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 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rFk9ZrGayVO7mk_qW3C3kA01Mwc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666211 |
Le 23/09/2025 à 07:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > 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. Looks like? Actually not. The actual procedures used in the real world to synchronize clocks are matching with Einstein-Poincaré procedures. This is public knowledge. >> Did you ever look at how an ACTUAL synchronization systems work ? For > train >> stations? For cities? For computers? > > Python, , according [SR] ACTUAL synchronization > systems are improper and forbidden by Laws of Nature. Certainly not. You not know what you pretend to talk about. > poor stinker Nice signature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 00:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18680879a1613fd7$859340$2486865$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666228 |
On 9/23/2025 10:19 PM, Python wrote: > Le 23/09/2025 à 07:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> 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. > > Looks like? Actually not. The actual procedures used in the real world > to synchronize clocks are matching with Einstein-Poincaré procedures. > This is public knowledge. They don't and you're a lying piece of shit. This is public knowledge, and according to the teachings of the idiot no synchronization is possible for GPS. And neither for TAI. > >>> Did you ever look at how an ACTUAL synchronization systems work ? For >>> > train stations? For cities? For computers? >> >> Python, , according [SR] ACTUAL synchronization >> systems are improper and forbidden by Laws of Nature. > > Certainly not. You not know what you pretend to talk about. Certainly yes. Your idiot guru has introduced his definition of "synchronization" to "prove" that [practically] no synchronization is possible. Of course, professionals of GPS have ignored the idiot - and now his worshippers are waving arms and scream that the synchronization of GPS is not really synchronization.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 22:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9h30gmTqeWAS0PwtNLIF-lYVIw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666232 |
Le 24/09/2025 à 00:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/23/2025 10:19 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 23/09/2025 à 07:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> 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. >> >> Looks like? Actually not. The actual procedures used in the real world >> to synchronize clocks are matching with Einstein-Poincaré procedures. > > This is public knowledge. > > They don't They do. Read. > This is public knowledge, and according to the > teachings of [A.E.] no synchronization is > possible for GPS. And neither for TAI. No. >>>> Did you ever look at how an ACTUAL synchronization systems work ? For >>>> > train stations? For cities? For computers? >>> >>> Python, , according [SR] ACTUAL synchronization >>> systems are improper and forbidden by Laws of Nature. >> >> Certainly not. You not know what you pretend to talk about. > > Certainly yes. No > Your idiot guru has introduced > his definition of "synchronization" to "prove" > that [practically] no synchronization is possible. Quite the opposite. > Of course, professionals of GPS have ignored Quite the opposite. Relativity is built-in GPS :-) > ... waving arms and scream You are. > lying piece of shit, the idiot Nice signature :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 07:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186820cd52228b16$804179$2486865$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666233 |
On 9/24/2025 12:06 AM, Python wrote: > Le 24/09/2025 à 00:02, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/23/2025 10:19 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 23/09/2025 à 07:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> 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. >>> >>> Looks like? Actually not. The actual procedures used in the real >>> world to synchronize clocks are matching with Einstein-Poincaré >>> procedures. >> > This is public knowledge. >> >> They don't > > They do. Read. No they don't. As a brainwashed fanatic you pretend and lie that the nonsense you're worshipping is the best. > >> This is public knowledge, and according to the >> teachings of [A.E.] no synchronization is >> possible for GPS. And neither for TAI. > > No. Yes. If they obeyed insane commands of your insane bunch and applied your SI idiocy they could never synchronize anything. > >>>>> Did you ever look at how an ACTUAL synchronization systems work ? >>>>> For > train stations? For cities? For computers? >>>> >>>> Python, , according [SR] ACTUAL synchronization >>>> systems are improper and forbidden by Laws of Nature. >>> >>> Certainly not. You not know what you pretend to talk about. >> >> Certainly yes. > > No > >> Your idiot guru has introduced >> his definition of "synchronization" to "prove" >> that [practically] no synchronization is possible. > > Quite the opposite. > >> Of course, professionals of GPS have ignored > > Quite the opposite. Relativity is built-in GPS :-) No it is not, a preferred frame/ether [ECI] is built in there. As a brainwashed fanatic you pretend and lie that the nonsense you're worshipping is the best.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 10:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mjf2beF70g6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666206 |
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > 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. If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks in 'B' show? There had to be some sort of communication or observation between A and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense. > > 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! > Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations? >>> >>> 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. Why? I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for moving clocks. > The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity > are stationary in the same frame of reference. Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization. To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell the remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his clock. So: how could that be done, if there is no communication? >> >> 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". 'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'. So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. >> >> 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. How, if he can't observe the remote clock? ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 10:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7YanmljBJl5e2XnQM_BKLEHbeVk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666220 |
Le 23/09/2025 à 09:59, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> 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. > > If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks in > 'B' show? > > There had to be some sort of communication or observation between A and > B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense. > > >> >> 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! >> > > Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations? > >>>> >>>> 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. > > Why? > > I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for > moving clocks. > >> The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity >> are stationary in the same frame of reference. > > Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization. > > To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell the > remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his clock. > > So: how could that be done, if there is no communication? > >>> >>> 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". > > 'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'. > > So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. > >>> >>> 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. > > How, if he can't observe the remote clock? Which of these proposition are true? - You don't read the posts you're answering to - You are abysmally stupid - You are utterly dishonest Note that they are not mutually exclusive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 07:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mjhemdFj34rU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666221 |
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python: > Le 23/09/2025 à 09:59, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> 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. >> >> If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks in >> 'B' show? >> >> There had to be some sort of communication or observation between A >> and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense. >> >> >>> >>> 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! >>> >> >> Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations? >> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> >> Why? >> >> I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for >> moving clocks. >> >>> The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity >>> are stationary in the same frame of reference. >> >> Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization. >> >> To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell the >> remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his clock. >> >> So: how could that be done, if there is no communication? >> >>>> >>>> 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". >> >> 'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'. >> >> So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. >> >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> How, if he can't observe the remote clock? > > Which of these proposition are true? > > - You don't read the posts you're answering to > - You are abysmally stupid > - You are utterly dishonest > > Note that they are not mutually exclusive. > > Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization of two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was appropriate. I wrote: no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work. I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way. And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm stupid. If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow address the problem and answer my own question, how you could possibly snchronize clocks by Einstein's method. In short: Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A to be valid. t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock in B. So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically): 1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B 2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B 3) B reflects the signal back towards A 4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time. (the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at the same time) This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which contains the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set. BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method. Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A would be fullfilled. But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value in measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set??? As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very briefly when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a little flash). That's it! Now what should B do with this 'beep'???? Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single 'beep'??????? TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 08:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LYiUxy0HVllM49suAA9FbQAxgak@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666241 |
Le 24/09/2025 à 07:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python: >> Le 23/09/2025 à 09:59, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> 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. >>> >>> If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks in >>> 'B' show? >>> >>> There had to be some sort of communication or observation between A >>> and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 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! >>>> >>> >>> Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations? >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>> >>> Why? >>> >>> I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for >>> moving clocks. >>> >>>> The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity >>>> are stationary in the same frame of reference. >>> >>> Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization. >>> >>> To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell the >>> remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his clock. >>> >>> So: how could that be done, if there is no communication? >>> >>>>> >>>>> 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". >>> >>> 'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'. >>> >>> So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. >>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> How, if he can't observe the remote clock? >> >> Which of these proposition are true? >> >> - You don't read the posts you're answering to >> - You are abysmally stupid >> - You are utterly dishonest >> >> Note that they are not mutually exclusive. >> >> > > Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization of two > remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was appropriate. > > I wrote: > > no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the > electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work. > > I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way. > > And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm stupid. I already did, NUMEROUS times !!! > If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow address > the problem and answer my own question, how you could possibly > snchronize clocks by Einstein's method. > > In short: > > Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted > > t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A > > to be valid. > > t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock in B. > > > So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically): Practice > 1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B > > 2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B > > 3) B reflects the signal back towards A > > 4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A > > > Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time. > > (the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at the > same time) We can compute an offset to apply to clock A or clock B, or even to both by dividing these offset by two. > This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which contains > the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set. > > BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method. Definitely NOT. Hopefully. > Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A would > be fullfilled. > > But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value in > measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ? t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is either true or not, right? If it's true, there is nothing to do. Let's see what could be done if it is not true below. > As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very briefly > when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a little flash). > > That's it! > > Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ? > > Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single > 'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ? B can read his clock at "beep" time, right? Let's look again at Einstein condition : t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A Anyone can check if it's true or not as long as they know t'_A, t_B and t_A. If you consider that someone (at A, at B or anywhere else) checking if t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is true or not, you can assume that he/she know these values. Your insistance that Einstein should have written that down explicitly is ridiculous. To subtract two value you OBVIOUSLY need to know them. Come on Thomas !!! Anyway, if t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is false then the offset to be applied to clock B is : t_A + (t'_A - t_A)/2 [Einstein did not explain this because, for reasons Paul explained to you, he is stating a syncronization *checking* procedure] Then if you recheck later using Einstein procedure you'll notice that A and B will be synchronous in the sense that the new values will satisfy t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 08:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mjmq3sFfr5sU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666243 |
Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 10:32 schrieb Python: > Le 24/09/2025 à 07:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python: >>> Le 23/09/2025 à 09:59, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks >>>> in 'B' show? >>>> >>>> There had to be some sort of communication or observation between A >>>> and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations? >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Why? >>>> >>>> I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for >>>> moving clocks. >>>> >>>>> The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity >>>>> are stationary in the same frame of reference. >>>> >>>> Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization. >>>> >>>> To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell the >>>> remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his clock. >>>> >>>> So: how could that be done, if there is no communication? >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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". >>>> >>>> 'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'. >>>> >>>> So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> How, if he can't observe the remote clock? >>> >>> Which of these proposition are true? >>> >>> - You don't read the posts you're answering to >>> - You are abysmally stupid >>> - You are utterly dishonest >>> >>> Note that they are not mutually exclusive. >>> >>> >> >> Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization of >> two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was appropriate. >> >> I wrote: >> >> no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the >> electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work. >> >> I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way. >> >> And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm stupid. > > I already did, NUMEROUS times !!! > >> If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow address >> the problem and answer my own question, how you could possibly >> snchronize clocks by Einstein's method. >> >> In short: >> >> Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted >> >> t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >> >> to be valid. >> >> t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock in B. >> >> >> So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically): > > Practice > >> 1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B >> >> 2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B >> >> 3) B reflects the signal back towards A >> >> 4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A >> >> >> Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time. >> >> (the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at the >> same time) > > We can compute an offset to apply to clock A or clock B, or even to both > by dividing these offset by two. >> This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which >> contains the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set. >> >> BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method. > > Definitely NOT. Hopefully. > >> Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >> would be fullfilled. >> >> But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value in >> measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ? > > t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is either true or not, right? > > If it's true, there is nothing to do. Let's see what could be done if it > is not true below. > >> As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very briefly >> when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a little flash). >> >> That's it! >> >> Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ? >> Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single >> 'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ? > > B can read his clock at "beep" time, right? Sure, but B can ONLY read the own clock and 't_B' from that. t'_A and t_A are unknown in A, unless A tells the observer in B, what t_A and t'_A are. Somehow A needs to send this information to B, because otherwise B cannot compute t'_A - t_B or t_B - t_A. Another problem occurs, because t'_A is later than t_B. This means, that the time of arrival of the reflected signal isn't detectable in B at all. Since time-informations get outdated very fast, the observer in A would need to figure out the delay in advance, encode it into the timing signal, too, and send the result to the remote station. Another option would be, if the calculation is done solely at A and B sends only the own time t_B to A, once the 'beep' arrives there, A calculates the offset and sends the result back. By that value B turns his clock forwards or backwards and both clocks get synchronized, though only to 'A-time'. To set both clocks to a common time that is neither 'a-time' nor ' B-time' would be problematic, since 'c-time' would be arbitrary. Best bet would be: set the clock in B to 'A-time'. > > Let's look again at Einstein condition : t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A > > Anyone can check if it's true or not as long as they know t'_A, t_B and > t_A. > > If you consider that someone (at A, at B or anywhere else) checking if > t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A > is true or not, you can assume that he/she know these values. Your > insistance that Einstein should have written that down explicitly is > ridiculous. To subtract two value you OBVIOUSLY need to know them. Come > on Thomas !!! > > Anyway, if t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is false then the offset to be applied > to clock B is : > > t_A + (t'_A - t_A)/2 In my view it should be: t_B = (t'_A - t_A)/2 This wouldn't helpt B in any way, because t'_A is unknown in B, because t'_A is the time of arrival of the reflected signal at A. That time is unknown in B! ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 07:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PBzzMD6IJGGqYfRt1_xPtlLap0A@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666279 |
Le 26/09/2025 à 08:28, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 10:32 schrieb Python: >> Le 24/09/2025 à 07:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python: >>>> Le 23/09/2025 à 09:59, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks >>>>> in 'B' show? >>>>> >>>>> There had to be some sort of communication or observation between A >>>>> and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations? >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Why? >>>>> >>>>> I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for >>>>> moving clocks. >>>>> >>>>>> The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity >>>>>> are stationary in the same frame of reference. >>>>> >>>>> Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization. >>>>> >>>>> To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell the >>>>> remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his clock. >>>>> >>>>> So: how could that be done, if there is no communication? >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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". >>>>> >>>>> 'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'. >>>>> >>>>> So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> How, if he can't observe the remote clock? >>>> >>>> Which of these proposition are true? >>>> >>>> - You don't read the posts you're answering to >>>> - You are abysmally stupid >>>> - You are utterly dishonest >>>> >>>> Note that they are not mutually exclusive. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization of >>> two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was appropriate. >>> >>> I wrote: >>> >>> no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the >>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work. >>> >>> I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way. >>> >>> And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm stupid. >> >> I already did, NUMEROUS times !!! >> >>> If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow address >>> the problem and answer my own question, how you could possibly >>> snchronize clocks by Einstein's method. >>> >>> In short: >>> >>> Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted >>> >>> t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>> >>> to be valid. >>> >>> t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock in B. >>> >>> >>> So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically): >> >> Practice >> >>> 1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B >>> >>> 2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B >>> >>> 3) B reflects the signal back towards A >>> >>> 4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A >>> >>> >>> Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time. >>> >>> (the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at the >>> same time) >> >> We can compute an offset to apply to clock A or clock B, or even to both >> by dividing these offset by two. >>> This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which >>> contains the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set. >>> >>> BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method. >> >> Definitely NOT. Hopefully. >> >>> Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>> would be fullfilled. >>> >>> But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value in >>> measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ? >> >> t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is either true or not, right? >> >> If it's true, there is nothing to do. Let's see what could be done if it >> is not true below. >> >>> As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very briefly >>> when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a little flash). >>> >>> That's it! >>> >>> Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ? >>> Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single >>> 'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> >> B can read his clock at "beep" time, right? > > Sure, but B can ONLY read the own clock and 't_B' from that. > > t'_A and t_A are unknown in A, unless A tells the observer in B, what > t_A and t'_A are. A knows t'_A and t_A. What prevent this information to be conmunicated (by any mean) to B (same for t_B to be communicated to A). > Somehow A needs to send this information to B, because otherwise B > cannot compute t'_A - t_B or t_B - t_A. This is exactly what I told you. YES. > Another problem occurs, because t'_A is later than t_B. This is NOT a problem. > This means, that the time of arrival of the reflected signal isn't > detectable in B at all. This is NOT a problem : this information play NO role in the procedure. > Since time-informations get outdated very fast, the observer in A would > need to figure out the delay in advance, encode it into the timing > signal, too, and send the result to the remote station. No. Only t_A, t_B and t'_A are needed. NOTHING MORE. > Another option would be [...] We don't care. We're talking about Einstein procedure. >> >> Let's look again at Einstein condition : t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >> >> Anyone can check if it's true or not as long as they know t'_A, t_B and >> t_A. >> >> If you consider that someone (at A, at B or anywhere else) checking if >> t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >> is true or not, you can assume that he/she know these values. Your >> insistance that Einstein should have written that down explicitly is >> ridiculous. To subtract two value you OBVIOUSLY need to know them. Come >> on Thomas !!! >> >> Anyway, if t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is false then the offset to be applied >> to clock B is : >> >> t_A + (t'_A - t_A)/2 > > In my view it should be: > > t_B = (t'_A - t_A)/2 No. This is new_t_B = old_t_B + t_A + (t'A - t_A)/2 or new_t_B = old_t_B + (t_A + t'_A)/2 This is what an offset is : it is added to the current value, at any later time, showed by clock B. > This wouldn't helpt B in any way, because t'_A is unknown in B, because > t'_A is the time of arrival of the reflected signal at A. > > That time is unknown in B! It doesn't matter. Only t_A, t_B and t'_A need to be known by the clock you intend to "correct".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 08:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <paFqd8S_jhBqao4KuwIkZ35pGh0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666285 |
Le 27/09/2025 à 08:28, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Freitag000026, 26.09.2025 um 09:09 schrieb Python: >> Le 26/09/2025 à 08:28, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 10:32 schrieb Python: >>>> Le 24/09/2025 à 07:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python: >>>>>> Le 23/09/2025 à 09:59, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>>> Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what >>>>>>> clocks in 'B' show? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There had to be some sort of communication or observation between >>>>>>> A and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for >>>>>>> moving clocks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity >>>>>>>> are stationary in the same frame of reference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell >>>>>>> the remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his >>>>>>> clock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So: how could that be done, if there is no communication? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How, if he can't observe the remote clock? >>>>>> >>>>>> Which of these proposition are true? >>>>>> >>>>>> - You don't read the posts you're answering to >>>>>> - You are abysmally stupid >>>>>> - You are utterly dishonest >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that they are not mutually exclusive. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization of >>>>> two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was >>>>> appropriate. >>>>> >>>>> I wrote: >>>>> >>>>> no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the >>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work. >>>>> >>>>> I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way. >>>>> >>>>> And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm stupid. >>>> >>>> I already did, NUMEROUS times !!! >>>> >>>>> If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow >>>>> address the problem and answer my own question, how you could >>>>> possibly snchronize clocks by Einstein's method. >>>>> >>>>> In short: >>>>> >>>>> Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted >>>>> >>>>> t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>>>> >>>>> to be valid. >>>>> >>>>> t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock in B. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically): >>>> >>>> Practice >>>> >>>>> 1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B >>>>> >>>>> 2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B >>>>> >>>>> 3) B reflects the signal back towards A >>>>> >>>>> 4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time. >>>>> >>>>> (the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at >>>>> the same time) >>>> >>>> We can compute an offset to apply to clock A or clock B, or even to >>>> both by dividing these offset by two. >>>>> This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which >>>>> contains the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set. >>>>> >>>>> BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method. >>>> >>>> Definitely NOT. Hopefully. >>>> >>>>> Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>>>> would be fullfilled. >>>>> >>>>> But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value in >>>>> measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ? >>>> >>>> t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is either true or not, right? >>>> >>>> If it's true, there is nothing to do. Let's see what could be done if >>>> it is not true below. >>>> >>>>> As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very >>>>> briefly when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a >>>>> little flash). >>>>> >>>>> That's it! >>>>> >>>>> Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ? >>>>> Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single >>>>> 'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ? >>>> >>>> B can read his clock at "beep" time, right? >>> >>> Sure, but B can ONLY read the own clock and 't_B' from that. >>> >>> t'_A and t_A are unknown in A, unless A tells the observer in B, what >>> t_A and t'_A are. >> >> A knows t'_A and t_A. What prevent this information to be conmunicated >> (by any mean) to B >> (same for t_B to be communicated to A). >> >>> Somehow A needs to send this information to B, because otherwise B >>> cannot compute t'_A - t_B or t_B - t_A. >> >> This is exactly what I told you. YES. >> >> >>> Another problem occurs, because t'_A is later than t_B. >> >> This is NOT a problem. >> >>> This means, that the time of arrival of the reflected signal isn't >>> detectable in B at all. >> >> This is NOT a problem : this information play NO role in the procedure. >> >>> Since time-informations get outdated very fast, the observer in A >>> would need to figure out the delay in advance, encode it into the >>> timing signal, too, and send the result to the remote station. >> >> No. Only t_A, t_B and t'_A are needed. NOTHING MORE. >> >>> Another option would be [...] >> >> We don't care. We're talking about Einstein procedure. > > Ok. > > But in the case of 'snail mail' the only possible way would be this: > > A sends a signal at t_A > > B receives a 'ping' at a certain time t_B, which the observer reads from > his own clock. > > He writes that value down and mails the letter to A. > > A knows when he had sent out the signal in terms of 'A-time' t_A. > > From the time of arrival of the reflected signal t'_A he can figure out > the delay and when B should have received the signal in measures of > 'A-time'. > > Now A receives the letter from B and reads, what the observer B actually > measured in terms of 'B-time' of the same event. > > A can now figure out the discrepancy between A-time and B-time. > > This would enable A to set his clock accordingly, so that it would show > 'B-time' and both clocks are in synch. > > But there are two problems with this solution: > > 1) A couldn't really use a 'B-time-clock' in his environment, which > based on 'A-time'. > > 2) Actually he wanted the clock in B to become set to 'A-time'. You, again, did not pay attention. Things are far more simple than you nonsense. Step 1 : perform the exchange of light signal as described in Einstein's article. When it is done here is the situation : - observer at A know t_A and t'_A - observer at B knows t_B Step 1.5: A writes down t_A on a piece of paper and sent it by snail mail, horse, pigeon, whatever to B. Step 2 At reception (the time of reception DOES NOT MATTER), B can check : Is t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A ? If TRUE then do nothing : clocks are already in sync (Einstein procedure explicitly) If FALSE then B can apply an offset to its clock, i.e add the value (t_A + t'_A)/2 to whatever it is displaying. Clocks are then in sync.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 09:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mjs778FdjlaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666314 |
Am Samstag000027, 27.09.2025 um 10:25 schrieb Python: > Le 27/09/2025 à 08:28, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Freitag000026, 26.09.2025 um 09:09 schrieb Python: >>> Le 26/09/2025 à 08:28, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 10:32 schrieb Python: >>>>> Le 24/09/2025 à 07:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>> Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python: >>>>>>> Le 23/09/2025 à 09:59, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>>>> Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what >>>>>>>> clocks in 'B' show? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There had to be some sort of communication or observation >>>>>>>> between A and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't >>>>>>>> make sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local >>>>>>>> observations? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined >>>>>>>> for moving clocks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity >>>>>>>>> are stationary in the same frame of reference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell >>>>>>>> the remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of >>>>>>>> his clock. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So: how could that be done, if there is no communication? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How, if he can't observe the remote clock? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which of these proposition are true? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - You don't read the posts you're answering to >>>>>>> - You are abysmally stupid >>>>>>> - You are utterly dishonest >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that they are not mutually exclusive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization >>>>>> of two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was >>>>>> appropriate. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the >>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work. >>>>>> >>>>>> I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way. >>>>>> >>>>>> And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm >>>>>> stupid. >>>>> >>>>> I already did, NUMEROUS times !!! >>>>> >>>>>> If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow >>>>>> address the problem and answer my own question, how you could >>>>>> possibly snchronize clocks by Einstein's method. >>>>>> >>>>>> In short: >>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted >>>>>> >>>>>> t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>>>>> >>>>>> to be valid. >>>>>> >>>>>> t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock >>>>>> in B. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically): >>>>> >>>>> Practice >>>>> >>>>>> 1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) B reflects the signal back towards A >>>>>> >>>>>> 4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time. >>>>>> >>>>>> (the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at >>>>>> the same time) >>>>> >>>>> We can compute an offset to apply to clock A or clock B, or even to >>>>> both by dividing these offset by two. >>>>>> This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which >>>>>> contains the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set. >>>>>> >>>>>> BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method. >>>>> >>>>> Definitely NOT. Hopefully. >>>>> >>>>>> Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>>>>> would be fullfilled. >>>>>> >>>>>> But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value >>>>>> in measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ? >>>>> >>>>> t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is either true or not, right? >>>>> >>>>> If it's true, there is nothing to do. Let's see what could be done >>>>> if it is not true below. >>>>> >>>>>> As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very >>>>>> briefly when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a >>>>>> little flash). >>>>>> >>>>>> That's it! >>>>>> >>>>>> Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ? >>>>>> Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single >>>>>> 'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ? >>>>> >>>>> B can read his clock at "beep" time, right? >>>> >>>> Sure, but B can ONLY read the own clock and 't_B' from that. >>>> >>>> t'_A and t_A are unknown in A, unless A tells the observer in B, >>>> what t_A and t'_A are. >>> >>> A knows t'_A and t_A. What prevent this information to be >>> conmunicated (by any mean) to B >>> (same for t_B to be communicated to A). >>> >>>> Somehow A needs to send this information to B, because otherwise B >>>> cannot compute t'_A - t_B or t_B - t_A. >>> >>> This is exactly what I told you. YES. >>> >>> >>>> Another problem occurs, because t'_A is later than t_B. >>> >>> This is NOT a problem. >>> >>>> This means, that the time of arrival of the reflected signal isn't >>>> detectable in B at all. >>> >>> This is NOT a problem : this information play NO role in the procedure. >>> >>>> Since time-informations get outdated very fast, the observer in A >>>> would need to figure out the delay in advance, encode it into the >>>> timing signal, too, and send the result to the remote station. >>> >>> No. Only t_A, t_B and t'_A are needed. NOTHING MORE. >>> >>>> Another option would be [...] >>> >>> We don't care. We're talking about Einstein procedure. >> >> Ok. >> >> But in the case of 'snail mail' the only possible way would be this: >> >> A sends a signal at t_A >> >> B receives a 'ping' at a certain time t_B, which the observer reads >> from his own clock. >> >> He writes that value down and mails the letter to A. >> >> A knows when he had sent out the signal in terms of 'A-time' t_A. >> >> From the time of arrival of the reflected signal t'_A he can figure >> out the delay and when B should have received the signal in measures >> of 'A-time'. >> >> Now A receives the letter from B and reads, what the observer B >> actually measured in terms of 'B-time' of the same event. >> >> A can now figure out the discrepancy between A-time and B-time. >> >> This would enable A to set his clock accordingly, so that it would >> show 'B-time' and both clocks are in synch. >> >> But there are two problems with this solution: >> >> 1) A couldn't really use a 'B-time-clock' in his environment, which >> based on 'A-time'. >> >> 2) Actually he wanted the clock in B to become set to 'A-time'. > > You, again, did not pay attention. Things are far more simple than you > nonsense. > > Step 1 : perform the exchange of light signal as described in Einstein's > article. > When it is done here is the situation : > - observer at A know t_A and t'_A > - observer at B knows t_B > > Step 1.5: > > A writes down t_A on a piece of paper and sent it by snail mail, horse, > pigeon, whatever to B. > > Step 2 > > At reception (the time of reception DOES NOT MATTER), B can check : > > Is t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A ? > > If TRUE then do nothing : clocks are already in sync (Einstein procedure > explicitly) > If FALSE then B can apply an offset to its clock, i.e add the value (t_A > + t'_A)/2 to whatever it is displaying. > > Clocks are then in sync. > Ok That seems to be possible, too. Actually I have not found this solution myself, even if I have dealt with this problem for quite a lot of time. But why didn't Einstein mention this solution? My problem was, that I thought about 'local time' and therefore wanted 'A-time' to be named 't' and 'B-time' values 'tau'. So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and based on system K. But that wasn't actually Einstein's use of the letter 't'. It was only my impression of Einstein's intentions, because I have read the paper several times and introduced concepts from that paper which occured later also to the beginning, where they do not apply. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 08:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rww-MW9Zmf1y8bTtMuJRjdaQaaM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666343 |
Le 28/09/2025 à 09:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Samstag000027, 27.09.2025 um 10:25 schrieb Python: >> Le 27/09/2025 à 08:28, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Freitag000026, 26.09.2025 um 09:09 schrieb Python: >>>> Le 26/09/2025 à 08:28, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 10:32 schrieb Python: >>>>>> Le 24/09/2025 à 07:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>>> Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python: >>>>>>>> Le 23/09/2025 à 09:59, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>>>>> Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what >>>>>>>>> clocks in 'B' show? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There had to be some sort of communication or observation >>>>>>>>> between A and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't >>>>>>>>> make sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local >>>>>>>>> observations? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined >>>>>>>>> for moving clocks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity >>>>>>>>>> are stationary in the same frame of reference. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell >>>>>>>>> the remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of >>>>>>>>> his clock. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So: how could that be done, if there is no communication? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How, if he can't observe the remote clock? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which of these proposition are true? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - You don't read the posts you're answering to >>>>>>>> - You are abysmally stupid >>>>>>>> - You are utterly dishonest >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that they are not mutually exclusive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization >>>>>>> of two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was >>>>>>> appropriate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the >>>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm >>>>>>> stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> I already did, NUMEROUS times !!! >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow >>>>>>> address the problem and answer my own question, how you could >>>>>>> possibly snchronize clocks by Einstein's method. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In short: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted >>>>>>> >>>>>>> t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to be valid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock >>>>>>> in B. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically): >>>>>> >>>>>> Practice >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3) B reflects the signal back towards A >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at >>>>>>> the same time) >>>>>> >>>>>> We can compute an offset to apply to clock A or clock B, or even to >>>>>> both by dividing these offset by two. >>>>>>> This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which >>>>>>> contains the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method. >>>>>> >>>>>> Definitely NOT. Hopefully. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>>>>>> would be fullfilled. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value >>>>>>> in measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ? >>>>>> >>>>>> t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is either true or not, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> If it's true, there is nothing to do. Let's see what could be done >>>>>> if it is not true below. >>>>>> >>>>>>> As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very >>>>>>> briefly when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a >>>>>>> little flash). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's it! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ? >>>>>>> Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single >>>>>>> 'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ? >>>>>> >>>>>> B can read his clock at "beep" time, right? >>>>> >>>>> Sure, but B can ONLY read the own clock and 't_B' from that. >>>>> >>>>> t'_A and t_A are unknown in A, unless A tells the observer in B, >>>>> what t_A and t'_A are. >>>> >>>> A knows t'_A and t_A. What prevent this information to be >>>> conmunicated (by any mean) to B >>>> (same for t_B to be communicated to A). >>>> >>>>> Somehow A needs to send this information to B, because otherwise B >>>>> cannot compute t'_A - t_B or t_B - t_A. >>>> >>>> This is exactly what I told you. YES. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Another problem occurs, because t'_A is later than t_B. >>>> >>>> This is NOT a problem. >>>> >>>>> This means, that the time of arrival of the reflected signal isn't >>>>> detectable in B at all. >>>> >>>> This is NOT a problem : this information play NO role in the procedure. >>>> >>>>> Since time-informations get outdated very fast, the observer in A >>>>> would need to figure out the delay in advance, encode it into the >>>>> timing signal, too, and send the result to the remote station. >>>> >>>> No. Only t_A, t_B and t'_A are needed. NOTHING MORE. >>>> >>>>> Another option would be [...] >>>> >>>> We don't care. We're talking about Einstein procedure. >>> >>> Ok. >>> >>> But in the case of 'snail mail' the only possible way would be this: >>> >>> A sends a signal at t_A >>> >>> B receives a 'ping' at a certain time t_B, which the observer reads >>> from his own clock. >>> >>> He writes that value down and mails the letter to A. >>> >>> A knows when he had sent out the signal in terms of 'A-time' t_A. >>> >>> From the time of arrival of the reflected signal t'_A he can figure >>> out the delay and when B should have received the signal in measures >>> of 'A-time'. >>> >>> Now A receives the letter from B and reads, what the observer B >>> actually measured in terms of 'B-time' of the same event. >>> >>> A can now figure out the discrepancy between A-time and B-time. >>> >>> This would enable A to set his clock accordingly, so that it would >>> show 'B-time' and both clocks are in synch. >>> >>> But there are two problems with this solution: >>> >>> 1) A couldn't really use a 'B-time-clock' in his environment, which >>> based on 'A-time'. >>> >>> 2) Actually he wanted the clock in B to become set to 'A-time'. >> >> You, again, did not pay attention. Things are far more simple than you >> nonsense. >> >> Step 1 : perform the exchange of light signal as described in Einstein's >> article. >> When it is done here is the situation : >> - observer at A know t_A and t'_A >> - observer at B knows t_B >> >> Step 1.5: >> >> A writes down t_A on a piece of paper and sent it by snail mail, horse, >> pigeon, whatever to B. >> >> Step 2 >> >> At reception (the time of reception DOES NOT MATTER), B can check : >> >> Is t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A ? >> >> If TRUE then do nothing : clocks are already in sync (Einstein procedure >> explicitly) >> If FALSE then B can apply an offset to its clock, i.e add the value (t_A >> + t'_A)/2 to whatever it is displaying. >> >> Clocks are then in sync. >> > > Ok At least ! One once of honesty ! > That seems to be possible, too. It is. > Actually I have not found this solution myself, even if I have dealt > with this problem for quite a lot of time. The fact that you failed to find what need two lines of algebra should ring a bell in your mind, shouldn't it? > But why didn't Einstein mention this solution? Paul told you. Einstein only need a synchronisation checking procedure in order to go on the definition of a common time within a frame of reference. The way clocks are actually, in practice, synchronized can use other means than light propagation in vacuum. You may read some papers from CERN of Fermilab on this issue. It is about detectors that are only a few centimeters away. > My problem was, that I thought about 'local time' and therefore wanted > 'A-time' to be named 't' and 'B-time' values 'tau'. Why "what you want" would be of any interest when it comes to analyze Einstein's paper? tau is a time coordinate in another frame of reference, definitely not "B-time". Nevertheless tau is defined in this *other* frame of reference in *exactly* the same way t is (with t_A, t'_A, t_B etc.) with a set of clocks at rest in this other frame. IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what he called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead readers at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle from Galileo but it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you. > So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and > based on system K. You opinion is wrong. > But that wasn't actually Einstein's use of the letter 't'. It wasn't, sure. > It was only my impression of Einstein's intentions, because I have read > the paper several times and introduced concepts from that paper which > occured later also to the beginning, where they do not apply. You have introduced your own fantasies into a paper you completely failed to understand. This leads to the absolute bunch of nonsense that is your comments on it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 11:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18696745328dc676$1477553$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666344 |
On 9/28/2025 10:39 AM, Python wrote: > Paul told you. Einstein only need a synchronisation checking procedure > in order to go on the definition of a common time within a frame of > reference. Not quite, the idiot concocted this nonsense to "prove" that global synchronization is impossible, that good clocks are desynchronizing clocks and so on. > The way clocks are actually, in practice, synchronized can use other > means than light propagation in vacuum. And they do. Of course, you're trying to persuade that the only sunchronization is the idiot's synchronization. You're such a disgusting piece of lying shit, as expected from a relativistic doggie of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 09:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <-foCb1Q9ktq7-bn9cUCqA9JT8Ws@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666345 |
Le 28/09/2025 à 11:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/28/2025 10:39 AM, Python wrote: > >> Paul told you. Einstein only need a synchronisation checking procedure >> in order to go on the definition of a common time within a frame of >> reference. > > Not quite Quite > [A.E] concocted this > to "prove" that global synchronization is > impossible, that good clocks are desynchronizing > clocks and so on. Quite the opposite. Your misunderstandings of A.E. article are abysmal. >> The way clocks are actually, in practice, synchronized can use other >> means than light propagation in vacuum. > > > And they do. Of course, you're trying to > persuade that the only sunchronization is > [A.E]'s synchronization. I am trying to explain (persuade if you wish) how Einstein's synchronization method makes sense. > the idiot, the idiot, disgusting piece of lying shit, doggie Nice signature !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 12:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18696a9fc9cc7b7e$991268$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666346 |
On 9/28/2025 11:15 AM, Python wrote: > Le 28/09/2025 à 11:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/28/2025 10:39 AM, Python wrote: >> >>> Paul told you. Einstein only need a synchronisation checking >>> procedure in order to go on the definition of a common time within a >>> frame of reference. >> >> Not quite > > Quite > >> [A.E] concocted this to "prove" that global synchronization is >> impossible, that good clocks are desynchronizing >> clocks and so on. > > Quite the opposite. Opposite? The idiot has been proving that global synchronization is possible? Are you sure, poor stinker? > > Your misunderstandings of A.E. article are abysmal. > >>> The way clocks are actually, in practice, synchronized can use other >>> means than light propagation in vacuum. >> >> >> And they do. Of course, you're trying to >> persuade that the only sunchronization is >> [A.E]'s synchronization. > > I am trying to explain (persuade if you wish) how Einstein's > synchronization method makes sense. You were trying to persuade that everything bows before The Holiest Procedure. Bullshit, the real synchronization is what we did in GPS, for instance. Global synchronization is definitely possible. Doesn't have to be easy, of course - but it was never easy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 10:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i78yVJWzRMDdf1zSOzZoaD1-Mmc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666347 |
Le 28/09/2025 à 12:12, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/28/2025 11:15 AM, Python wrote: >> Le 28/09/2025 à 11:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/28/2025 10:39 AM, Python wrote: >>> >>>> Paul told you. Einstein only need a synchronisation checking >>>> procedure in order to go on the definition of a common time within a >>>> frame of reference. >>> >>> Not quite >> >> Quite >> >>> [A.E] concocted this to "prove" that global synchronization is >>> impossible, that good clocks are desynchronizing >>> clocks and so on. >> >> Quite the opposite. > > Opposite? [A.E] has been proving > that global synchronization is possible? > Are you sure? He's not proving, he's assuming that what he described allow to synch co-moving clocks locally so that the values recordes in an actual experiment match Newton's laws of motion. He build a reasoning on the basis of actual experiments. His procedure can be, then, checked experimentally. It has been shown correct. Sad for bullshitters like you. >> Your misunderstandings of A.E. article are abysmal. >> >>>> The way clocks are actually, in practice, synchronized can Bullshituse other >>>> means than light propagation in vacuum. >>> >>> >>> And they do. Of course, you're trying to >>> persuade that the only sunchronization is >>> [A.E]'s synchronization. >> >> I am trying to explain (persuade if you wish) how Einstein's >> synchronization method makes sense. > > You were trying to persuade that everything > bows before The Holiest Procedure. , > the real synchronization is what we did in > GPS, for instance. > Global synchronization is definitely possible. > Doesn't have to be easy, of course - but it > was never easy. Sure it is not easy but when it is actually done in practice, what is done is in line with Einstein work. Same, for instance, with Laser : not easy to do, predicted by Einstein as a possible device, then actually done. I've seen no achievement of that kind from you, Maciej who pretend to be "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had". > The idiot, poor stinker, Bullshit Nice signature !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 13:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1869702dcf01c772$236728$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666348 |
On 9/28/2025 12:22 PM, Python wrote: > Sure it is not easy but when it is actually done in practice, what is > done is in line with Einstein work. You're lying, of course, as expected from a piece of relativistic shit. What is actually done in practice - synchronization of GPS - has NOTHING in common with the delusions of the idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 12:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0zjRKSR_9e6idxeiNSsQmM1zVag@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666352 |
Le 28/09/2025 à 13:54, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/28/2025 12:22 PM, Python wrote: > >> Sure it is not easy but when it is actually done in practice, what is >> done is in line with Einstein work. > > > You're lying, of course, as expected from a > piece of relativistic shit. What is actually > done in practice - synchronization of GPS - > has NOTHING in common with [SR/GR] Scream. This does not change that you're wrong. https://www.gpsworld.com/inside-the-box-gps-and-relativity/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 14:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18697237ed79efd3$1077283$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666353 |
On 9/28/2025 2:24 PM, Python wrote: > Le 28/09/2025 à 13:54, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/28/2025 12:22 PM, Python wrote: >> >>> Sure it is not easy but when it is actually done in practice, what is >>> done is in line with Einstein work. >> >> >> You're lying, of course, as expected from a >> piece of relativistic shit. What is actually >> done in practice - synchronization of GPS - >> has NOTHING in common with [SR/GR] > > Scream. This does not change that you're wrong. > https://www.gpsworld.com/inside-the-box-gps-and-relativity/ Lie. This does not change that the synchronization of GPS has NOTHING in common with The Holiest Procedure of Synchronization and is no way fitting the idiot's "definition of synchronization". You can easily define a sheep as a "shark", poor stinker - but it won't force real sharks to eat grass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web