Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #666144 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-18 15:36 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-09-22 23:00 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 209 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 15:36 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Lemuel Sniegowski <mesue@lloeii.pl> - 2025-09-18 14:36 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-18 19:15 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 21:51 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-18 20:00 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-18 20:16 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 22:39 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-18 20:39 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 06:52 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 10:17 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 12:36 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 10:47 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 13:02 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 11:05 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 15:21 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 14:53 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 15:09 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 15:11 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 20:14 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 18:54 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 21:48 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 19:53 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 20:13 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 18:59 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 21:54 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 22:40 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-18 20:42 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 06:55 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-18 20:03 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Ron Dubanowski <oob@rrr.pl> - 2025-09-18 21:02 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-21 10:48 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-21 09:50 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-22 08:44 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Jesaiah Hofmeister <oe@eajeem.de> - 2025-09-22 10:08 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-22 22:09 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-22 22:34 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-22 20:51 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-22 23:29 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-22 21:44 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-23 07:14 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-23 20:19 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-24 00:02 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:06 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-24 07:28 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-23 10:04 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-23 10:54 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-24 07:47 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-24 08:32 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-26 08:32 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 07:09 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 08:25 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-28 09:47 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 08:39 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-28 11:11 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 09:15 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-28 12:12 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 10:22 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-28 13:54 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 12:24 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-28 14:31 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 10:40 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-02 08:36 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-04 13:15 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-05 10:46 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-30 09:45 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 10:26 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-02 09:42 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-02 14:57 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-02 15:24 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Hoyet Bobienski <neen@tnisyoeh.pl> - 2025-10-02 17:58 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-03 10:18 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-03 10:41 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-04 09:03 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-04 09:53 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-03 20:12 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-03 23:07 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-03 21:59 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-03 22:13 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-04 07:42 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-04 09:21 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-04 19:52 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-04 13:19 -0700
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-04 23:13 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Hensley Poplawski <pwep@lapne.pl> - 2025-10-04 21:40 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-04 22:39 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-05 08:03 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Humb Szczepanski <hze@bzrppes.pl> - 2025-10-05 09:39 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-05 12:27 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Dwight Ślusarski <sk@sriigd.pl> - 2025-10-05 11:06 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-05 14:35 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-05 15:14 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-05 19:25 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-05 16:11 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-05 10:23 -0700
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-10-05 19:25 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-05 17:52 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-05 18:05 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-05 19:21 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-05 20:47 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-06 07:00 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-06 07:15 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-06 12:14 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-06 10:35 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-06 12:50 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-06 10:54 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-06 14:37 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-06 12:47 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-06 14:58 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-06 21:22 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-06 21:24 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Mylowe Babineaux <auo@aeu.fr> - 2025-10-06 21:40 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-07 07:36 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-06 15:03 -0700
Re: Should we synchronize clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-06 14:32 -0700
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-05 00:26 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-05 20:50 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-05 21:03 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-05 21:37 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-06 02:46 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-06 02:58 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-06 06:59 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-06 14:25 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-07 09:47 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-07 09:59 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-05 10:55 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-05 10:56 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-05 20:28 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-05 11:49 -0700
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-05 19:02 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-05 22:32 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Laureano Hofmeister <efe@estsrl.de> - 2025-10-03 22:55 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-04 13:18 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Leonardo Bélanger <rrnl@lbdgrcr.fr> - 2025-10-04 14:37 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-05 10:47 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-05 21:04 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-07 11:35 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-07 13:03 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-07 15:32 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-07 13:45 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-07 15:18 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-07 17:39 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-08 06:35 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 07:43 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-08 10:58 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-08 11:11 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 09:43 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-08 11:58 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 10:45 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-08 13:58 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 12:02 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-08 23:05 -0700
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 09:34 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-08 11:48 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 10:43 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-08 13:58 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 12:02 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-08 14:06 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-07 23:35 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-07 23:43 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-02 18:23 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thaddeus Babineaux <bdh@idudab.fr> - 2025-10-02 19:26 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-29 21:41 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-29 21:41 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-29 22:19 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 21:21 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 08:07 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-27 08:32 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-24 18:43 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-24 21:18 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-24 19:21 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-24 21:36 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-24 19:43 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-24 23:06 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-24 23:04 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-25 07:00 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-25 06:56 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-25 09:52 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-25 20:16 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-25 23:36 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Tibor Jaskolski <kso@ii.pl> - 2025-09-25 07:16 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-26 08:36 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 07:10 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-23 21:02 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-23 15:16 -0700
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-24 08:08 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-24 22:17 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-24 23:10 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-24 21:12 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-24 21:14 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-24 23:30 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-23 21:03 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-23 21:57 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-23 20:20 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-24 00:07 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:10 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-24 07:34 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:16 +0000
Re: Should we synchronize clocks guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2025-09-22 12:44 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-22 13:03 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2025-09-25 22:52 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-25 23:41 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-26 09:09 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-22 14:12 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-22 15:05 +0200
Re: Should we synchronize clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-19 10:23 -0700
Re: Should we synchronize clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-22 22:20 -0700
Re: Should we synchronize clocks "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 22:27 -0700
Re: Should we synchronize clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-22 23:00 -0700
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 21:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1866c6d804f88ea5$303288$2486865$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666177 |
On 9/19/2025 8:54 PM, Python wrote: > Le 19/09/2025 à 20:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/19/2025 5:11 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 19/09/2025 à 17:09, Python a écrit : >>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 16:53, Python a écrit : >>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 15:21, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 13:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 12:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 06:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 22:39, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 22:00, Python a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any example of clocks which are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized and are not indicating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an mine are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I answered. >>>>>>>>>>>> Just not the question you were asked. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>>>> mine are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't >>>>>>>>>>> insult and slander) to use light i.e. look at the other >>>>>>>>>>> watch. I did so, and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) >>>>>>>>>>> that from my place I can see than t = t'. Then I moved to the >>>>>>>>>>> train station. And checked again by looking at the clock at >>>>>>>>>>> my house. I noticed that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'( >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance >>>>>>>>> between my place and the station divided by c. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're indeed funny to demand such >>>>>>>> precision having ordinary clocks >>>>>>>> from a railway station; well, if >>>>>>>> you specified it earlier I would >>>>>>>> just rotfl and go. But you didn't, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones >>>>>>> and put them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface >>>>>>> of the Moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Engineering and solving gedanken >>>>>> puzzles differ, poor stinker. >>>>>> Significantly. No surprise you >>>>>> know nothing about that. >>>>> >>>>> So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few >>>>> meters or less. They actually exist. >>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, synchronizing clocks >>>>>> means making them indicating t'=t >>>>>> and mking "what clocks indicate" >>>>>> galilean. >>>>> >>>>> Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not >>>>> preserve Maxwell's laws. >>>> >>>> Also notice we are dealing with mutually at rest clocks, no >>>> transformation between coordinates systems is involved. >>> >>> Notice also that for v=0 LT predict t = t' >> >> Notice that v<>0 in GPS. > > We were not talking of GPS. > > We are talking about comoving clocks. It's my thread, I'm afraid; decide what is talked about in yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 19:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FYLr5km9UitFQ50fS1t7u0BoORw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666180 |
Le 19/09/2025 à 21:48, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/19/2025 8:54 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 19/09/2025 à 20:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/19/2025 5:11 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 17:09, Python a écrit : >>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 16:53, Python a écrit : >>>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 15:21, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 13:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 12:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 06:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 22:39, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 22:00, Python a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any example of clocks which are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized and are not indicating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an mine are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I answered. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just not the question you were asked. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>>>>> mine are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't >>>>>>>>>>>> insult and slander) to use light i.e. look at the other >>>>>>>>>>>> watch. I did so, and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) >>>>>>>>>>>> that from my place I can see than t = t'. Then I moved to the >>>>>>>>>>>> train station. And checked again by looking at the clock at >>>>>>>>>>>> my house. I noticed that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'( >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance >>>>>>>>>> between my place and the station divided by c. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You're indeed funny to demand such >>>>>>>>> precision having ordinary clocks >>>>>>>>> from a railway station; well, if >>>>>>>>> you specified it earlier I would >>>>>>>>> just rotfl and go. But you didn't, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones >>>>>>>> and put them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface >>>>>>>> of the Moon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Engineering and solving gedanken >>>>>>> puzzles differ, poor stinker. >>>>>>> Significantly. No surprise you >>>>>>> know nothing about that. >>>>>> >>>>>> So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few >>>>>> meters or less. They actually exist. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, synchronizing clocks >>>>>>> means making them indicating t'=t >>>>>>> and mking "what clocks indicate" >>>>>>> galilean. >>>>>> >>>>>> Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not >>>>>> preserve Maxwell's laws. >>>>> >>>>> Also notice we are dealing with mutually at rest clocks, no >>>>> transformation between coordinates systems is involved. >>>> >>>> Notice also that for v=0 LT predict t = t' >>> >>> Notice that v<>0 in GPS. >> >> We were not talking of GPS. >> >> We are talking about comoving clocks. > > It's my thread, I'm afraid; decide what is > talked about in yours. Evading again :-) ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 20:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1866c19d2db3ce35$141294$2497048$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666170 |
On 9/19/2025 4:53 PM, Python wrote: > Le 19/09/2025 à 15:21, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 19/09/2025 à 13:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 12:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 06:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 22:39, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 22:00, Python a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any example of clocks which are >>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized and are not indicating >>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>>>> mine are >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I answered. >>>>>>>> Just not the question you were asked. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine >>>>>>> are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't insult >>>>>>> and slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. I did so, >>>>>>> and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from my place I >>>>>>> can see than t = t'. Then I moved to the train station. And >>>>>>> checked again by looking at the clock at my house. I noticed >>>>>>> that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'( >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed, >>>>> >>>>> Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between my >>>>> place and the station divided by c. >>>> >>>> You're indeed funny to demand such >>>> precision having ordinary clocks >>>> from a railway station; well, if >>>> you specified it earlier I would >>>> just rotfl and go. But you didn't, >>> >>> Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones and >>> put them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface of the Moon. >> >> Engineering and solving gedanken >> puzzles differ, poor stinker. >> Significantly. No surprise you >> know nothing about that. > > So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few > meters or less. They actually exist. You're not solving problems from an armchair in engineering. It's not entirely impossible, but it will most likely suck. You're not solving general cases in engineering. It's not entirely impossible, but it will most likely suck. And synchronizing clocks at some meters looks like an absurd, at this distance you can always use one and just split its output. Personally I would rather try the same at 5km too. > >> Anyway, synchronizing clocks >> means making them indicating t'=t >> and mking "what clocks indicate" >> galilean. > > Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not preserve > Maxwell's laws. A pity, but we can easily survive without preserving them. Much easier than without synchronization. And a preferred frame obviously exists anyway, at least 3 of them - geocentric classical, heliocentric, ECI.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LsxIUu7Cd-woBqKNi0o8VlK-0k8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666174 |
Le 19/09/2025 à 20:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/19/2025 4:53 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 19/09/2025 à 15:21, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 13:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 12:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 06:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 22:39, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 22:00, Python a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any example of clocks which are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized and are not indicating >>>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>>>>> mine are >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I answered. >>>>>>>>> Just not the question you were asked. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine >>>>>>>> are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't insult >>>>>>>> and slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. I did so, >>>>>>>> and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from my place I >>>>>>>> can see than t = t'. Then I moved to the train station. And >>>>>>>> checked again by looking at the clock at my house. I noticed >>>>>>>> that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'( >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed, >>>>>> >>>>>> Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between my >>>>>> place and the station divided by c. >>>>> >>>>> You're indeed funny to demand such >>>>> precision having ordinary clocks >>>>> from a railway station; well, if >>>>> you specified it earlier I would >>>>> just rotfl and go. But you didn't, >>>> >>>> Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones and >>>> put them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface of the Moon. >>> >>> Engineering and solving gedanken >>> puzzles differ, poor stinker. >>> Significantly. No surprise you >>> know nothing about that. >> >> So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few >> meters or less. They actually exist. > > You're not solving problems from an > armchair in engineering. It's not > entirely impossible, but it will > most likely suck. > You're not solving general cases > in engineering. It's not entirely > impossible, but it will most likely > suck. > And synchronizing clocks at some meters > looks like an absurd, at this distance > you can always use one and just split > its output. Split what ? With what transmission lines ? How do you evaluate the delay to consider ? Just guessing is wrong Wozmaniak. > Personally I would rather > try the same at 5km too. "Personally" ? LOL ! >>> Anyway, synchronizing clocks >>> means making them indicating t'=t >>> and mking "what clocks indicate" >>> galilean. >> >> Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not preserve >> Maxwell's laws. > > A pity, but we can easily survive > without preserving them. Much easier > than without synchronization. And > a preferred frame obviously exists > anyway, at least 3 of them - geocentric > classical, heliocentric, ECI. i.e. Hand waving, grasping at straws, admitting ignorance (for once).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 21:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1866c72213bd2fb0$286339$2486865$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666178 |
On 9/19/2025 8:59 PM, Python wrote: > Le 19/09/2025 à 20:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/19/2025 4:53 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 19/09/2025 à 15:21, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 13:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 12:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 19/09/2025 à 06:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 22:39, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 22:00, Python a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any example of clocks which are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronized and are not indicating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station >>>>>>>>>>>>> an mine are >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I answered. >>>>>>>>>> Just not the question you were asked. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>> mine are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't >>>>>>>>> insult and slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. >>>>>>>>> I did so, and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from >>>>>>>>> my place I can see than t = t'. Then I moved to the train >>>>>>>>> station. And checked again by looking at the clock at my house. >>>>>>>>> I noticed that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'( >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between >>>>>>> my place and the station divided by c. >>>>>> >>>>>> You're indeed funny to demand such >>>>>> precision having ordinary clocks >>>>>> from a railway station; well, if >>>>>> you specified it earlier I would >>>>>> just rotfl and go. But you didn't, >>>>> >>>>> Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones and >>>>> put them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface of the >>>>> Moon. >>>> >>>> Engineering and solving gedanken >>>> puzzles differ, poor stinker. >>>> Significantly. No surprise you >>>> know nothing about that. >>> >>> So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few >>> meters or less. They actually exist. >> >> You're not solving problems from an >> armchair in engineering. It's not >> entirely impossible, but it will >> most likely suck. >> You're not solving general cases >> in engineering. It's not entirely >> impossible, but it will most likely >> suck. >> And synchronizing clocks at some meters >> looks like an absurd, at this distance >> you can always use one and just split >> its output. > > Split what ? With what transmission lines ? How do you evaluate the > delay to consider ? I'm not evaluating anything. I'm not solving the problems of a Moon base from my armchair. I'm leaving that to idiots like your idiot guru. > > Just guessing is wrong Wozmaniak. And that's why I 'm not. I'm leaving that to idiots like your idiot guru. >>>> Anyway, synchronizing clocks >>>> means making them indicating t'=t >>>> and mking "what clocks indicate" >>>> galilean. >>> >>> Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not preserve >>> Maxwell's laws. >> >> A pity, but we can easily survive >> without preserving them. Much easier >> than without synchronization. And >> a preferred frame obviously exists >> anyway, at least 3 of them - geocentric >> classical, heliocentric, ECI. > > i.e. Hand waving, grasping at straws, admitting ignorance (for once). > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18667b0f3d2b2998$50009$2497048$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666149 |
On 9/18/2025 10:00 PM, Python wrote: > Le 18/09/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 18/09/2025 à 15:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> Time is what clocks indicate. >>>> >>>> If we synchronize clocks - they're >>>> indicating t'=t; that's what clock >>>> synchronization means. >>> >>> If they stand side by side sure. >>> >>> If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy. >> >> Oh, really? >> Any example of clocks which are >> synchronized and are not indicating >> t'=t? >> Let me guess - no. > > You have NO practical definition of what "t' = t" could mean except for > trivial standby clocks. We don't have, indeed, still GPS clocks are synchronized somehow. BTW, you have NO practical definition of "definition". >> ... Competent >> engineers manage, of course, with pissing at >> the absurd commands of [SR] > > Competent engineers wrote papers denying your handwaving. :-) And they synchronize GPS clocks, pissing at your insane guru and at your SI idiocy. Anyway, like usual, you're avoiding to answer the question. According to you should we synchronize clocks and make "what clocks indicate" to be t'=t - or should we rather give up and obey "Laws of Nature" announced by a mumbling idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 20:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <x8pOa4jAHFhB-FxkrqSkc7XrcTM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666156 |
Le 18/09/2025 à 22:40, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/18/2025 10:00 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 18/09/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 15:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> Time is what clocks indicate. >>>>> >>>>> If we synchronize clocks - they're >>>>> indicating t'=t; that's what clock >>>>> synchronization means. >>>> >>>> If they stand side by side sure. >>>> >>>> If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy. >>> >>> Oh, really? >>> Any example of clocks which are >>> synchronized and are not indicating >>> t'=t? >>> Let me guess - no. >> >> You have NO practical definition of what "t' = t" could mean except for >> trivial standby clocks. > > We don't have, indeed, still GPS clocks > are synchronized somehow. "We" ? Don't brag, you have not been involved in anything about GPS. I ask about YOU. "somehow" ? LOL !!! > BTW, you have NO practical definition > of "definition". BTW I have, in this case at least. You don't have a practical definition of "NO".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 06:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186696153ed12b91$50584$2497048$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666157 |
On 9/18/2025 10:42 PM, Python wrote: > Le 18/09/2025 à 22:40, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/18/2025 10:00 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 18/09/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 15:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> Time is what clocks indicate. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we synchronize clocks - they're >>>>>> indicating t'=t; that's what clock >>>>>> synchronization means. >>>>> >>>>> If they stand side by side sure. >>>>> >>>>> If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy. >>>> >>>> Oh, really? >>>> Any example of clocks which are >>>> synchronized and are not indicating >>>> t'=t? >>>> Let me guess - no. >>> >>> You have NO practical definition of what "t' = t" could mean except >>> for trivial standby clocks. >> >> We don't have, indeed, still GPS clocks >> are synchronized somehow. > > "We" ? Don't brag, you have not been involved in anything about GPS. We, engineers. Your idiot guru and your bunch of idiots have announced it's impossible... >> BTW, you have NO practical definition >> of "definition". > > BTW I have, in this case at least. No, you don't. You're lying like always. You don't have a practical definition > of "NO". That's right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 20:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <z_Iw4AMBVJJZaiihqtI43bqUgP0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666148 |
Le 18/09/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > ... Competent > engineers manage, of course, with pissing at > the absurd commands of [SR] Competent engineers wrote papers denying your handwaving. :-) With schematics and formulas. They are used in the real world not your fantasy. How sad that you are not an engineer :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Dubanowski <oob@rrr.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 21:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ahs1i$46k9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666148 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Oh, really? > Any example of clocks which are synchronized and are not indicating > t'=t? > Let me guess - no. my point is, if a fart goes through the universe, that's enough to destroy your synchronization, believe me and undrestand
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-21 10:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mj9s7fF8qp2U13@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666148 |
Am Donnerstag000018, 18.09.2025 um 21:51 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 18/09/2025 à 15:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> Time is what clocks indicate. >>> >>> If we synchronize clocks - they're >>> indicating t'=t; that's what clock >>> synchronization means. >> >> If they stand side by side sure. >> >> If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy. > > Oh, really? > Any example of clocks which are > synchronized and are not indicating > t'=t? > Let me guess - no. > 'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs called 'eyes'. These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light, which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote clocks with a little delay. This would mean: if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch. TH > >>> We can do it >> >> Yes we can. > > No, you can't. Your idiot guru has announced it's > practically impossible and your wannabe standard > of second is trying to forbid that. Competent > engineers manage, of course, with pissing at > the absurd commands of your absurd religion. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-21 09:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LYrvV4m0TRNSMbr_rFdOm1rs6b8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666192 |
Le 21/09/2025 à 10:44, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Donnerstag000018, 18.09.2025 um 21:51 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 18/09/2025 à 15:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> Time is what clocks indicate. >>>> >>>> If we synchronize clocks - they're >>>> indicating t'=t; that's what clock >>>> synchronization means. >>> >>> If they stand side by side sure. >>> >>> If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy. >> >> Oh, really? >> Any example of clocks which are >> synchronized and are not indicating >> t'=t? >> Let me guess - no. >> > > 'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs called > 'eyes'. > > These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light, > which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). > > This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote > clocks with a little delay. > > This would mean: > > if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch. Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is NOT t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 08:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mjc996Fmhj8U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666193 |
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python: > Le 21/09/2025 à 10:44, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Donnerstag000018, 18.09.2025 um 21:51 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 18/09/2025 à 15:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> Time is what clocks indicate. >>>>> >>>>> If we synchronize clocks - they're >>>>> indicating t'=t; that's what clock >>>>> synchronization means. >>>> >>>> If they stand side by side sure. >>>> >>>> If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy. >>> >>> Oh, really? >>> Any example of clocks which are >>> synchronized and are not indicating >>> t'=t? >>> Let me guess - no. >>> >> >> 'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs called >> 'eyes'. >> >> These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light, >> which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). >> >> This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote >> clocks with a little delay. >> >> This would mean: >> >> if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch. > > Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is NOT > t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but t'_A - t_B = > t_B - t_A. > But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move. In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be equal on both ways (towards the remote station and back). To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the field of application to no-moving stations. So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that restriction and simply forgot to write it down. So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in respect to each other. Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want to synchronize them. For practical reason we chose to synchronize clock 'B' to 'A-time'. The other way round would actually be also possible, too, but certainly not both, because it would cause a 'dead lock' if we try to synch clock A to clock B and clock B to clock A simultaneously. Einstein forgot to mention that, too. But as friendly as we are, we simply assume that Einstein meant the case 'clock B gets synchronized to clock A'. So: how wanted Einstein to do that? Well, sending a signal from A to B and reflecting it back to A, would be the method of choice. A could measure the delay, but B can't, because B gets only one 'beep', hence has nothing to measure. That's why A needs to tell the operator in B, to what time he wants his clock to be set. How could A do that??? Well, he could divide the delay by two, add that value to the current local time, encode the result into some sort of signal and send it to the remote station. There the signal had to be decoded and the clock set accordingly. Are there any alternatives??? I would say: no. BUT: Einstein didn't mention any part of this method. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jesaiah Hofmeister <oe@eajeem.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 10:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ar778$29f61$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666200 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is NOT >> t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but t'_A - t_B = >> t_B - t_A. >> > But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move. yet another stupid uneducated gearmon, wanting war with the good old Russia; if you can't see the differentiation, that can't be moving, then that stays for an instantaneous and simultaneous relationship. if those are moving, it makes no difference, remark the terminology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 22:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Q0iAQ.46517$T97a.23400@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666200 |
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
>> Le 21/09/2025 à 10:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>
>>> 'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs called
>>> 'eyes'.
>>>
>>> These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light,
>>> which travels from there to here (where we are as observers).
>>>
>>> This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote
>>> clocks with a little delay.
>>>
>>> This would mean:
>>>
>>> if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others.
Why do you never learn?
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
| at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
| proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
| are simultaneous with these events.
| If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
| respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
| at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
| neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A.
An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B.
Local observations only!
>>
>> Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is NOT
>> t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but t'_A - t_B
>> = t_B - t_A.
>>
>
> But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
>
> In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be equal on
> both ways (towards the remote station and back).
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity
are stationary in the same frame of reference.
>
> To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the field of
> application to no-moving stations.
>
> So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that
> restriction and simply forgot to write it down.
He didn't forget to write it down. See quotation above.
"If at the point A of space there is a clock"
"If there is at the point B of space another clock"
In more modern nomenclature we will use "frame of reference"
in stead of "space".
>
> So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in respect to
> each other.
>
> Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want to
> synchronize them.
No, Einstein will not synchronise them, he will see if
they are synchronous.
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
| in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.
| We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.”
The German word "Festsetzung" is translated with "assumption".
A better translation would be "definition".
So we have to make further _definitions_:
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for
| the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
| by definition that the “time” required by light to travel
| from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from
| B to A."
That means that _by definition_ the light _always_ uses the
same time to go from A to B as it uses to go from from B to A.
However, we must use clocks to measure these times.
So we must add:
Clocks are synchronous if they simultaneously show the same.
(That's what "synchronous" means!)
Now anybody can figure out a method to see if the clocks
are synchronous.
For example like this:
1.The observer at A sends a light pulse towards B when
his clock shows tA.
2.The observer at B note that his clock shows t'B when
the pulse hits his light detector.
3.The observer at B sends a pulse towards A when his
clock shows tB.
4.The observer at A note that his clock shows t'A when
the pulse hits his light detector.
The observers communicate through an appropriate medium
(shouting, radio, optic fibre, snail mail, whatever).
IMPORTANT: Try to understand the logic in the following:
They know that light always uses the same time both ways.
==========================================================
So if (t'B-tA) = (t'A-tB)
then (t'B-tA) is the time light used to go from A to B,
which means that the clocks showed the same at the instant
when the light left A and at the instant when the light hit B.
The clocks are synchronous.
and
then (t'A-tB) is the time light used to go from B to A,
which means that the clocks showed the same at the instant
when the light left B and at the instant when the light hit A.
The clocks are synchronous.
But if (t'B-tA) ≠ (t'A-tB)
then (t'B-tA) is not the time light used to go from A to B,
which means that the clocks didn't show the same at the instant
when the light left A or at the instant when the light hit B.
The clocks are not synchronous.
and
then (t'A-tB) is not the time light used to go from B to A,
which means that the clocks didn't show the same at the instant
when the light left B or at the instant when the light hit A,
The clocks are not synchronous
Einstein's method is slightly different, but the logic is the same:
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
| let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′A."
tA, tB and t'A are precisely defined as:
tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A.
tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B.
t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected
ray hits A.
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| " In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
| tB − tA = t′A − tB."
(The German "laufen synchron" is translated with "synchronize".
A better translation would be "are synchronous".)
If tB − tA ≠ t′A − tB then the clocks are not synchronous.
>
> For practical reason we chose to synchronize clock 'B' to 'A-time'.
>
> The other way round would actually be also possible, too, but certainly
> not both, because it would cause a 'dead lock' if we try to synch clock
> A to clock B and clock B to clock A simultaneously.
> Einstein forgot to mention that, too.
>
> But as friendly as we are, we simply assume that Einstein meant the case
> 'clock B gets synchronized to clock A'.
>
> So: how wanted Einstein to do that?
He didn't.
Einstein wouldn't synchronise the clocks.
He would see if the clocks were synchronous.
The following is irrelevant to Einstein's definition of simultaneity:
>
> Well, sending a signal from A to B and reflecting it back to A, would be
> the method of choice.
>
> A could measure the delay, but B can't, because B gets only one 'beep',
> hence has nothing to measure.
>
> That's why A needs to tell the operator in B, to what time he wants his
> clock to be set.
>
> How could A do that???
>
> Well, he could divide the delay by two, add that value to the current
> local time, encode the result into some sort of signal and send it to
> the remote station.
>
> There the signal had to be decoded and the clock set accordingly.
>
> Are there any alternatives???
>
> I would say: no.
>
> BUT: Einstein didn't mention any part of this method.
>
> TH
Note that Einstein says nothing about how to make
asynchronous clocks synchronous. He only says that
if tB − tA = t′A − tB
then the clock at A and the clock at B are synchronous.
This is a definition of simultaneity, not a description
of how to synchronise clock.
--------
How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances,
and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method
which should be applicable for all cases in all future.
To illustrate this problem let's ask:
How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks?
Let two clocks A and B be stationary at the geoid at equator.
Clock B is a distance L east of clock A.
We know that clock A is synchronous with UTC, and we want to
synchronise clock B to UTC.
How do we do it?
The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in
the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame),
they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
But the clocks A and B are moving in the ECI-frame, and
we can't stop the spinning of the Earth to sync the clocks.
The following calculations are made in the ECI frame.
t is the coordinate time in the ECI-frame.
Speed of clocks in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s v/c = 1.55e-6
We assume that at the instant t = 0 the clocks are synchronous
according to Einstein's definition, and tA = 0 and TB = 0.
If we send a light pulse from clock A towards clock B, clock B
will move away at the speed v. Speed of light is c in the ECI-frame.
We can calculate the time the light pulse will use to hit B:
ct = L + vt => t = L/(c-v) = (L/c)⋅(1 + 1.55e-6)
That means that if clock A showed t1 when the light pulse
was emitted, then, to be synchronous with clock A, clock B
must show t1 + (L/c)⋅(1 + 1.55e-6) when the pulse hits it.
TAI clocks are routinely synced after the basic principle shown above.
(The details are different of course. Satellites, optic fibre, radio)
Another much used way to synchronise clocks to UTC is to use the GPS.
But in the real world we never bounces light off a mirror to
synchronise clocks.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 22:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1867b5145af82c26$656118$2497048$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666206 |
On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python: >>> Le 21/09/2025 à 10:44, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> >>>> 'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>> called 'eyes'. >>>> >>>> These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light, >>>> which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). >>>> >>>> This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote >>>> clocks with a little delay. >>>> >>>> This would mean: >>>> >>>> if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch. > > Right. > That's why there are no visual observations > of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity. > > You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. > Why do you never learn? > > quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity Like the following definition of a shark: a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its wool, skin, and meat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 20:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XzeFRMbFToDjRvhXOc2varEiyVQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666207 |
Le 22/09/2025 à 22:34, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python: >>>> Le 21/09/2025 à 10:44, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> 'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>>> called 'eyes'. >>>>> >>>>> These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light, >>>>> which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). >>>>> >>>>> This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote >>>>> clocks with a little delay. >>>>> >>>>> This would mean: >>>>> >>>>> if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch. >> >> Right. >> That's why there are no visual observations >> of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity. >> >> You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >> Why do you never learn? >> >> quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > > Like the following definition of a shark: > a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its wool, > skin, and meat Which parts of the definition appears to you as disconnected to the subject at stake as much as defining, basically, a shark as what is called a sheep? When I first read it I found it quite correct (then I found another less subtle in Poincaré's work) in term of using exchanges of signals and timing intervals is definitely connected to synchronization. If you were an engineer you would know. Screaming "t' = t" is not a big help when it comes to actual devices :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 23:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1867b811aa94ef9c$5040926$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666208 |
On 9/22/2025 10:51 PM, Python wrote: > Le 22/09/2025 à 22:34, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python: >>>>> Le 21/09/2025 à 10:44, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> 'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>>>> called 'eyes'. >>>>>> >>>>>> These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of >>>>>> light, which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). >>>>>> >>>>>> This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see >>>>>> remote clocks with a little delay. >>>>>> >>>>>> This would mean: >>>>>> >>>>>> if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch. >>> >>> Right. >>> That's why there are no visual observations >>> of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity. >>> >>> You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >>> Why do you never learn? >>> >>> quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >> >> Like the following definition of a shark: >> a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its >> wool, skin, and meat > > Which parts of the definition appears to you as disconnected to the > subject at stake as much as defining, basically, a shark as what is > called a sheep? Disconected or not, synchronization in the reality is - simply - different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 21:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ILyIqTSPoNSLxZhxlQw0sGme44k@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666209 |
Le 22/09/2025 à 23:29, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/22/2025 10:51 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 22/09/2025 à 22:34, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python: >>>>>> Le 21/09/2025 à 10:44, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>>>>> called 'eyes'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of >>>>>>> light, which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see >>>>>>> remote clocks with a little delay. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This would mean: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch. >>>> >>>> Right. >>>> That's why there are no visual observations >>>> of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity. >>>> >>>> You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >>>> Why do you never learn? >>>> >>>> quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >>> >>> Like the following definition of a shark: >>> a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its >>> wool, skin, and meat >> >> Which parts of the definition appears to you as disconnected to the >> subject at stake as much as defining, basically, a shark as what is >> called a sheep? > > Disconected or not, synchronization > in the reality is - simply - different. Just because you say so ? Did you ever look at how an ACTUAL synchronization systems work ? For train stations? For cities? For computers? Your just spitting nonsense from your armchair...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 07:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1867d17741029ed7$829076$2486865$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666210 |
On 9/22/2025 11:44 PM, Python wrote: > Le 22/09/2025 à 23:29, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/22/2025 10:51 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 22/09/2025 à 22:34, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python: >>>>>>> Le 21/09/2025 à 10:44, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>>>>>> called 'eyes'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of >>>>>>>> light, which travels from there to here (where we are as >>>>>>>> observers). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see >>>>>>>> remote clocks with a little delay. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This would mean: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch. >>>>> >>>>> Right. >>>>> That's why there are no visual observations >>>>> of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity. >>>>> >>>>> You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >>>>> Why do you never learn? >>>>> >>>>> quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >>>> >>>> Like the following definition of a shark: >>>> a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its >>>> wool, skin, and meat >>> >>> Which parts of the definition appears to you as disconnected to the >>> subject at stake as much as defining, basically, a shark as what is >>> called a sheep? >> >> Disconected or not, synchronization >> in the reality is - simply - different. > > Just because you say so ? Just because that's how the real world looks like. > > Did you ever look at how an ACTUAL synchronization systems work ? For > train stations? For cities? For computers? Python, poor stinker, according to your idiot guru and your bunch of idiots ACTUAL synchronization systems are improper and forbidden by Laws of Nature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web