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 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-02 18:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pWRWtQaYEuwZTv_uQ2Va4ahDVG8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666416 |
Le 01/10/2025 à 12:26, Python a écrit : > Le 30/09/2025 à 09:40, Thomas Heger a écrit : > There is 0% ambiguity in Einstein's paper. Si. Son papier est ambigu. Il y a beaucoup moins d'ambiguïté dans le mien. Je définis la notion de simultanéité, il ne le fait pas. Quand dit-on que deux événements sont simultanés? En relativité mal expliquée, la question n'a pas de sens absolu. Sur quoi est basée la théorie de la relativité aujourd'hui? Sur la notion de relativité réciproque des chronotropies internes par changement de référentiel inertiel. Mort de rire. La belle affaire que de le dire. On est très loin de l'idée complète. Un physicien sait-il que l'espace lui même est un mollusque de référence? Oui, il ne sait. Mais il applique une contraction des longueur et des distances de façon particulièrement imbécile, et contre même les transformations de Poincaré-Lorentz. Un objet qui se déplace rapidement ne voit pas les distances devant lui se contracter. A 0.8c une distance de 100 mètres ne devient pas 60 mètres. Elle devient 300 mètres. L'énormité de l'erreur de compréhension des physiciens est telle que la rectifier fait rire, et que, finalement, je le comprends. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thaddeus Babineaux <bdh@idudab.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-02 19:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10bmjkc$176ek$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666435 |
Richard Hachel wrote: > Mais il applique une contraction des longueur et des distances de façon > particulièrement imbécile, et contre même les transformations de > Poincaré-Lorentz. Un objet qui se déplace rapidement ne voit pas les > distances devant lui se contracter. A 0.8c une distance de 100 mètres ne > devient pas 60 mètres. Elle devient 300 mètres. et rapidement de objet contraction une lui 300 de façon ne ne transformations contre qui 100 particulièrement déplace pas Un mètres. devient contracter. se devant il mètres voit A distances se les et distance une mètres. 60 imbécile, distances des même pas les de devient Poincaré-Lorentz. applique 0.8c Elle Mais longueur des
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-29 21:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <HfBCQ.57884$Q54d.36249@fx16.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666343 |
Den 28.09.2025 09:47, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Samstag000027, 27.09.2025 um 10:25 schrieb Python:
>>
>> 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.
Python and I have explained this very method to synchronise clocks
_several_ times.
This is however beside the point, because this method of synchronising
clocks are never used in the real world.
>
> But why didn't Einstein mention this solution?
Because Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity,
it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks
synchronous.
Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous, is a thought
experiment.
A thought experiment is to see the logical consequences of a set
of assumptions.
A thought experiment does not prove that the assumptions are true.
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."
With what kind of precession do you think it in 1905 was possible
to "determine the time values of events" "by finding the positions
of the hands"? And the observer at B had to find the position of
the hands when he saw the ray hit the mirror.
At the very best the precision would be in the order of second,
which is many order of magnitudes more than the transit time.
(Einstein never imagined that point B should be beyond the Moon.)
So of course this is a thought experiment and was never meant
to really be performed. And Einstein expected the reader to
understand that. Which physicist and other knowledgeable
people did.
You can't synchronise real clocks with a thought experiment,
so that was obviously not Einstein's intension.
I have posted the following before. Will you read it this time?
---------------------------------
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.)
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 | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-29 21:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <RfBCQ.57885$Q54d.6692@fx16.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666343 |
Den 28.09.2025 09:47, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Samstag000027, 27.09.2025 um 10:25 schrieb Python: >> >> 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? Because: 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 the 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. When TAI and GPS clocks are synchronised, the clocks are not usually changed, but a correction factor is updated. In GPS this is typically done once a day. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-29 22:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1869da53fd9c271f$1207976$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666383 |
On 9/29/2025 9:41 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 28.09.2025 09:47, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Samstag000027, 27.09.2025 um 10:25 schrieb Python: >>> >>> 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? > > Because: > > 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. It would be and it was. Your idiot guru was a true idiot. > To illustrate the problem let's ask: > How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks? Ignoring The Holiest And The One And Only Procedure Of Synchronization announced by your idiot guru. > > 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. You're an idiot to believe they're NOT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-29 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <SndnNnLSWZ5CRxUhJZF6k2hEvfU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666384 |
Le 29/09/2025 à 22:19, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/29/2025 9:41 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 28.09.2025 09:47, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Samstag000027, 27.09.2025 um 10:25 schrieb Python: >>>> >>>> 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? >> >> Because: >> >> 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. > > It would be and it was. Your idiot guru was a true > idiot. > > >> To illustrate the problem let's ask: >> How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks? > > > Ignoring The Holiest And The One And Only > Procedure Of Synchronization announced by > your idiot guru. > > > >> >> 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. > > You're an idiot to believe they're NOT. Because a senile Polish crank is barking and barfing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 08:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1869fa6ce7240f42$1207977$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666385 |
On 9/29/2025 11:21 PM, Python wrote: >>> 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. >> >> You're an idiot to believe they're NOT. > > Because a senile Polish crank is barking and barfing? Tell me, poor stinker, what would the above mean? Would an observer "from the ground frame" say that the clocks are synchronized or would he say they are not? > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 08:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mjpefhFth2fU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666285 |
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'. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sqeQHAz8lMt8_HPEfE7YJ8yxDwU@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: .. >>>> 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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 21:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18684e1ae6fe0489$80408$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666244 |
On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: > 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. It is. But you try to lie that the idiot didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS. You're such a disgusting piece of lying shit...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <BpuCjeRE_j3Fq7mJXLS7a1qIhR4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666245 |
Le 24/09/2025 à 21:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >> 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. > > It is. But you try to lie that the idiot > didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS. Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of the frame. Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property. How come you didn't notice? Paul taught you this. > disgusting piece of lying shit... Very accurate signature!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 21:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18684f0f0403eb5e$356240$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666246 |
On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote: > Le 24/09/2025 à 21:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>> 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. >> >> It is. But you try to lie that the idiot >> didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS. > > Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of the frame. > > Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property. In the teachings of the idiot there is no "Synchronization of moving clocks". In the real world synchronization is absolute. And your moronic lies, like usual, crumble on touch, poor stinker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 19:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <G1baG-TXsY5NXVh-tpsTSZO5kYg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666248 |
Le 24/09/2025 à 21:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 24/09/2025 à 21:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> It is. But you try to lie that the idiot >>> didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS. >> >> Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of the frame. >> >> Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property. > > In the teachings of [A.E.] there is > no "Synchronization of moving clocks". Not in this very paper, but you feel free to use your brain if you have a functional one. Oh sorry :-( > In the real world synchronization is > absolute. No. > the idiot, moronic, poor stinker Nice signature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 23:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186853ff9210b219$287256$2535729$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666249 |
On 9/24/2025 9:43 PM, Python wrote: > Le 24/09/2025 à 21:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 24/09/2025 à 21:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> It is. But you try to lie that the idiot >>>> didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS. >>> >>> Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of the >>> frame. >>> >>> Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property. >> >> In the teachings of [A.E.] there is >> no "Synchronization of moving clocks". > > Not in this very paper, but you feel free to use your brain if you have > a functional one. Oh sorry :-( Just some paragraphs above you wrote: >>>>>>>>> If the distance between the clocks changes with time, >>>>>>>>> then the clocks can't be synchronous. As said, your moronic lies are of a very, very poor quality. > >> In the real world synchronization is >> absolute. > > No. Yes, yes. Together with your fellow idiots you're trying to persuade that GPS is not at all synchronized "from our point of view" - well, that's not more idiotic than the rest of your moronic religion, poor stinker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 23:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <DP4f78JJ3UecRt87MqqtwCViwGU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666251 |
Le 24/09/2025 à 23:06, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/24/2025 9:43 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 24/09/2025 à 21:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 24/09/2025 à 21:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> It is. But you try to lie that the idiot >>>>> didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS. >>>> >>>> Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of the >>>> frame. >>>> >>>> Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property. >>> >>> In the teachings of [A.E.] there is >>> no "Synchronization of moving clocks". >> >> Not in this very paper, but you feel free to use your brain if you have >> a functional one. Oh sorry :-( > > Just some paragraphs above you wrote: > >>>>>>>>> If the distance between the clocks changes with time, > >>>>>>>>> then the clocks can't be synchronous. They are not in sync in their (changing) own frames. They are corrected (not only offset) in order to be in synch a a single Earth-bound frame. Paul taught you, you have forgot? > moronic lies are of a very, very poor quality. Your posts, sure. Did you read the article about Mustard Watches by the way?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-25 07:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18686dd713283d4f$314038$2535729$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666256 |
On 9/25/2025 1:04 AM, Python wrote: > Le 24/09/2025 à 23:06, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/24/2025 9:43 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 24/09/2025 à 21:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 24/09/2025 à 21:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is. But you try to lie that the idiot >>>>>> didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS. >>>>> >>>>> Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of >>>>> the frame. >>>>> >>>>> Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property. >>>> >>>> In the teachings of [A.E.] there is >>>> no "Synchronization of moving clocks". >>> >>> Not in this very paper, but you feel free to use your brain if you >>> have a functional one. Oh sorry :-( >> >> Just some paragraphs above you wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> If the distance between the clocks changes with time, >> >>>>>>>>> then the clocks can't be synchronous. > > They are not in sync in their (changing) own frames. > > They are corrected (not only offset) in order to be in synch a a single > Earth-bound frame. 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 to his moronic delusions, doesn't exist)? It is not, and you know very well it is not. According to the idiot >> >>>>>>>>> If the distance between the clocks changes with time, >> >>>>>>>>> then the clocks can't be synchronous. And when the professionals of GPS ignored the idiot's delusions - you're pretending that it's not really any synchronization. Just like "sharks eating fishes are not true sharks, because true sharks est grass - by definition we wrote!!!!!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-25 06:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6l6Iy6sUj9iCydZ98crfx77CM2I@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666258 |
Le 25/09/2025 à 07:00, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/25/2025 1:04 AM, Python wrote: >> Le 24/09/2025 à 23:06, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/24/2025 9:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 24/09/2025 à 21:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 24/09/2025 à 21:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is. But you try to lie that the idiot >>>>>>> didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of >>>>>> the frame. >>>>>> >>>>>> Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property. >>>>> >>>>> In the teachings of [A.E.] there is >>>>> no "Synchronization of moving clocks". >>>> >>>> Not in this very paper, but you feel free to use your brain if you >>>> have a functional one. Oh sorry :-( >>> >>> Just some paragraphs above you wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> If the distance between the clocks changes with time, >>> >>>>>>>>> then the clocks can't be synchronous. >> >> They are not in sync in their (changing) own frames. >> >> They are corrected (not only offset) in order to be in synch a a single >> Earth-bound frame. > > > 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 > to his moronic delusions, doesn't > exist)? > It is not, and you know very well > it is not. According to the idiot > > >> >>>>>>>>> If the distance between the clocks changes with time, > >> >>>>>>>>> then the clocks can't be synchronous. > > And when the professionals of GPS > ignored the idiot's delusions - you're > pretending that it's not really any > synchronization. > > Just like "sharks eating fishes > are not true sharks, because true > sharks est grass - by definition > we wrote!!!!!" Yawn...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-25 09:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1868773d322ea9aa$348852$2535729$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666260 |
On 9/25/2025 8:56 AM, Python wrote: > Le 25/09/2025 à 07:00, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/25/2025 1:04 AM, Python wrote: >>> Le 24/09/2025 à 23:06, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/24/2025 9:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 24/09/2025 à 21:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 24/09/2025 à 21:18, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is. But you try to lie that the idiot >>>>>>>> didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of >>>>>>> the frame. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the teachings of [A.E.] there is >>>>>> no "Synchronization of moving clocks". >>>>> >>>>> Not in this very paper, but you feel free to use your brain if you >>>>> have a functional one. Oh sorry :-( >>>> >>>> Just some paragraphs above you wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> If the distance between the clocks changes with time, >>>> >>>>>>>>> then the clocks can't be synchronous. >>> >>> They are not in sync in their (changing) own frames. >>> >>> They are corrected (not only offset) in order to be in synch a a >>> single Earth-bound frame. >> >> >> 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 >> to his moronic delusions, doesn't >> exist)? >> It is not, and you know very well >> it is not. According to the idiot >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> If the distance between the clocks changes with time, >> >> >>>>>>>>> then the clocks can't be synchronous. >> >> And when the professionals of GPS >> ignored the idiot's delusions - you're >> pretending that it's not really any >> synchronization. >> >> Just like "sharks eating fishes >> are not true sharks, because true >> sharks est grass - by definition >> we wrote!!!!!" > > Yawn... > Right, poor stinker. Sleep, have beautiful dreams of the perfect world fitting the sick delusions of your idiot guru and yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-25 20:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ejKUUQvP7hhx-RvMNxjmglH6c-c@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666262 |
Le 25/09/2025 à 09:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > ... >> Yawn... >> > > Right, Sleep, have > beautiful dreams of the perfect > world fitting the delusions > of [A.E.] Not tired, just bored by your delusional refuted and demented rants. Nothing "perfect" here. Only stuff that makes sense and works. > poor stinker, idiot, sick, delusional Nice signature ! BTW did you read the article on Mustard Watches ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-25 23:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1868a4391926678c$154723$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666273 |
On 9/25/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote: > Le 25/09/2025 à 09:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> ... >>> Yawn... >>> >> >> Right, Sleep, have >> beautiful dreams of the perfect >> world fitting the delusions >> of [A.E.] > > Not tired, just bored by your delusional refuted and demented rants. See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting and slandering. And you're just doing what you can for your beloved Shit and your beloved church. > > Nothing "perfect" here. Only stuff that makes sense and works. It only makes sense to some brainwashed idiots, and it never worked, poor stinker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web