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 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | Tibor Jaskolski <kso@ii.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-25 07:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10b2q83$55ln$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666258 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > And is that what that mumbling idiot you're worshipping has predicted? > That clocks will indicate not his local idiocy, but a time from a > preferred frame (which, according but that's still locally, fucking idiot. As you don't go over there to find out. These stupid polaks are amazing. myohhmy what they do, change their name and move to shit america, calling themself americans. That's a stolen territory, fucking stoopid. Not a country, but a stolen territory, now in the busyness of modifying history. stinking lying bitches, you don't have them to stay around.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 08:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mjmqb5Ffr5sU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666244 |
Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 20:43 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: > .. >>>>> 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. > > It is actually explained later in Einstein's article. If Einstein's method to synchronize stationary remote clocks is nonsense, how much sense would you expect from his method for moving clocks? > > But how could you understand this later part if don't even understand a > SINGLE WORD of the part about synchronizing co-moving (i.e. mutually at > rest) clocks? > > You cannot even spot that if someone is supposed to compute A - B he/she > obviously has to know A and B. You are an helpless case of dementia, > hypocrisy and stubbornness. Well, 'A' and 'B' were not numbers, but NAMES of two remote locations. That's why 'A-B' wouldn't make sense, to beginn with. TH>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 07:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <WqvhRqmmjGqdrI5eUVZiAonFEPU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666280 |
Le 26/09/2025 à 08:32, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 20:43 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: >> .. >>>>>> 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. >> >> It is actually explained later in Einstein's article. > > If Einstein's method to synchronize stationary remote clocks is > nonsense, how much sense would you expect from his method for moving clocks? > >> >> But how could you understand this later part if don't even understand a >> SINGLE WORD of the part about synchronizing co-moving (i.e. mutually at >> rest) clocks? >> >> You cannot even spot that if someone is supposed to compute A - B he/she >> obviously has to know A and B. You are an helpless case of dementia, >> hypocrisy and stubbornness. > > > Well, 'A' and 'B' were not numbers, but NAMES of two remote locations. > > That's why 'A-B' wouldn't make sense, to beginn with. You are dense. A and B in my post are not about "clock A" or "clock B". I was talking about two arbitrary numbers. Let's rephrase : You cannot even spot that if someone is supposed to compute X - Y he/she obviously has to know X and Y. You are an helpless case of dementia, hypocrisy and stubbornness. Got it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 21:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Q7CAQ.53519$Lkdf.2476@fx18.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666220 |
Den 23.09.2025 10:04, skrev Thomas Heger:
> 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?
Please read the whole post before you respond,
You ask the same questions over an over, and snip the part
of my post were all your questions are addressed.
That's unacceptable behaviour!
So let's start again.
READ THE WHOLE POST, AND DON'T ASK QUESTIONS WHICH ARE ANSWERED
IN MY POST!
Note this:
-----------
There is no "Einstein's method for synchronising clocks".
There is only "Einstein's definition of simultaneity",
which makes it possible to determine if clocks are synchronous.
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!
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
| in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.
| We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.”
The German word "Festsetzung" is translated with "assumption".
A better translation would be "definition".
So we have to make further _definitions_:
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for
| the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
| by definition that the “time” required by light to travel
| from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from
| B to A."
That means that _by definition_, the light _always_ uses the
same time to go from A to B as it uses to go from from B to A.
However, we must use clocks to measure these times.
So we must add:
Clocks are synchronous if they simultaneously show the same.
(That's what "synchronous" means!)
Now anybody can figure out a method to see if the clocks
are synchronous.
I will describe a method which is slightly different from Einstein's.
In my version A and B are symmetrical.
1.1. The observer at A sends a light pulse towards B when
his clock shows tA.
1.2 The observer at B note that his clock shows t'B when
the light pulse hits his light detector.
2.1. The observer at B sends a light pulse towards A when
his clock shows tB.
2.2. The observer at A note that his clock shows t'A when
the pulse hits his light detector.
When these four measurements are made, the observers communicate
through an appropriate medium (shouting, radio, optic fibre,
snail mail, whatever) and analyse the measurements.
They know that light always uses the same time both ways.
==========================================================
Let the transit time be T, and let clock B be F ahead of clock A.
If clocks A is showing tA, clock B is simultaneously showing tA+F.
F may be anything from zero to a long time.
We then have: t'B = tA + T + F
and: t'A = tB + T - F
so: (t'B - tA) = T + F
(t'A - tB) = T - F
Note that (t'B - tA) + (t'A - tB) = 2T
If (t'B - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (T + F) = (T - F),
which is true only if F = 0,
the clocks simultaneously shown the same.
Thus:
In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
t'B − tA = t′A − tB.
--------------------------------------------------
Einstein's method is slightly different.
The only difference is that the light pulse is reflected
off a mirror at B, so tB = t'B
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
| let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′A."
tA, tB and t'A are precisely defined as:
tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A.
tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B.
t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected
ray hits A.
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| " In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
| tB − tA = t′A − tB."
(The German "laufen synchron" is translated with "synchronize".
A better translation would be "are synchronous".)
If tB − tA ≠ t′A − tB then the clocks are not synchronous.
-------------------
Note that Einstein says nothing about how to make
asynchronous clocks synchronous. He only says that
if tB − tA = t′A − tB
then the clock at A and the clock at B are synchronous.
This is a definition of simultaneity, not a description
of how to synchronise clock.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kv66dkhnf4eikq11f0st5m2p9kjmkg5sb6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666225 |
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 21:02:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >Den 23.09.2025 10:04, skrev Thomas Heger: >> 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? > >Please read the whole post before you respond, > >You ask the same questions over an over, and snip the part >of my post were all your questions are addressed. > >That's unacceptable behaviour! > >So let's start again. > >READ THE WHOLE POST, AND DON'T ASK QUESTIONS WHICH ARE ANSWERED >IN MY POST! > > >Note this: >----------- >There is no "Einstein's method for synchronising clocks". >There is only "Einstein's definition of simultaneity", >which makes it possible to determine if clocks are synchronous. > > >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! > > >quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >------------------------------------------- >| "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, >| in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. >| We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” > >The German word "Festsetzung" is translated with "assumption". >A better translation would be "definition". > >So we have to make further _definitions_: > >quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >------------------------------------------- >| "We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for >| the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish >| by definition that the “time” required by light to travel >| from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from >| B to A." > >That means that _by definition_, the light _always_ uses the >same time to go from A to B as it uses to go from from B to A. > >However, we must use clocks to measure these times. > >So we must add: >Clocks are synchronous if they simultaneously show the same. >(That's what "synchronous" means!) > >Now anybody can figure out a method to see if the clocks >are synchronous. > >I will describe a method which is slightly different from Einstein's. >In my version A and B are symmetrical. > >1.1. The observer at A sends a light pulse towards B when > his clock shows tA. >1.2 The observer at B note that his clock shows t'B when > the light pulse hits his light detector. > >2.1. The observer at B sends a light pulse towards A when > his clock shows tB. >2.2. The observer at A note that his clock shows t'A when > the pulse hits his light detector. > >When these four measurements are made, the observers communicate >through an appropriate medium (shouting, radio, optic fibre, >snail mail, whatever) and analyse the measurements. > >They know that light always uses the same time both ways. >========================================================== > >Let the transit time be T, and let clock B be F ahead of clock A. >If clocks A is showing tA, clock B is simultaneously showing tA+F. >F may be anything from zero to a long time. > >We then have: t'B = tA + T + F >and: t'A = tB + T - F > >so: (t'B - tA) = T + F > (t'A - tB) = T - F > >Note that (t'B - tA) + (t'A - tB) = 2T > >If (t'B - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (T + F) = (T - F), >which is true only if F = 0, >the clocks simultaneously shown the same. > >Thus: > In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if > t'B ? tA = t?A ? tB. > >-------------------------------------------------- > >Einstein's method is slightly different. >The only difference is that the light pulse is reflected >off a mirror at B, so tB = t'B > >quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >------------------------------------------- >| "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, >| let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction >| of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t?A." > >tA, tB and t'A are precisely defined as: >tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A. >tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B. >t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected > ray hits A. > >quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >------------------------------------------- >| " In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >| tB ? tA = t?A ? tB." > >(The German "laufen synchron" is translated with "synchronize". > A better translation would be "are synchronous".) > >If tB ? tA ? t?A ? tB then the clocks are not synchronous. > >------------------- > >Note that Einstein says nothing about how to make >asynchronous clocks synchronous. He only says that >if tB ? tA = t?A ? tB >then the clock at A and the clock at B are synchronous. > >This is a definition of simultaneity, not a description >of how to synchronise clock. There is no mention in the above HOW do you adjust the clocks?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 08:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mjhfudFj34rU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666225 |
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 21:02 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: ... > Note this: > ----------- > There is no "Einstein's method for synchronising clocks". > There is only "Einstein's definition of simultaneity", > which makes it possible to determine if clocks are synchronous. > > > 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! > > > quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > ------------------------------------------- > | "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, > | in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. > | We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” > > The German word "Festsetzung" is translated with "assumption". > A better translation would be "definition". > > So we have to make further _definitions_: > > quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > ------------------------------------------- > | "We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for > | the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish > | by definition that the “time” required by light to travel > | from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from > | B to A." If time is local, you can't have 'common time'. 'Common time' would require something already excluded: 'absolute space' and 'absolute time'. A more geometrical explanation for this problem goes like this: Definition of 'vertical'. We have 'New York' and a vertical line there and we have 'Paris' and a vertical line there, too, but we have no vertical line, which is vertical in New York and Paris as well. Sure, that is true, but because no such line could exist. > That means that _by definition_, the light _always_ uses the > same time to go from A to B as it uses to go from from B to A. This is also a 'circular definition', because time is defined by means of time (t_A, t_B and t'_A). To break this 'vicious circle' Einstein wrote, that time would be what his clock says (what is nonsense, because time does not come from clocks, let alone Einstein's wrist watch). > However, we must use clocks to measure these times. > > So we must add: > Clocks are synchronous if they simultaneously show the same. > (That's what "synchronous" means!) If they simultaneously show the same time, that shown time could not be 'A-time' and 'B-time' simultaneously. You need to decide to which time you would like to set which clock. That could violate 'A-time' or 'B-time' or both. But the definition by Einstein made no statements, to which time he wanted to set which clock. > Now anybody can figure out a method to see if the clocks > are synchronous. > > I will describe a method which is slightly different from Einstein's. > In my version A and B are symmetrical. > > 1.1. The observer at A sends a light pulse towards B when > his clock shows tA. > 1.2 The observer at B note that his clock shows t'B when > the light pulse hits his light detector. > > 2.1. The observer at B sends a light pulse towards A when > his clock shows tB. > 2.2. The observer at A note that his clock shows t'A when > the pulse hits his light detector. > > When these four measurements are made, the observers communicate > through an appropriate medium (shouting, radio, optic fibre, > snail mail, whatever) and analyse the measurements. Where have you found 'snail mail' or any of the other terms in Einstein's paper? You did, what tons of others did and simply added, what you regard as 'obvious'. But that's not allowed, since we are talking about a very specific paper, which was printed long ago and not about what you think. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 22:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AjYAQ.56102$VZFe.3021@fx04.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666242 |
Den 24.09.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 21:02 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> ...
>> Note this:
>> -----------
>> There is no "Einstein's method for synchronising clocks".
>> There is only "Einstein's definition of simultaneity",
>> which makes it possible to determine if clocks are synchronous.
>>
>>
>> < big snip >
>>
>> quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
>> -------------------------------------------
>> | "We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for
>> | the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
>> | by definition that the “time” required by light to travel
>> | from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from
>> | B to A."
>
>
> If time is local, you can't have 'common time'.
You didn't get far before you interrupted with
a nonsensical comment.
>
> 'Common time' would require something already excluded:
> 'absolute space' and 'absolute time'.
Or it can mean the "common time" shown by your wristwatch.
It probably show UTC+2h, which is the common time currently
used in 30 countries in central Europa and several countries
in Africa.
(After October 28 it will be UTC+1h)
> A more geometrical explanation for this problem goes like this:
>
> Definition of 'vertical'.
>
> We have 'New York' and a vertical line there and we have 'Paris' and a
> vertical line there, too, but we have no vertical line, which is
> vertical in New York and Paris as well.
>
>
> Sure, that is true, but because no such line could exist.
Say, why are you babbling what you must understand
is irrelevant nonsense?
No point in going on.
But I am stubborn, so let's start from the beginning.
-------------------------------------------
This document defines The Special Theory of Relativity(SR):
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
SR is a mathematical consistent theory.
(If it weren't, it would have been born dead.)
That means that SR is what Einstein says it is,
you can't claim that Einstein is wrong.
Your or anybody's options are irrelevant.
It is even irrelevant if SR's predictions are
in accordance with measurements.
(But if they weren't SR would long since been
forgotten and we wouldn't have this discussion.)
If you do not understand and can accept this,
you can leave now.
But if there deep down is some logical thinking
in you, you should continue.
We start with this quote:
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| we establish
| by definition that the “time” required by light to travel
| from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from
| B to A."
This definition together with the two postulates of SR means:
The speed of light is isotropic c by definition.
This is a definition of simultaneity, se below.
That two clocks are synchronous means that they simultaneously
show the same.
Now Einstein made the following _thought experiment_:
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
| let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′A."
tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A.
tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B.
t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected
ray hits A.
In a thought experiment, measurements can be made with
infinite precision, and we can sit at our desk and analyse it.
The transit time is d/c where d is the distance between A and B.
Let clock B be F ahead of clock A, where F is between 0 and
a long time.
We then have: tB = tA + d/c + F
and: t'A = tB + d/c - F
so: (tB - tA) = d/c + F
(t'A - tB) = d/c - F
If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F),
which is true only if F = 0,
the clocks simultaneously show the same.
Thus:
In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB − tA = t′A − tB.
This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1868543314b53792$362513$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666250 |
On 9/24/2025 10:17 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 24.09.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 21:02 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> ... >>> Note this: >>> ----------- >>> There is no "Einstein's method for synchronising clocks". >>> There is only "Einstein's definition of simultaneity", >>> which makes it possible to determine if clocks are synchronous. >>> >>> >>> < big snip > >>> >>> quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> | "We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for >>> | the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish >>> | by definition that the “time” required by light to travel >>> | from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from >>> | B to A." >> >> >> If time is local, you can't have 'common time'. > > You didn't get far before you interrupted with > a nonsensical comment. > >> >> 'Common time' would require something already excluded: >> 'absolute space' and 'absolute time'. > > Or it can mean the "common time" shown by your wristwatch. Since the wristwatches of the real world are pissing at insane delusions of your insane guru it's indeed possible, still Thomas is [exceptionally] right here. According to your moronic religion there is no UTC, nor zone times, nor TAI, nor GPS time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 21:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0u8qC2_4b9F5ghtDPE7yzsqyMVU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666252 |
Le 24/09/2025 à 23:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : .. > Since the wristwatches of the real world > are pissing Your watches are pissing? Weird.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1mudX6Eirfb-oAEJbrlrRwc6U7o@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666253 |
Le 24/09/2025 à 23:12, Python a écrit : > Le 24/09/2025 à 23:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > ... >> Since the wristwatches of the real world >> are pissing > > Your watches are pissing? Weird. I knew about Mustard Watches btw, From Girard (a brilliant iconoclast French logician) : https://girard.perso.math.cnrs.fr/mustard/page1.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 23:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1rj6uk7.1txzj4h1c3xyvnN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #666253 |
Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote: > Le 24/09/2025 à 23:10, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : > .. > > Since the wristwatches of the real world > > are pissing > > Your watches are pissing? Weird. A Salvador Dali one, perhaps? They can drip, so who knows? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 21:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <08CAQ.53520$Lkdf.20051@fx18.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666220 |
How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances, and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method which should be applicable for all cases in all future. To illustrate this problem let's ask: How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks? Let two clocks A and B be stationary at the geoid at equator. Clock B is a distance L east of clock A. We know that clock A is synchronous with UTC, and we want to synchronise clock B to UTC. How do we do it? The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame), they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame. But the clocks A and B are moving in the ECI-frame, and we can't stop the spinning of the Earth to sync the clocks. The following calculations are made in the ECI frame. t is the coordinate time in the ECI-frame. Speed of clocks in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s v/c = 1.55e-6 We assume that at the instant t = 0 the clocks are synchronous according to Einstein's definition, and tA = 0 and TB = 0. If we send a light pulse from clock A towards clock B, clock B will move away at the speed v. Speed of light is c in the ECI-frame. We can calculate the time the light pulse will use to hit B: ct = L + vt => t = L/(c-v) = (L/c)⋅(1 + 1.55e-6) That means that if clock A showed t1 when the light pulse was emitted, then, to be synchronous with clock A, clock B must show t1 + (L/c)⋅(1 + 1.55e-6) when the pulse hits it. TAI clocks are routinely synced after the basic principle shown above. (The details are different of course. Satellites, optic fibre, radio) Another much used way to synchronise clocks to UTC is to use the GPS. But in the real world we never bounces light off a mirror to synchronise clocks. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 21:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186801a1ab4a7813$781848$2497048$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666226 |
On 9/23/2025 9:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances, > and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method > which should be applicable for all cases in all future. Too bad that he was that stupid. Well, some years later he even announced basic math false. > How do we do it? > The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in > the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame), > they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame. Too bad that you're a brainwashed idiot believing such (and even much stupider) tales.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 20:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q3p49NogEbFciq7Jt1lDrEBQtQw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666227 |
Le 23/09/2025 à 21:57, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/23/2025 9:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances, >> and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method >> which should be applicable for all cases in all future. > > Too bad that he [A.E.] was that stupid. Well, > some years later he even announced basic > math false. He certainly never did so. >> How do we do it? >> The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in >> the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame), >> they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame. > > Too bad that you're a brainwashed idiot > believing such (and even much stupider) > tales. Slandering again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 00:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186808ba2af4792b$221$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666229 |
On 9/23/2025 10:20 PM, Python wrote: > Le 23/09/2025 à 21:57, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/23/2025 9:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances, >>> and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method >>> which should be applicable for all cases in all future. >> >> Too bad that he [A.E.] was that stupid. Well, >> some years later he even announced basic >> math false. > > He certainly never did so. He certainly did, and now idiots like you are lying that Pythagorean theorem is not "for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2" but some inconsistent idiocy imagined by them. > >>> How do we do it? >>> The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in >>> the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame), >>> they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame. >> >> Too bad that you're a brainwashed idiot >> believing such (and even much stupider) >> tales. > > Slandering again? Slandering would be if I wrote about nurses allegedly changing his shitty sheets, poor stinker. Or about his alleged bottles of vodka. Or something alike. Slandering is for relativistic stinkers like yourself. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 22:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uZI_eLBH5AlS2ym9STALxzskTDk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666234 |
Le 24/09/2025 à 00:07, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/23/2025 10:20 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 23/09/2025 à 21:57, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/23/2025 9:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances, >>>> and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method >>>> which should be applicable for all cases in all future. >>> >>> Too bad that he [A.E.] was that stupid. Well, >>> some years later he even announced basic >>> math false. >> >> He certainly never did so. > > He certainly did No he didn't :-) You have no clues in math (not only in math btw). >>>> How do we do it? >>>> The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in >>>> the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame), >>>> they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame. >>> >>> Too bad that you're a brainwashed idiot >>> believing such (and even much stupider) >>> tales. >> >> Slandering again? > > Slandering would be if I wrote about nurses > allegedly changing his shitty sheets This is not slandering, this is compassion for the nurses. They will have hard times tonight, I'm afraid... > poor stinker Nice signature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 07:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1868211bb0bddb07$865579$2486865$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666235 |
On 9/24/2025 12:10 AM, Python wrote: > Le 24/09/2025 à 00:07, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/23/2025 10:20 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 23/09/2025 à 21:57, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/23/2025 9:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances, >>>>> and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method >>>>> which should be applicable for all cases in all future. >>>> >>>> Too bad that he [A.E.] was that stupid. Well, >>>> some years later he even announced basic >>>> math false. >>> >>> He certainly never did so. >> >> He certainly did > > No he didn't :-) You have no clues in math (not only in math btw). Yes, he did. According to basic math ANY right triangle has the Pythagorean property, according to the teachings of the idiot there are right triangles without it. And after he announced that - his obedient doggies immediately doctored some "evidence" that it was always obvious. You have no clues in math (not only in math btw). > >>>>> How do we do it? >>>>> The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in >>>>> the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame), >>>>> they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame. >>>> >>>> Too bad that you're a brainwashed idiot >>>> believing such (and even much stupider) >>>> tales. >>> >>> Slandering again? >> >> Slandering would be if I wrote about nurses >> allegedly changing his shitty sheets > > This is not slandering lan·der [ˈslɑːndə] noun verb the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. Since the nurses are false and you say it to damage my reputation it's a slander. Sorry, poor stinker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 22:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bXwOnYUKkAfGsBCFGsY6kaO4Vec@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666234 |
Le 24/09/2025 à 00:07, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > ... that Pythagorean theorem > is not "for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2" > but some inconsistent idiocy imagined > by them. I'm still waiting for any quote from Einstein about "right triangles" BTW. And about "them": are "they" in the room around you right now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 12:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10ar9b8$29uje$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666148 |
Op 18/09/2025 om 21:51 schreef Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 18/09/2025 à 15:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> Time is what clocks indicate. >>> >>> If we synchronize clocks - they're >>> indicating t'=t; that's what clock >>> synchronization means. >> >> If they stand side by side sure. >> >> If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy. > > Oh, really? > Any example of clocks which are > synchronized and are not indicating > t'=t? > Let me guess - no. So you don't accept light-[!!]clocks being *real* clocks? -- guido wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 13:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186795e71eb3161c$4952402$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666202 |
On 9/22/2025 12:44 PM, guido wugi wrote: > Op 18/09/2025 om 21:51 schreef Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 18/09/2025 à 15:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> Time is what clocks indicate. >>>> >>>> If we synchronize clocks - they're >>>> indicating t'=t; that's what clock >>>> synchronization means. >>> >>> If they stand side by side sure. >>> >>> If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy. >> >> Oh, really? >> Any example of clocks which are >> synchronized and are not indicating >> t'=t? >> Let me guess - no. > > So you don't accept light-[!!]clocks being *real* clocks? AFAIK light clocks only exist in relativistic gedankens, but I'don't know every clock of the world. Doesn't matter - "synchronized clocks" and "indicating t'=t clocks" - are the same for me, it's just a language dependency, without any "experimental" content. Do you have a different opinion?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web