SV has to be adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647E-10). >>> 10.23*(1 - 4.4647E-10)MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz. >> >> "would appear" that it has. Or maybe wouldn't. >> A MEASUREMENT - comparing this frequency to a REAL >> (not gedanken) clock on a satellite will give >> 10.23MHz. That's because engineers fucked mad >> postulates of your idiot guru and make clocks >> according to their own. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity, >>> and is now thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the GPS works. >> >> Even such a disgusting piece of lying shit >> as you are, Paul, can't lie non stop - >> so sometimes you admit that the real measurement >> results have little in common with that >> mad mumble of your idiot guru. >> >> >>>> And the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >>>> the engineers postulated them to be. >>> >>> Yes, the time reported from each SV is indeed synchronous >>> within few ns to the GPS master clock at Schriever SFB Colorado. >> >> >> Yes they are. >> Common sense has been warning the idiot. >> >>> (This time is called"GPS-system time") >>> The GPS wouldn't work otherwise. >>> >>> The _rate_ of the SV-clocks are adjusted down prior to launch. >>> But the reading (phase) of the clocks are not normally adjusted >>> while the SVs are in service. No clock is infinitely precise, >>> so the SV-clocks will drift off sync and will usually be several >>> microseconds off sync. >>> >>> See: https://paulba.no/GPS/GPS_clock_correction.pdf >>> (A bit old, but it illustrates the point.) >>> The PRN identifies the SV. >>> Note that all the clocks are several μs, some hundreds of μs off sync. >>> >>> The SVs are monitored by 17 monitoring stations. Every SV is >>> at any time tracked by at least one station. >>> See: https://www.gps.gov/control-segment >>> >>> These monitoring stations measure the behaviour of the clocks >>> and the orbit. Correctional data are uploaded to the SV as needed. >>> The SVs will send these correctional data to the receiver. >>> The corrections are done in the receiver. >>> >>> The correctional data related to time are the coefficients >>> in the time correction polynomial. >>> See: https://paulba.no/GPS/GPS_clock_correction.pdf >>> or: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf >>> >>> It is the corrected time 't' that will be synchronous to >>> GPS-system time within few ns. >>> >>> So it is a bit complicated to keep the reported time from >>> the satellites in sync. >>> It doesn't help if an engineer 'postulates' them to be in sync. 😂 > > > I have a hard time believing that it is possible to be > as stupid and ignorant as you appear (pretend?) to be. Keep raving, barking and slandering, that won't make the mumble of your idiot guru consistent. > > You claim that everything in the GPS Interface Specification Document > is wrong and thus the GPS cannot work. Both lies. As expected from a piece of fanatic, lying shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 22:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6A82A187.590C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #672086 |
=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote: > > On 8/16/2026 10:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 15.08.2026 21:41, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > >> On 8/15/2026 8:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>> Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like > >>>> the engineers postulated them to be. > >>>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling > >>>> madmen. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate" > >>> and "synchronise" mean. > >> > >> Paul, you obviously impudently lie, as expected > >> from a piece of fanatic, relativistic shit. > > > > So you snip everything I wrote without reading it, > > and call it a lie. Pathetic! > > Sorry, poor piece of shit, snipping > impudent lies is no way pathetic. > > > > > I challenge you: > > Read the following, and if you find something which you think > > is wrong, quote me literally and explain exactly what is wrong. > > > > > > Let's see what engineers _specify_ about the GPS SV clocks: > > (SV = Space Vehicle, satellite) > > > > GPS Interface Specification Document: > > https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf > > > > Quote from 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan: > >  "The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > >   coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV." > > > > It is a frequency standard which defines the rate of the SV-clock. > > This frequency standard is an atomic clock (oscillator) with the > > SI-definition of second inbuilt. > > A lie, of course - your SI idiocy > is demanding 9 192 631 770 , SV > clock have 9 192 631 774. You were admitting > it many times, pathetic lying piece of shit. > > >  "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an > >   observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz." > > > > This means that the frequency standard is 10.23 MHz whether it is > > in the SV or on the ground. This is according to the SI-definition > > of second. 10.23 MHz = 10230000 cycles per SI-second. > > The SI-definition of second is the same in the SV, on the ground > > and everywhere. > > Nobody cares what your SI idiocy is. > The second of GPS is different. Engineers > made it according to their own postulates, > not the postulates of your idiot guru. > > >  "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates > >   -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV > > >   -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. > >   The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10. > >   This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz." > > > > NOTE THIS: > > ========== > > This means: > > If the SV-clock were emitting the frequency 10.23 MHz, > > then the frequency received on the ground would be > > 10.23*(1 + 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2300000045674 MHz. > > No, poor trash, that doesn't mean. > > > So to make the clock in the SV have the same rate > > as a clock on the ground, the frequency standard in > > the SV has to be adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647E-10). > > 10.23*(1 - 4.4647E-10)MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > "would appear" that it has. Or maybe wouldn't. > A MEASUREMENT - comparing this frequency to a REAL > (not gedanken) clock on a satellite will give > 10.23MHz. That's because engineers fucked mad > postulates of your idiot guru and make clocks > according to their own. > > > > > This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity, > > and is now thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the GPS works. > > Even such a disgusting piece of lying shit > as you are, Paul, can't lie non stop - > so sometimes you admit that the real measurement > results have little in common with that > mad mumble of your idiot guru. I don't know where people get the idea that General Theory of Relativity has anything to do with GPS??? I guess they will say eventually that it was the General Theory of Relativity of Asteroids thatt killed the dinosaurs, ...and General Theory of Relativity confirmed it. There is a name for this 'kind' of science...Jewish Science. Indoctrination. Indoctrination is the act of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs, ideas, or rules without questioning them. It relies on repetition and discourages critical thinking or alternative views. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define++Indoctrination dats the foundation of all Jewish Science. If you happen to know any Jewish persons in the field of science, tell them to take all their money and go back to Israel. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 14:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <OqWcnWrohfBZQR33nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672068 |
On 08/15/2026 11:33 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> >> >> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >> the engineers postulated them to be. >> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >> madmen. >> > > Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate" > and "synchronise" mean. > > The word "identical" may have different meanings, > but when Einstein said: > "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A". > Then the property of the two clocks that must be equal (identical) > is their _rate_ (frequency). Their reading (phase) do not have to > be equal; they do not have to be synchronised. > > A "postulate" is a fact that always must be true if > the theory based on the postulate is valid. > (e.g. the speed of light is c in all inertial frames) > > You cannot _postulate_ two clocks to be synchronised, > because two clocks do not have to be synchronous. > > So let's see what engineers _specify_ about the GPS SV clocks: > (SV = Space Vehicle, satellite) > > GPS Interface Specification Document: > https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf > > Quote from 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan: > "The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be > coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV." > > It is a frequency standard which defines the rate of the SV-clock. > This frequency standard is an atomic clock (oscillator) with the > SI-definition of second inbuilt. > > quote continue: > "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an > observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz." > > This means that the frequency standard is 10.23 MHz whether it is > in the SV or on the ground. This is according to the SI-definition > of second. 10.23 MHz = 10230000 cycles per SI-second. > The SI-definition of second is the same in the SV, on the ground > and everywhere. > > quote continue: > "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates > -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV > -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. > The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10. > This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz." > > NOTE THIS: > ========== > This means: > If the SV-clock were emitting the frequency 10.23 MHz, > then the frequency received on the ground would be > 10.23*(1 + 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2300000045674 MHz. > This is partly due to gravitational blue shift, and > partly due to the speed of the SV relative to the non > rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame). > > So to make the clock in the SV to have the same rate > as a clock on the ground, the frequency standard in > the SV has to be adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647E-10). > 10.23*(1 - 4.4647E-10)MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity, > and is now thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the GPS works. > > When the clocks have the same rate, it is possible to synchronise > them. But that's another story. > > Light's speed as constant in a frame still has that anywhere there's a "tensor" that's not a "vector": that's two frames.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 18:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <OaWdndsSqb-YjRz3nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672071 |
On 08/15/2026 02:40 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 08/15/2026 11:33 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 14.08.2026 19:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> >>> >>> the clocks of GPS are synchronized, just like >>> the engineers postulated them to be. >>> Not indentical, as postulated by some mumbling >>> madmen. >>> >> >> Maciej, you obviously don't know what the words "postulate" >> and "synchronise" mean. >> >> The word "identical" may have different meanings, >> but when Einstein said: >> "another clock in all respects resembling the one at A". >> Then the property of the two clocks that must be equal (identical) >> is their _rate_ (frequency). Their reading (phase) do not have to >> be equal; they do not have to be synchronised. >> >> A "postulate" is a fact that always must be true if >> the theory based on the postulate is valid. >> (e.g. the speed of light is c in all inertial frames) >> >> You cannot _postulate_ two clocks to be synchronised, >> because two clocks do not have to be synchronous. >> >> So let's see what engineers _specify_ about the GPS SV clocks: >> (SV = Space Vehicle, satellite) >> >> GPS Interface Specification Document: >> https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf >> >> Quote from 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan: >> "The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be >> coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV." >> >> It is a frequency standard which defines the rate of the SV-clock. >> This frequency standard is an atomic clock (oscillator) with the >> SI-definition of second inbuilt. >> >> quote continue: >> "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an >> observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz." >> >> This means that the frequency standard is 10.23 MHz whether it is >> in the SV or on the ground. This is according to the SI-definition >> of second. 10.23 MHz = 10230000 cycles per SI-second. >> The SI-definition of second is the same in the SV, on the ground >> and everywhere. >> >> quote continue: >> "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates >> -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV >> -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. >> The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10. >> This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz." >> >> NOTE THIS: >> ========== >> This means: >> If the SV-clock were emitting the frequency 10.23 MHz, >> then the frequency received on the ground would be >> 10.23*(1 + 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2300000045674 MHz. >> This is partly due to gravitational blue shift, and >> partly due to the speed of the SV relative to the non >> rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame). >> >> So to make the clock in the SV to have the same rate >> as a clock on the ground, the frequency standard in >> the SV has to be adjusted down by the factor (1 - 4.4647E-10). >> 10.23*(1 - 4.4647E-10)MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz. >> >> This is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity, >> and is now thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the GPS works. >> >> When the clocks have the same rate, it is possible to synchronise >> them. But that's another story. >> >> > > Light's speed as constant in a frame still has that > anywhere there's a "tensor" that's not a "vector": > that's two frames. > > Also: scientists don't say "confirmed", just "not falsified", like for example "Dark Matter and Dark Energy have either and both falsified modern cosmology with modern mechanics", or "quantum mechanics its probabilistic interpretation has at least three kinds of parastatistics that model falsifying each other", and "Higgs' boson is a doublet, not a particle".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 16:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <115o54d$2temf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672045 |
Python wrote: > Le 14/08/2026 à 18:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/14/2026 3:09 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 14/08/2026 à 15:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/14/2026 2:42 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 8/14/2026 2:31 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 14:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:32 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 13:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 12:53 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then one of two things must be true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either you know that model. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or you do not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulates]? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least its equations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or predictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep contrasting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "identical clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "synchronized clocks" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if they were mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He was an idiot but he was right in that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and >>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized clocks >>>>>>>>>>>>> are equivalent. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit, I say he proved >>>>>>>>>>>> they're mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The idiot was soooooo proud that >>>>>>>>>>>> the clocks he invented won't keep >>>>>>>>>>>> sync.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your claim is now: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Einstein proved that identical clocks and synchronized >>>>>>>>>>> clocks are >>>>>>>>>>> mutually exclusive." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly the opposite of what Einstein does in his >>>>>>>>>>> 1905 paper. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The construction is: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Take two clocks "in all respects resembling one another". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Synchronize them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Ask what happens after they follow different worldlines. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> At the initial event the clocks are therefore >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - identical; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So the two properties cannot possibly be mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In fact, a single counterexample disproves your claim. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Take two identical atomic clocks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Place them side by side. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Adjust them so that both display >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 12:00:00. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Are they identical? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Are they synchronized? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> identical AND synchronized >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> is perfectly possible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, the two notions are logically independent. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Two clocks may be >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - identical but not synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - synchronized but not identical; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - identical and synchronized; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - neither. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is no logical contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The word "identical" refers to the physical properties of the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The word "synchronized" refers to the values displayed by the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks at a >>>>>>>>>>> given event according to a synchronization procedure. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Those are different concepts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your last sentence is also incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "The idiot was so proud that the clocks he invented won't >>>>>>>>>>> keep sync." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein did not invent clocks that "refuse to stay >>>>>>>>>>> synchronized". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, he did. You know it very well - you're >>>>>>>>>> just such a pathetic piece of lying shit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is a property of spacetime geometry, not a defect of the >>>>>>>>>>> clocks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The clocks are just great - they don't work, >>>>>>>>>> but it's "spacetime" to blame, not the inventor. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor brainwashed >>>>>>>>>> idiot. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maciej, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are changing the statement again. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Special relativity does not say that clocks "don't work". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't give a damn to what your insane >>>>>>>> Shit mumbles or not. >>>>>>>> They're not in sync = they don't work. >>>>>>>> You may check GPS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your premise is false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Working correctly means >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure. In your mad religion correct >>>>>> is whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>> be correct, proper is whatever your mad >>>>>> guru announce to be proper, good is >>>>>> whatever your mad guru announce to >>>>>> be good - and if it doesn't work >>>>>> it's "spacetime" to blame, not your >>>>>> mad guru. >>>>>> I know that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, go fuck yourself, poor, poor, poor, >>>>>> poor brainwashed idiot. >>>>> >>>>> Maciej, >>>>> >>>>> You keep repeating >>>>> >>>>> "not synchronized = not working." >>>>> >>>>> Repeating it does not make it true. >>>>> >>>>> As someone who repeatedly presented himself as an information >>>>> engineer, >>>>> you know perfectly well that these are different concepts. >>>>> >>>>> Consider a distributed computer system. >>>>> >>>>> Two perfectly functioning clocks may differ by >>>>> >>>>> 10 us, >>>>> 10 ms, >>>>> or 10 s. >>>>> >>>>> They are no longer synchronized. >>>>> >>>>> Does that mean every oscillator suddenly stopped working? >>>>> >>>>> Of course not. >>>>> >>>>> It simply means they accumulated different elapsed times and must be >>>>> resynchronized. >>>>> >>>>> GPS is exactly the same. >>>>> >>>>> Satellite atomic clocks are excellent clocks. >>>> > >>>> > They are not "broken". >>>> >>>> >>>> That's what a postulate of some made idiot >>>> is asserting, sure. >>>> GPS staff (and myself) has another postulate, >>>> however. So - yes, they are. >>>> >>>> Anyway - the idiot has proudly proven that >>>> his perfect differently clocks will not keep >>>> sync (except of some practically almost >>>> unreachable special cases). While he was an idiot >>>> - he was right about that. Yes, identical >>>> and synchronized clocks exclude each other. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> Now you are making a very strong claim. >>> >>> You write that GPS engineers consider satellite clocks to be "broken". >> >>> >>> No, they do not. >> >> No, they do not. Why would they? >> The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy, just >> like the engineers assumed they should. >> >> If they were identical and fitting your SI idiocy - >> it would be definitely incorrect for the engineers, >> however. > > Maciej, > > Thank you. > > This is actually progress. > > A few messages ago you claimed that GPS engineers consider satellite > clocks "broken." > > Now you say something different. > > You write: > > "The clocks indicate t'=t with good accuracy." > > Exactly. > > That is the synchronization objective of the GPS system. > > It is not a statement that the clocks are defective. > > In fact, you have now silently abandoned your previous claim that > > not synchronized => broken. > > Because if the clocks naturally drift away from t'=t and are then > corrected back to t'=t, they are not broken. > > They are simply being synchronized. > > That is exactly how every distributed timing system works. > > More importantly, you still have not answered the central question. > > How does GPS know what correction to apply? > > The answer cannot be > > "because we want t'=t." > > That is merely the objective. No no, I consider this backwards motion. The equation should be t_0 = t_1. The apostrophe is reserved to show the derivative, that is the velocity of time. t' is the rate at which time is increasing = 1 second per second. It should not be equal to the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 10:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <neanl9F315rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #672030 |
Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: > Le 14/08/2026 à 12:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/14/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote: >>> Le 14/08/2026 à 08:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/14/2026 1:57 AM, Python wrote: >>> .. >>>>> You claim that GPS uses a physical model different from special >>>>> relativity. >>>>> >>>>> Very well. >>>>> >>>>> Then one of two things must be true. >>>>> >>>>> Either you know that model. >>>>> >>>>> Or you do not. >>>> >>>> How about - I know its part [one of the chief >>>> postulates]? >>>> >>>> Once again: your mad Shit is postulating clocks >>>> to be identical. GPS (and any sane people as well) >>>> is postulating clocks to be synchronized. It's >>>> not the same and it is excluding each other. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you know it, then you should be able to state at least its >>>>> equations >>>>> or predictions. >>>>> >>>>> If you do not know it, then you cannot legitimately claim that it >>>>> contradicts relativity. >>>> >>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit - your opinion >>>> of what I can or not is utterly worthless. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> There is a simple logical mistake in your argument. >>> >>> You keep contrasting >>> >>> "identical clocks" >>> >>> with >>> >>> "synchronized clocks" >>> >>> as if they were mutually exclusive. >>> >>> They are not. >> >> Sorry, your idiot guru has proven they are. >> He was an idiot but he was right in that. > > In fact, your own sentence disproves your claim. > > You say Einstein "proved" that identical clocks and synchronized clocks > are equivalent. Usually 'identity' means, that the items are one and the same. IOW: you are only identical with yourself. What you mean is 'similarity'. > > Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining > how to synchronize clocks? Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate the delay for signals to travel from A to B. If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present state, but in a state some time before. The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and not what the remote clock does. If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks run backwards after a while. To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into your calculation (what Einstein didn't). The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called 'ping' in the internet. But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. TH > If they were already synchronized by virtue of being identical, that > section would have been unnecessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 11:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g6XeRhISD8oB8yBZtmuLVtjXmVs@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672056 |
Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:
..
>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
>> how to synchronize clocks?
>
>
> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate the
> delay for signals to travel from A to B.
>
> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
> state, but in a state some time before.
>
> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance
> from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
>
> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some remote
> clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and not what
> the remote clock does.
>
> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way,
> you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do
> the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks run
> backwards after a while.
>
> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
> your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
>
> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
> 'ping' in the internet.
>
> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
Thomas,
You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
You write:
"If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
Of course.
Nobody disputes that.
Einstein certainly did not.
His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for
that propagation delay.
The 1905 construction is not
"look at B and read its current time."
It is
1. A sends a light signal at time tA1.
2. B receives it and immediately reflects it.
3. A receives the reflection at time tA2.
Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at
(tA1 + tA2)/2.
This is not forgetting the propagation delay.
It is using the measured round-trip propagation time to define
simultaneity.
In modern terminology, this is exactly a two-way time-transfer protocol.
It is conceptually very similar to what computer scientists know as a
ping.
So your statement
"Einstein didn't calculate the delay"
is simply incorrect.
The delay is the whole point of the construction.
You also write that one must "measure the delay by hand."
But the round-trip measurement
tA2 - tA1
IS precisely that measurement.
Nothing has been forgotten.
Finally, you write that otherwise "both clocks would run backwards."
No.
Nothing in Einstein's synchronization procedure predicts clocks running
backwards.
If you believe it does, then please provide the calculation.
Which equations lead to that conclusion?
Because neither Einstein's paper nor the Lorentz transformations produce
such a result.
Ironically, what you call
"a process similar to ping"
is essentially what Einstein proposed in 1905.
The idea is more than a century old.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 14:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cbf95f36546cac$2033805$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672057 |
On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote: > Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: > .. >>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining >>> how to synchronize clocks? >> >> >> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate >> the delay for signals to travel from A to B. >> >> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present >> state, but in a state some time before. >> >> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance >> from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). >> >> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some >> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and >> not what the remote clock does. >> >> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way, >> you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do >> the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks >> run backwards after a while. >> >> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's >> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into >> your calculation (what Einstein didn't). >> >> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called >> 'ping' in the internet. >> >> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. > > Thomas, > > You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from. > > You write: > > "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state." > > Of course. > > Nobody disputes that. > > Einstein certainly did not. > > His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for > that propagation delay. "His" synchronization procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century. God only knows wby the idiot bothered before announcing that synchronization is evil and should be abandoned, because it violates some moronic symmetry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 12:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ZHy-L09ybuiXhvUyF8SUnw1xCpU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672058 |
Le 15/08/2026 à 14:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:
>> ..
>>>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
>>>> how to synchronize clocks?
>>>
>>>
>>> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate
>>> the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
>>>
>>> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
>>> state, but in a state some time before.
>>>
>>> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance
>>> from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
>>>
>>> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
>>> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and
>>> not what the remote clock does.
>>>
>>> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way,
>>> you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do
>>> the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks
>>> run backwards after a while.
>>>
>>> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
>>> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
>>> your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
>>>
>>> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
>>> 'ping' in the internet.
>>>
>>> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
>>
>> You write:
>>
>> "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> Nobody disputes that.
>>
>> Einstein certainly did not.
>>
>> His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for
>> that propagation delay.
>
> "His" synchronization procedure
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
> was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century.
>
> God only knows wby the idiot bothered before
> announcing that synchronization is evil
> and should be abandoned, because it violates
> some moronic symmetry.
Maciej,
Thank you.
This is actually another interesting concession.
You now write that Einstein's synchronization procedure was already used
by telegraphers.
Exactly.
Nobody ever claimed that exchanging timing signals was Einstein's
invention.
In fact, by the end of the nineteenth century, synchronization of
distant clocks had become a major practical engineering problem for
railways, telegraph networks and geodesy.
Henri Poincare was directly involved in these questions.
As president of the Bureau des Longitudes, he supervised work on the
synchronization of clocks between distant observatories and railway
stations using telegraphic signals.
So yes, practical synchronization procedures certainly existed before
Einstein.
But that completely misses Einstein's contribution.
Einstein did not invent the exchange of signals.
He turned an engineering procedure into an operational definition of
coordinate time.
That is a completely different achievement.
Before Einstein, engineers synchronized clocks because they assumed there
already existed an absolute time that the clocks should reproduce.
After Einstein, the synchronized clocks DEFINE the coordinate time of an
inertial reference frame.
The synchronization procedure is no longer merely a practical trick.
It becomes part of the definition of spacetime coordinates.
That conceptual step is precisely what made the 1905 paper revolutionary.
Ironically, your historical remark therefore supports Einstein rather
than refutes him.
And it also contradicts what you have been claiming for several days.
You first argued that Einstein's synchronization procedure was absurd,
unusable and abandoned.
Now you tell us that essentially the same procedure had already been used
successfully by engineers before Einstein.
Those two claims cannot both be true.
Finally, there is another irony.
As an "information engineer", you should immediately recognize the
difference between
implementing a protocol
and
defining the semantics of the protocol.
Telegraph engineers implemented a synchronization protocol.
Einstein explained what the protocol means physically and made it the
foundation of coordinate time.
Those are not the same contribution.
Since, by your own admission, you like speaking of "opening one's
muzzle", perhaps you were not in the best position to open yours yet
again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 17:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cc05d606ac19c3$2033822$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672059 |
On 8/15/2026 2:22 PM, Python wrote: > Le 15/08/2026 à 14:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: >>> .. >>>>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining >>>>> how to synchronize clocks? >>>> >>>> >>>> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate >>>> the delay for signals to travel from A to B. >>>> >>>> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present >>>> state, but in a state some time before. >>>> >>>> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the >>>> distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). >>>> >>>> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some >>>> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real >>>> and not what the remote clock does. >>>> >>>> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this >>>> way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock >>>> would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and >>>> both clocks run backwards after a while. >>>> >>>> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's >>>> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into >>>> your calculation (what Einstein didn't). >>>> >>>> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called >>>> 'ping' in the internet. >>>> >>>> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. >>> >>> Thomas, >>> >>> You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from. >>> >>> You write: >>> >>> "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state." >>> >>> Of course. >>> >>> Nobody disputes that. >>> >>> Einstein certainly did not. >>> >>> His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for >>> that propagation delay. >> >> "His" synchronization procedure >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation >> was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century. >> >> God only knows wby the idiot bothered before >> announcing that synchronization is evil >> and should be abandoned, because it violates >> some moronic symmetry. > > Maciej, > > Thank you. > > This is actually another interesting concession. > > You now write that Einstein's synchronization procedure was already used > by telegraphers. > > Exactly. > > Nobody ever claimed that exchanging timing signals was Einstein's > invention. > > In fact, by the end of the nineteenth century, synchronization of > distant clocks had become a major practical engineering problem for > railways, telegraph networks and geodesy. > > Henri Poincare was directly involved in these questions. > > As president of the Bureau des Longitudes, he supervised work on the > synchronization of clocks between distant observatories and railway > stations using telegraphic signals. > > So yes, practical synchronization procedures certainly existed before > Einstein. > > But that completely misses Einstein's contribution. > > Einstein did not invent the exchange of signals. > > He turned an engineering procedure into an operational definition of > coordinate time. > > That is a completely different achievement. > > Before Einstein, engineers synchronized clocks because they assumed there > already existed an absolute time that the clocks should reproduce. > > After Einstein, the synchronized clocks DEFINE the coordinate time of an > inertial reference frame. > > The synchronization procedure is no longer merely a practical trick. > > It becomes part of the definition of spacetime coordinates. > > That conceptual step is precisely what made the 1905 paper revolutionary. > > Ironically, your historical remark therefore supports Einstein rather > than refutes him. > > And it also contradicts what you have been claiming for several days. > > You first argued that Einstein's synchronization procedure was absurd, > unusable and abandoned. > > Now you tell us that essentially the same procedure had already been used > successfully by engineers before Einstein. > > Those two claims cannot both be true. > > Finally, there is another irony. > > As an "information engineer", you should immediately recognize the > difference between > > implementing a protocol > > and > > defining the semantics of the protocol. > > Telegraph engineers implemented a synchronization protocol. > > Einstein explained what the protocol means physically and made it the > foundation of coordinate time. ... in his dreamt gedankenwelt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <BOydndX0G8yuDB33nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672063 |
On 08/15/2026 08:59 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 8/15/2026 2:22 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 15/08/2026 à 14:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: >>>> .. >>>>>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to >>>>>> defining >>>>>> how to synchronize clocks? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't >>>>> calculate the delay for signals to travel from A to B. >>>>> >>>>> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its >>>>> present state, but in a state some time before. >>>>> >>>>> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the >>>>> distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). >>>>> >>>>> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some >>>>> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real >>>>> and not what the remote clock does. >>>>> >>>>> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this >>>>> way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock >>>>> would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and >>>>> both clocks run backwards after a while. >>>>> >>>>> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's >>>>> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' >>>>> into your calculation (what Einstein didn't). >>>>> >>>>> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is >>>>> called 'ping' in the internet. >>>>> >>>>> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. >>>> >>>> Thomas, >>>> >>>> You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from. >>>> >>>> You write: >>>> >>>> "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state." >>>> >>>> Of course. >>>> >>>> Nobody disputes that. >>>> >>>> Einstein certainly did not. >>>> >>>> His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate >>>> for >>>> that propagation delay. >>> >>> "His" synchronization procedure >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation >>> was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century. >>> >>> God only knows wby the idiot bothered before >>> announcing that synchronization is evil >>> and should be abandoned, because it violates >>> some moronic symmetry. >> >> Maciej, >> >> Thank you. >> >> This is actually another interesting concession. >> >> You now write that Einstein's synchronization procedure was already used >> by telegraphers. >> >> Exactly. >> >> Nobody ever claimed that exchanging timing signals was Einstein's >> invention. >> >> In fact, by the end of the nineteenth century, synchronization of >> distant clocks had become a major practical engineering problem for >> railways, telegraph networks and geodesy. >> >> Henri Poincare was directly involved in these questions. >> >> As president of the Bureau des Longitudes, he supervised work on the >> synchronization of clocks between distant observatories and railway >> stations using telegraphic signals. >> >> So yes, practical synchronization procedures certainly existed before >> Einstein. >> >> But that completely misses Einstein's contribution. >> >> Einstein did not invent the exchange of signals. >> >> He turned an engineering procedure into an operational definition of >> coordinate time. >> >> That is a completely different achievement. >> >> Before Einstein, engineers synchronized clocks because they assumed there >> already existed an absolute time that the clocks should reproduce. >> >> After Einstein, the synchronized clocks DEFINE the coordinate time of an >> inertial reference frame. >> >> The synchronization procedure is no longer merely a practical trick. >> >> It becomes part of the definition of spacetime coordinates. >> >> That conceptual step is precisely what made the 1905 paper revolutionary. >> >> Ironically, your historical remark therefore supports Einstein rather >> than refutes him. >> >> And it also contradicts what you have been claiming for several days. >> >> You first argued that Einstein's synchronization procedure was absurd, >> unusable and abandoned. >> >> Now you tell us that essentially the same procedure had already been used >> successfully by engineers before Einstein. >> >> Those two claims cannot both be true. >> >> Finally, there is another irony. >> >> As an "information engineer", you should immediately recognize the >> difference between >> >> implementing a protocol >> >> and >> >> defining the semantics of the protocol. >> >> Telegraph engineers implemented a synchronization protocol. >> >> Einstein explained what the protocol means physically and made it the >> foundation of coordinate time. > > ... in his dreamt gedankenwelt. > There was a perfectly good account of the telegrapher's equation, held up by the greatest minds of the day, and it was wrong, and the submarine cable they sank was a folly, then Heaviside's telegrapher's equation, which he told them was correct all along, was adopted since it was less wrong, so, Einstein following Maxwell, yet Heaviside actually being right about these things, has that Einstein just keeps things simple, sometimes too simple. Then, Einstein's actual account is much simpler that what's often contrived from it, yet that's not all on him, since it's basically a hodge-podge of all what came before. Indeed, Heaviside and FitzGerald and Larmour are great 19'th century electricians, since Faraday and quite after Ampere and Coulomb and so on, each of which have their own "laws" of electricity, that don't necessarily agree with otherwise the "fluid" model of electricity, that Maxwell's then Ohm's and Kirchhoff's "laws" of circuits, provide for neat closed forms in arithmetic, algebra, and some trigonometry (which then complex analysis sits on). Calling that itself a closed form is unfair to the overall nature of the form of the energy, the real "law".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 09:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <GqOcncVF2-p3Dh33nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672064 |
On 08/15/2026 09:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 08/15/2026 08:59 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> On 8/15/2026 2:22 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 15/08/2026 à 14:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 8/15/2026 1:18 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: >>>>> .. >>>>>>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to >>>>>>> defining >>>>>>> how to synchronize clocks? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't >>>>>> calculate the delay for signals to travel from A to B. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its >>>>>> present state, but in a state some time before. >>>>>> >>>>>> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the >>>>>> distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). >>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some >>>>>> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real >>>>>> and not what the remote clock does. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this >>>>>> way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock >>>>>> would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and >>>>>> both clocks run backwards after a while. >>>>>> >>>>>> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's >>>>>> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' >>>>>> into your calculation (what Einstein didn't). >>>>>> >>>>>> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is >>>>>> called 'ping' in the internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. >>>>> >>>>> Thomas, >>>>> >>>>> You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from. >>>>> >>>>> You write: >>>>> >>>>> "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state." >>>>> >>>>> Of course. >>>>> >>>>> Nobody disputes that. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein certainly did not. >>>>> >>>>> His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate >>>>> for >>>>> that propagation delay. >>>> >>>> "His" synchronization procedure >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation >>>> was used by telegraphers in the middle 19th century. >>>> >>>> God only knows wby the idiot bothered before >>>> announcing that synchronization is evil >>>> and should be abandoned, because it violates >>>> some moronic symmetry. >>> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> This is actually another interesting concession. >>> >>> You now write that Einstein's synchronization procedure was already used >>> by telegraphers. >>> >>> Exactly. >>> >>> Nobody ever claimed that exchanging timing signals was Einstein's >>> invention. >>> >>> In fact, by the end of the nineteenth century, synchronization of >>> distant clocks had become a major practical engineering problem for >>> railways, telegraph networks and geodesy. >>> >>> Henri Poincare was directly involved in these questions. >>> >>> As president of the Bureau des Longitudes, he supervised work on the >>> synchronization of clocks between distant observatories and railway >>> stations using telegraphic signals. >>> >>> So yes, practical synchronization procedures certainly existed before >>> Einstein. >>> >>> But that completely misses Einstein's contribution. >>> >>> Einstein did not invent the exchange of signals. >>> >>> He turned an engineering procedure into an operational definition of >>> coordinate time. >>> >>> That is a completely different achievement. >>> >>> Before Einstein, engineers synchronized clocks because they assumed >>> there >>> already existed an absolute time that the clocks should reproduce. >>> >>> After Einstein, the synchronized clocks DEFINE the coordinate time of an >>> inertial reference frame. >>> >>> The synchronization procedure is no longer merely a practical trick. >>> >>> It becomes part of the definition of spacetime coordinates. >>> >>> That conceptual step is precisely what made the 1905 paper >>> revolutionary. >>> >>> Ironically, your historical remark therefore supports Einstein rather >>> than refutes him. >>> >>> And it also contradicts what you have been claiming for several days. >>> >>> You first argued that Einstein's synchronization procedure was absurd, >>> unusable and abandoned. >>> >>> Now you tell us that essentially the same procedure had already been >>> used >>> successfully by engineers before Einstein. >>> >>> Those two claims cannot both be true. >>> >>> Finally, there is another irony. >>> >>> As an "information engineer", you should immediately recognize the >>> difference between >>> >>> implementing a protocol >>> >>> and >>> >>> defining the semantics of the protocol. >>> >>> Telegraph engineers implemented a synchronization protocol. >>> >>> Einstein explained what the protocol means physically and made it the >>> foundation of coordinate time. >> >> ... in his dreamt gedankenwelt. >> > > > There was a perfectly good account of the telegrapher's equation, > held up by the greatest minds of the day, and it was wrong, > and the submarine cable they sank was a folly, then Heaviside's > telegrapher's equation, which he told them was correct all along, > was adopted since it was less wrong, so, Einstein following Maxwell, > yet Heaviside actually being right about these things, has that > Einstein just keeps things simple, sometimes too simple. > > Then, Einstein's actual account is much simpler that what's often > contrived from it, yet that's not all on him, since it's basically > a hodge-podge of all what came before. > > > Indeed, Heaviside and FitzGerald and Larmour are great 19'th century > electricians, since Faraday and quite after Ampere and Coulomb and > so on, each of which have their own "laws" of electricity, that don't > necessarily agree with otherwise the "fluid" model of electricity, > that Maxwell's then Ohm's and Kirchhoff's "laws" of circuits, > provide for neat closed forms in arithmetic, algebra, and some > trigonometry (which then complex analysis sits on). > > Calling that itself a closed form is unfair to the overall > nature of the form of the energy, the real "law". > > So, the telegrapher's equation is not the best example of not being wrong, and then "complex analysis" is also more than "the deMoivre-Euler-Gauss branch of the way complex analysis is usually enough applied to functional analysis". That said, it's quite easier sometimes to live in a world of theory than practice, yet, from the theory side then for suitable practices, and from the practice side suitable theories, here it's deemed reasonable to at least have a perfect theory, then for the practice of theoretical practice and practical theory, the application of applications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <VaecncsRotkCER33nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672057 |
On 08/15/2026 04:18 AM, Python wrote: > Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: > .. >>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining >>> how to synchronize clocks? >> >> >> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate >> the delay for signals to travel from A to B. >> >> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present >> state, but in a state some time before. >> >> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance >> from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). >> >> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some >> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and >> not what the remote clock does. >> >> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way, >> you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do >> the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks >> run backwards after a while. >> >> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's >> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into >> your calculation (what Einstein didn't). >> >> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called >> 'ping' in the internet. >> >> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. > > Thomas, > > You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from. > > You write: > > "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state." > > Of course. > > Nobody disputes that. > > Einstein certainly did not. > > His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for > that propagation delay. > > The 1905 construction is not > > "look at B and read its current time." > > It is > > 1. A sends a light signal at time tA1. > > 2. B receives it and immediately reflects it. > > 3. A receives the reflection at time tA2. > > Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at > > (tA1 + tA2)/2. > > This is not forgetting the propagation delay. > > It is using the measured round-trip propagation time to define > simultaneity. > > In modern terminology, this is exactly a two-way time-transfer protocol. > > It is conceptually very similar to what computer scientists know as a > ping. > > So your statement > > "Einstein didn't calculate the delay" > > is simply incorrect. > > The delay is the whole point of the construction. > > You also write that one must "measure the delay by hand." > > But the round-trip measurement > > tA2 - tA1 > > IS precisely that measurement. > > Nothing has been forgotten. > > Finally, you write that otherwise "both clocks would run backwards." > > No. > > Nothing in Einstein's synchronization procedure predicts clocks running > backwards. > > If you believe it does, then please provide the calculation. > > Which equations lead to that conclusion? > > Because neither Einstein's paper nor the Lorentz transformations produce > such a result. > > Ironically, what you call > > "a process similar to ping" > > is essentially what Einstein proposed in 1905. > > The idea is more than a century old. > So, A's metric and norm are B's norm and metric, then Einstein just says "Ricci is a straight line, yet Riemann is the absence thereof, let's just call them tensors". Einstein doesn't care what actually "makes the tensors", in General Relativity, then usual acconts extrapolated from space-contraction in Special Relativity plainly say "the metric and norm aren't the same, and for matters of perspective, from one perspective, this might be what we'd see". Of course there's that "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local", Einstein says so in "Out of My Later Years", while many SR-ians don't know / don't care the difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 08:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ned3v7FefegU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #672057 |
Am Samstag000015, 15.08.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Python: > Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python: > .. >>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining >>> how to synchronize clocks? >> >> >> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate >> the delay for signals to travel from A to B. >> >> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present >> state, but in a state some time before. >> >> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance >> from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A). >> >> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some >> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and >> not what the remote clock does. >> >> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way, >> you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do >> the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks >> run backwards after a while. >> >> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's >> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into >> your calculation (what Einstein didn't). >> >> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called >> 'ping' in the internet. >> >> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement. > > Thomas, > > You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from. > > You write: > > "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state." > > Of course. > > Nobody disputes that. > > Einstein certainly did not. > > His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for > that propagation delay. > > The 1905 construction is not > > "look at B and read its current time." > > It is > > 1. A sends a light signal at time tA1. > > 2. B receives it and immediately reflects it. > > 3. A receives the reflection at time tA2. > > Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at > > (tA1 + tA2)/2. But this is WRONG! If you send a beam from Earth (A) to -say- Mars (B), the beam will not be reflected in the middle between it was sent out and when it returns. The reason: Mars moves in respect to planet Earth, hence the distance changes, while the ray is still moving. And you cannot 'define this discrepancy away'. > > This is not forgetting the propagation delay. Well, actually Einstein didn't use the word 'delay' anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. Also any other equivalent word wasn't used, nor any variable containing delay. Therefore we are requested to respect the intentions of the author and should assume, that he didn't want to consider delay. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 10:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q6xDrlkMDKWxrZL9kUX0ULU1K80@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672074 |
Le 16/08/2026 à 08:34, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Samstag000015, 15.08.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Python:
>> Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:
>> ..
>>>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
>>>> how to synchronize clocks?
>>>
>>>
>>> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate
>>> the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
>>>
>>> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
>>> state, but in a state some time before.
>>>
>>> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the distance
>>> from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
>>>
>>> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
>>> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real and
>>> not what the remote clock does.
>>>
>>> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this way,
>>> you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock would do
>>> the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and both clocks
>>> run backwards after a while.
>>>
>>> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
>>> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
>>> your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
>>>
>>> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
>>> 'ping' in the internet.
>>>
>>> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
>>
>> You write:
>>
>> "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> Nobody disputes that.
>>
>> Einstein certainly did not.
>>
>> His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for
>> that propagation delay.
>>
>> The 1905 construction is not
>>
>> "look at B and read its current time."
>>
>> It is
>>
>> 1. A sends a light signal at time tA1.
>>
>> 2. B receives it and immediately reflects it.
>>
>> 3. A receives the reflection at time tA2.
>>
>> Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at
>>
>> (tA1 + tA2)/2.
>
> But this is WRONG!
>
> If you send a beam from Earth (A) to -say- Mars (B), the beam will not
> be reflected in the middle between it was sent out and when it returns.
>
>
> The reason:
>
> Mars moves in respect to planet Earth, hence the distance changes, while
> the ray is still moving.
>
> And you cannot 'define this discrepancy away'.
>
>>
>> This is not forgetting the propagation delay.
>
> Well, actually Einstein didn't use the word 'delay' anywhere in 'On the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>
> Also any other equivalent word wasn't used, nor any variable containing
> delay.
>
> Therefore we are requested to respect the intentions of the author and
> should assume, that he didn't want to consider delay.
>
> ...
>
> TH
Thomas,
You have changed the thought experiment.
Einstein's synchronization procedure is defined for two clocks at rest in
the same inertial frame.
You replaced that by
Earth
Mars
which are not at rest relative to each other.
Of course the simple synchronization construction no longer applies.
Nobody ever claimed that it should.
You are criticizing Einstein's procedure after removing one of its
fundamental hypotheses.
That is not a valid objection.
In Einstein's original notation, the procedure is the following.
Clock A sends a light signal when it reads
t_A.
Clock B receives the signal and immediately reflects it when it reads
t_B.
Clock A receives the reflected signal when it reads
t'_A.
Einstein then defines the clocks to be synchronized if
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B,
or equivalently,
t_B = (t_A + t'_A)/2.
Nothing has been forgotten here.
The entire construction is based on the finite propagation time of the
light signal.
If light propagation were instantaneous, there would be no need to
introduce the three times
t_A,
t_B,
t'_A
in the first place.
Your Mars example is a different problem.
Mars is moving with respect to Earth, so the distance between the
endpoints
changes while the signal is in flight.
Einstein's synchronization procedure is not intended for that situation.
Modern spacecraft tracking and radar ranging explicitly model the motion
of
the endpoints.
That is an extension of the problem, not a correction of Einstein's
procedure.
Finally, your linguistic argument is extraordinary.
You write that Einstein never used the word "delay", therefore he did not
take propagation time into account.
Scientific papers are interpreted from their mathematics, not by counting
the occurrences of particular words.
The quantities
t_A,
t_B,
t'_A
exist precisely because light takes time to propagate.
The propagation delay is not missing from the paper.
It is the entire reason the synchronization procedure exists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 09:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <neiecfF9kifU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #672076 |
Am Sonntag000016, 16.08.2026 um 12:04 schrieb Python:
> Le 16/08/2026 à 08:34, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am Samstag000015, 15.08.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Python:
>>> Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:
>>> ..
>>>>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
>>>>> how to synchronize clocks?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate
>>>> the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
>>>>
>>>> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
>>>> state, but in a state some time before.
>>>>
>>>> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the
>>>> distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
>>>>
>>>> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
>>>> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real
>>>> and not what the remote clock does.
>>>>
>>>> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this
>>>> way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock
>>>> would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and
>>>> both clocks run backwards after a while.
>>>>
>>>> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
>>>> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
>>>> your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
>>>>
>>>> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
>>>> 'ping' in the internet.
>>>>
>>>> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
>>>
>>> Thomas,
>>>
>>> You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
>>>
>>> You write:
>>>
>>> "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>>> Nobody disputes that.
>>>
>>> Einstein certainly did not.
>>>
>>> His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for
>>> that propagation delay.
>>>
>>> The 1905 construction is not
>>>
>>> "look at B and read its current time."
>>>
>>> It is
>>>
>>> 1. A sends a light signal at time tA1.
>>>
>>> 2. B receives it and immediately reflects it.
>>>
>>> 3. A receives the reflection at time tA2.
>>>
>>> Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at
>>>
>>> (tA1 + tA2)/2.
>>
>> But this is WRONG!
>>
>> If you send a beam from Earth (A) to -say- Mars (B), the beam will not
>> be reflected in the middle between it was sent out and when it returns.
>>
>>
>> The reason:
>>
>> Mars moves in respect to planet Earth, hence the distance changes,
>> while the ray is still moving.
>>
>> And you cannot 'define this discrepancy away'.
>>
>>>
>>> This is not forgetting the propagation delay.
>>
>> Well, actually Einstein didn't use the word 'delay' anywhere in 'On
>> the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>>
>> Also any other equivalent word wasn't used, nor any variable
>> containing delay.
>>
>> Therefore we are requested to respect the intentions of the author and
>> should assume, that he didn't want to consider delay.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> TH
>
> Thomas,
>
> You have changed the thought experiment.
>
> Einstein's synchronization procedure is defined for two clocks at rest in
> the same inertial frame.
No, that's wrong, because the very word 'relativity' indicates relative
motion.
Now we have much higher velocities in space than that of trains.
We could easily have relative velocities of half c between objects in
outer space.
Then 'relativity' needs to deal with that situation, too, because
otherwise it wouldn't do anything at all.
What Einstein in fact did, that was actually bunk, too:
he introduced velocity 'solo', (meaning: without referring to anything
but space itself.)
What Einstein should have done, but didn't, was to deal with the change
of observations with the change of relative positions.
Instead he introduced a hidden reference ('the universe'), even if he
declared, that 'absolute space' would not exist.
>...
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 11:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FvDmZeO3TsxXECQ3w7pUNuvwMI4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672156 |
Le 18/08/2026 à 09:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Sonntag000016, 16.08.2026 um 12:04 schrieb Python:
>> Le 16/08/2026 à 08:34, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> Am Samstag000015, 15.08.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Python:
>>>> Le 15/08/2026 à 10:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>>> Am Freitag000014, 14.08.2026 um 12:53 schrieb Python:
>>>> ..
>>>>>> Then why did he devote an entire section of his 1905 paper to defining
>>>>>> how to synchronize clocks?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein made a mistake in that section, because he didn't calculate
>>>>> the delay for signals to travel from A to B.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you see a remote 'clock', you don't see that clock in its present
>>>>> state, but in a state some time before.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference is the delay, which light needs to travel the
>>>>> distance from the remote clock (B) to the observer (at A).
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein's position was something like this: if you consider some
>>>>> remote clock and see that in a certain state, what you see is real
>>>>> and not what the remote clock does.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you try to synchronize your own clock with the remote one this
>>>>> way, you can do that only on one side, because if the other clock
>>>>> would do the same thing, than unfortunate things would happen and
>>>>> both clocks run backwards after a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> To achieve a symmetric synchronization, you cannot use Einstein's
>>>>> method, but had to measure the delay and introduce it 'by hand' into
>>>>> your calculation (what Einstein didn't).
>>>>>
>>>>> The measurement could be done by a process similar to what is called
>>>>> 'ping' in the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Einstein didn't mention that requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Thomas,
>>>>
>>>> You are describing exactly the problem Einstein starts from.
>>>>
>>>> You write:
>>>>
>>>> "If you see a remote clock, you don't see its present state."
>>>>
>>>> Of course.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody disputes that.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein certainly did not.
>>>>
>>>> His synchronization procedure is specifically designed to compensate for
>>>> that propagation delay.
>>>>
>>>> The 1905 construction is not
>>>>
>>>> "look at B and read its current time."
>>>>
>>>> It is
>>>>
>>>> 1. A sends a light signal at time tA1.
>>>>
>>>> 2. B receives it and immediately reflects it.
>>>>
>>>> 3. A receives the reflection at time tA2.
>>>>
>>>> Then A DEFINES the event "reflection at B" to have occurred at
>>>>
>>>> (tA1 + tA2)/2.
>>>
>>> But this is WRONG!
>>>
>>> If you send a beam from Earth (A) to -say- Mars (B), the beam will not
>>> be reflected in the middle between it was sent out and when it returns.
>>>
>>>
>>> The reason:
>>>
>>> Mars moves in respect to planet Earth, hence the distance changes,
>>> while the ray is still moving.
>>>
>>> And you cannot 'define this discrepancy away'.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is not forgetting the propagation delay.
>>>
>>> Well, actually Einstein didn't use the word 'delay' anywhere in 'On
>>> the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>>>
>>> Also any other equivalent word wasn't used, nor any variable
>>> containing delay.
>>>
>>> Therefore we are requested to respect the intentions of the author and
>>> should assume, that he didn't want to consider delay.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> You have changed the thought experiment.
>>
>> Einstein's synchronization procedure is defined for two clocks at rest in
>> the same inertial frame.
>
> No, that's wrong, because the very word 'relativity' indicates relative
> motion.
>
> Now we have much higher velocities in space than that of trains.
>
> We could easily have relative velocities of half c between objects in
> outer space.
>
> Then 'relativity' needs to deal with that situation, too, because
> otherwise it wouldn't do anything at all.
>
> What Einstein in fact did, that was actually bunk, too:
>
> he introduced velocity 'solo', (meaning: without referring to anything
> but space itself.)
>
> What Einstein should have done, but didn't, was to deal with the change
> of observations with the change of relative positions.
>
> Instead he introduced a hidden reference ('the universe'), even if he
> declared, that 'absolute space' would not exist.
Thomas,
You have again replaced Einstein's problem by another one.
Einstein's 1905 synchronization procedure begins with two clocks, A and B,
at rest relative to one another
in a single inertial reference frame.
That is the situation to which the definition applies.
You now replace B by Mars.
Mars is not at rest relative to the Earth.
It is therefore no longer the problem Einstein is discussing.
Of course, if B moves while the light is in flight, the midpoint of the
round-trip is no longer the reflection event.
Nobody disputes that.
It is simply a different physical situation.
You also write:
"the very word 'relativity' indicates relative motion."
No.
The principle of relativity states that the laws of physics have the same
form in all inertial frames.
It does not say that every calculation must involve bodies moving relative
to one another.
In fact, the first step in special relativity is precisely to define the
coordinates of a single inertial frame.
Only afterwards are different inertial frames compared.
You also claim that Einstein introduced velocity "without referring to
anything but space itself."
Again, no.
Velocity is always defined with respect to a specified reference frame.
There is no such thing in special relativity as a velocity "with respect
to
space itself."
Finally, your remark
"Einstein should have dealt with the change of observations with the
change of relative positions"
describes exactly what the Lorentz transformation does.
It tells you how the coordinates assigned to the same event change when
you
move from one inertial frame to another.
That is literally its purpose.
So your criticism is not that Einstein forgot to consider relative motion.
It is that you have substituted a different thought experiment (Earth and
moving Mars) for the one he actually analyzed (two clocks at rest in one
inertial frame), and then concluded that his definition does not solve the
problem you introduced.
No definition can be expected to solve a different problem from the one it
was intended to address.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web