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 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 10:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <z-8R2cvZq_CFRXeOyC8G7RSK2pA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666344 |
Le 28/09/2025 à 10:39, Python a écrit : > Le 28/09/2025 à 09:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : .. >> So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and >> based on system K. > > You opinion is wrong. More precisely: t is "A-time" if it is labeling an event at the position of clock A. Otherwise it is "B-time" (clock B being at the position of this event). These two values are assumed to be taken from clocks at B synchronized with A according to the definition in paragraph I.1. Same for "tau" btw, in the "moving system" you can set up a network of clocks synchronized the same way as in the "stationary system" : "Further, let the time t of the stationary system be determined for all points thereof at which there are clocks by means of light signals in the manner indicated in § 1; similarly let the time $\tau$ of the moving system be determined for all points of the moving system at which there are clocks at rest relatively to that system by applying the method, given in § 1, of light signals between the points at which the latter clocks are located." See? tau is defined exactly the same way t is, but in another "system" i.e. "frame of reference".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-02 08:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk6khkF68rgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666349 |
Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 12:40 schrieb Python: > Le 28/09/2025 à 10:39, Python a écrit : >> Le 28/09/2025 à 09:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : > .. >>> So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and >>> based on system K. >> >> You opinion is wrong. > > More precisely: t is "A-time" if it is labeling an event at the position > of clock A. Otherwise it is "B-time" (clock B being at the position of > this event). These two values are assumed to be taken from clocks at B > synchronized with A according to the definition in paragraph I.1. You forgot that 'snail mail' was required for your method in §1. But how would you do that, if system B is receding at significant pace? > Same for "tau" btw, in the "moving system" you can set up a network of > clocks synchronized the same way as in the "stationary system" : No: the method from §1 required, that A and B do not move in respect to each other. If they do, a different definition for synchronicity would be necessary: you cannot use the equation from § 1: t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B because that is only valid if A and B do not move. My proposal was: you introduce a hypothetical signal with infinite speed and add the delay 'by hand'. This would also be possible, if A or B move. The problem was: you need to know the delay and Einstein made no attempts to figure that out. > "Further, let the time t of the stationary system be determined for all > points thereof at which there are clocks by means of light signals in > the manner indicated in § 1; similarly let the time $\tau$ of the moving > system be determined for all points of the moving system at which there > are clocks at rest relatively to that system by applying the method, > given in § 1, of light signals between the points at which the latter > clocks are located." > > See? tau is defined exactly the same way t is, but in another "system" > i.e. "frame of reference". > Sure, but Einstein didn't use the term 'frame of reference' in that article. Instead he used only coordinate systems and time measures, which are associated with these coordinate systems. BUT: the time t was NOT valid uniformly throughout its coordinate system, but only in the vicinity of the clock. This means: Einstein gave the impression, as if he wanted top make time dependent of the location. This in turn would only make sense, if he didn't wanted to take the delay into consideration. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 13:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <40UOZ1DiXmW6zDfu6laHTHz0Nno@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666425 |
Le 02/10/2025 à 08:31, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 12:40 schrieb Python: >> Le 28/09/2025 à 10:39, Python a écrit : >>> Le 28/09/2025 à 09:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> .. >>>> So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and >>>> based on system K. >>> >>> You opinion is wrong. >> >> More precisely: t is "A-time" if it is labeling an event at the position >> of clock A. Otherwise it is "B-time" (clock B being at the position of >> this event). These two values are assumed to be taken from clocks at B >> synchronized with A according to the definition in paragraph I.1. > > You forgot that 'snail mail' was required for your method in §1. This is a non-problem. There are many ways to transmit an information from A to B and the other wy around. > But how would you do that, if system B is receding at significant pace? Receding from what? A and B are in relative rest. >> Same for "tau" btw, in the "moving system" you can set up a network of >> clocks synchronized the same way as in the "stationary system" : > > No: the method from §1 required, that A and B do not move in respect to > each other. There is no problem to set up a set of clocks in mutual rest in the "moving system". Tau is then defined the same way t in in the "stationary system". > If they do, a different definition for synchronicity would be necessary: > > you cannot use the equation from § 1: > t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B > > because that is only valid if A and B do not move. Well. Then do not move relatively to each other. > My proposal was: > > [irrelevance] We are not talking about your ideas, we are talking about Einstein actual paper. > The problem was: you need to know the delay and Einstein made no > attempts to figure that out. t'A - tB, tB - tA are DELAYS as long as they are equal. >> "Further, let the time t of the stationary system be determined for all >> points thereof at which there are clocks by means of light signals in >> the manner indicated in § 1; similarly let the time $\tau$ of the moving >> system be determined for all points of the moving system at which there >> are clocks at rest relatively to that system by applying the method, >> given in § 1, of light signals between the points at which the latter >> clocks are located." >> >> See? tau is defined exactly the same way t is, but in another "system" >> i.e. "frame of reference". >> > Sure, but Einstein didn't use the term 'frame of reference' in that article. It doesn't matter. What he called "system" is exactly what is called now "frame of reference". EXACTLY. > Instead he used only coordinate systems and time measures, which are > associated with these coordinate systems. Which is 100% what a reference frame is : a system allowing to associate space and time coordinates to events. > BUT: the time t was NOT valid uniformly throughout its coordinate > system, but only in the vicinity of the clock. Not after, under his assumptions, the clocks are synchronized. > This means: Einstein gave the impression, as if he wanted top make time > dependent of the location. Definitely not. This is something you made up. He started from a purely local definition and build a way to consistently extend this definition to a whole frame of reference. > This in turn would only make sense, if he didn't wanted to take the > delay into consideration. Sigh. He did. The point of delay is the HEART of his synchronization checking method. Thomas you are a fractal of misunderstandings, inability to read, and likely utter stubborn dishonesty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 10:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkep99Fh7l0U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666456 |
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 15:15 schrieb Python: > Le 02/10/2025 à 08:31, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 12:40 schrieb Python: >>> Le 28/09/2025 à 10:39, Python a écrit : >>>> Le 28/09/2025 à 09:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> .. >>>>> So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' >>>>> and based on system K. >>>> >>>> You opinion is wrong. >>> >>> More precisely: t is "A-time" if it is labeling an event at the >>> position of clock A. Otherwise it is "B-time" (clock B being at the >>> position of this event). These two values are assumed to be taken >>> from clocks at B synchronized with A according to the definition in >>> paragraph I.1. >> >> You forgot that 'snail mail' was required for your method in §1. > > This is a non-problem. There are many ways to transmit an information > from A to B and the other wy around. > >> But how would you do that, if system B is receding at significant pace? > > Receding from what? A and B are in relative rest. A and B were used in different ways in Einstein's text. That's why a setting in one chapter is not always valid in others. Actually Einstein had next to never defined his variables properly but gave some hints and requested the reader to find out himself, what he eventually had in mind. So, you fell into that trap, too, and assumed, that one setting applies in other chapters. But that ain't the case and you need to check very carefully, what was meant in a certain topic with a certain symbol like e.g. 'A'. Btw: Einstein had used that letter quite often in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', but in eight different ways. Among those uses of the letter 'A' were also moving ones. > >>> Same for "tau" btw, in the "moving system" you can set up a network >>> of clocks synchronized the same way as in the "stationary system" : >> >> No: the method from §1 required, that A and B do not move in respect >> to each other. > > There is no problem to set up a set of clocks in mutual rest in the > "moving system". Tau is then defined the same way t in in the > "stationary system". 'tau' stems from the moving system k, hence was not meant as 'stationary time'. >> If they do, a different definition for synchronicity would be necessary: >> >> you cannot use the equation from § 1: >> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B >> >> because that is only valid if A and B do not move. > > Well. Then do not move relatively to each other. Well, yes. But we're talking about SRT, which is mainly about moving frames of reference. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 09:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk1frgFa17rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666344 |
Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Python: ... > >> My problem was, that I thought about 'local time' and therefore wanted >> 'A-time' to be named 't' and 'B-time' values 'tau'. > > Why "what you want" would be of any interest when it comes to analyze > Einstein's paper? Well, actually the author had to tell his story and the reader had to read. If the author writes stories, which you could interpret in many different ways, than the text has to be understood by the least likely interpretation, because ambiguity goes against the author. > tau is a time coordinate in another frame of reference, definitely not > "B-time". Sure: A has a time called 'A-time' and B a time called 'B-time'. Since 'A-time' is not equal to 'B-time' A and B belong to two different frames of reference. > Nevertheless tau is defined in this *other* frame of reference in > *exactly* the same way t is (with t_A, t'_A, t_B etc.) with a set of > clocks at rest in this other frame. > > IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what he > called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead readers > at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle from Galileo but > it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you. I don't agree here, because I took 'at rest' as synonym for 'the own system' and 'moving' for 'remote'. But you are in fact right, that relativity is mutally symmetric and we are in fact free to chose, which frame is moveing and which one at rest. >> So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and >> based on system K. > > You opinion is wrong. Well, it was actually a guess. That I had to guess, that was actually not my fault. >> But that wasn't actually Einstein's use of the letter 't'. > > It wasn't, sure. Later Einstein used two different names for the time measure in the own and the remote system. This is what I would call 'backfire', because if this scheme was used later, it had for consistency been used earlier, too.> >> It was only my impression of Einstein's intentions, because I have >> read the paper several times and introduced concepts from that paper >> which occured later also to the beginning, where they do not apply. > > You have introduced your own fantasies into a paper you completely > failed to understand. This leads to the absolute bunch of nonsense that > is your comments on it. No, not completely. I have not found a way, by which I could synchronize two remote clocks by the use of Einstein's equation, because I had ascribed variables to the wrong points. But, as a matter of fact, I'm as a reader are not supposed to read Einstein's mind. I wanted actually proper definitions of variables (actually demanded them). What I also wanted would be 'continuity' in the setting and the used variable names. Einstein in contrast made it extremely difficult to find out, what he actually had in mind (what in -my oppinion- an author is actually obliged to write). I wrote my comments from the hypothetical perferspective of a professor and treated the text as if it would be the homework of a student. In this my rule was 'ambiguity counts against the author'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 10:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <WKz9yYDxcwRTrRdfBh6CkJ_7iB0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666392 |
Le 30/09/2025 à 09:40, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Python: > ... > >> >>> My problem was, that I thought about 'local time' and therefore wanted >>> 'A-time' to be named 't' and 'B-time' values 'tau'. >> >> Why "what you want" would be of any interest when it comes to analyze >> Einstein's paper? > > Well, actually the author had to tell his story and the reader had to read. > > If the author writes stories, which you could interpret in many > different ways, than the text has to be understood by the least likely > interpretation, because ambiguity goes against the author. Einstein's paper left no room for interpretation. You introduced them because you misunderstood 99% of what he wrote. >> tau is a time coordinate in another frame of reference, definitely not >> "B-time". > > Sure: A has a time called 'A-time' and B a time called 'B-time' > Since 'A-time' is not equal to 'B-time' What could it means for two values that are constantly changing (a number displayed by a clock !) to be "equal" or "not equal" ? > A and B belong to two different frames of reference. No. They are clocks mutually at rest, which is a definition of devices in a single frame of reference. Moreover everything belong to ALL frames of reference. Everything than happens, happens for anyone. >> Nevertheless tau is defined in this *other* frame of reference in >> *exactly* the same way t is (with t_A, t'_A, t_B etc.) with a set of >> clocks at rest in this other frame. >> >> IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what he >> called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead readers >> at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle from Galileo but >> it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you. > > I don't agree here, because I took 'at rest' as synonym for 'the own > system' and 'moving' for 'remote'. This is a misunderstanding on you side. Einstein didn't wrote anything suggesting your interpretation. > But you are in fact right, that relativity is mutally symmetric and we > are in fact free to chose, which frame is moveing and which one at rest. Nice to read. Are you progressing in the direction that your comments are asinine? >>> So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and >>> based on system K. >> >> You opinion is wrong. > Well, it was actually a guess. > > That I had to guess, that was actually not my fault. It is. You guessed wrong because you are completely uneducated in physics, and probably mentally challenged. Einstein wrote an article aimed to educated wise people. >>> But that wasn't actually Einstein's use of the letter 't'. >> >> It wasn't, sure. > > Later Einstein used two different names for the time measure in the own > and the remote system. Oh really? Where? > This is what I would call 'backfire', because if this scheme was used > later, it had for consistency been used earlier, too.> It is. >>> It was only my impression of Einstein's intentions, because I have >>> read the paper several times and introduced concepts from that paper >>> which occured later also to the beginning, where they do not apply. >> >> You have introduced your own fantasies into a paper you completely >> failed to understand. This leads to the absolute bunch of nonsense that >> is your comments on it. > > No, not completely. Completly. > I have not found a way, by which I could synchronize two remote clocks > by the use of Einstein's equation, because I had ascribed variables to > the wrong points. You admit your analysis was wrong then? Good!!! > But, as a matter of fact, I'm as a reader are not supposed to read > Einstein's mind. > > I wanted actually proper definitions of variables (actually demanded them). They are there, you missed them. > What I also wanted would be 'continuity' in the setting and the used > variable names. > > Einstein in contrast made it extremely difficult to find out, what he > actually had in mind (what in -my oppinion- an author is actually > obliged to write). It didn't, most students have NO problem reading and understanding this article. You had, so what? > I wrote my comments from the hypothetical perferspective of a professor > and treated the text as if it would be the homework of a student. Which is ridiculous if you are not mastering the skills, knowledge, experience a professor in physics should have. Don't you think? > In this my rule was 'ambiguity counts against the author'. There is 0% ambiguity in Einstein's paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-02 09:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk6oenF68rgU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666416 |
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.10.2025 um 12:26 schrieb Python: > Le 30/09/2025 à 09:40, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Python: >> ... >> >>> >>>> My problem was, that I thought about 'local time' and therefore >>>> wanted 'A-time' to be named 't' and 'B-time' values 'tau'. >>> >>> Why "what you want" would be of any interest when it comes to analyze >>> Einstein's paper? >> >> Well, actually the author had to tell his story and the reader had to >> read. >> >> If the author writes stories, which you could interpret in many >> different ways, than the text has to be understood by the least likely >> interpretation, because ambiguity goes against the author. > > Einstein's paper left no room for interpretation. You introduced them > because you misunderstood 99% of what he wrote. >>> tau is a time coordinate in another frame of reference, definitely >>> not "B-time". >> >> Sure: A has a time called 'A-time' and B a time called 'B-time' >> Since 'A-time' is not equal to 'B-time' > > What could it means for two values that are constantly changing (a > number displayed by a clock !) to be "equal" or "not equal" ? > >> A and B belong to two different frames of reference. > > No. They are clocks mutually at rest, which is a definition of devices > in a single frame of reference. > > Moreover everything belong to ALL frames of reference. Everything than > happens, happens for anyone. No, since you are confusing 'coordinate system' and 'frame of reference'. Every single point is of course part of any other (Euclidean) coordinate system, even if the coordinates are different. But 'frame of reference' contains time, too. If now two frames of reference use different time measure 'A-time' and 'B-time', they could have as well different variables for time, which were t and tau. It is improtant, that you cannot add or subtract t and tau, because they are measures belonging to different frames of reference. If we have some event at point B, which has the location 'B' and time tau, then we cannot use 'A-time', t or point A. To make different measures usuable, we need to conduct what is called a 'coordinate transformation'. > >>> Nevertheless tau is defined in this *other* frame of reference in >>> *exactly* the same way t is (with t_A, t'_A, t_B etc.) with a set of >>> clocks at rest in this other frame. >>> >>> IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what he >>> called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead >>> readers at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle from >>> Galileo but it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you. >> >> I don't agree here, because I took 'at rest' as synonym for 'the own >> system' and 'moving' for 'remote'. > > This is a misunderstanding on you side. Einstein didn't wrote anything > suggesting your interpretation. Sure, but I have not written, that Einstein said so, but that my usual setting would be this way. I usually 'halt' the observer and declare the observer to be at rest. This is just an arbitrary choice, but a practical one. You could also say, the observer would move with multiples of c, if you prefer that. But such a setting isn't very useful. Therefore my standard setiing setting is: the observer doesn't move and everything else does. Einstein on the other hand used 'at rest' numerous time, but didn't say, in respect to what the system K was at rest. I personally didn't like that and used to say: the observer does not move in respect to himself. That's why the observer is at rest. But that is just an arbitrary choice which could be made otherwise. >> But you are in fact right, that relativity is mutally symmetric and we >> are in fact free to chose, which frame is moveing and which one at rest. > > Nice to read. Are you progressing in the direction that your comments > are asinine? > No need to be rude! ... ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-02 14:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <JCuDQ.6$R153.3@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666429 |
Den 02.10.2025 09:42, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Mittwoch000001, 01.10.2025 um 12:26 schrieb Python:
>> Le 30/09/2025 à 09:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Python:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what
>>>> he called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead
>>>> readers at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle from
>>>> Galileo but it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you.
>>>
>>> I don't agree here, because I took 'at rest' as synonym for 'the own
>>> system' and 'moving' for 'remote'.
>>
>> This is a misunderstanding on you side. Einstein didn't wrote anything
>> suggesting your interpretation.
>
>
> Sure, but I have not written, that Einstein said so, but that my usual
> setting would be this way.
>
> I usually 'halt' the observer and declare the observer to be at rest.
>
> This is just an arbitrary choice, but a practical one.
>
> You could also say, the observer would move with multiples of c, if you
> prefer that. But such a setting isn't very useful.
>
>
> Therefore my standard setiing setting is: the observer doesn't move and
> everything else does.
>
> Einstein on the other hand used 'at rest' numerous time, but didn't say,
> in respect to what the system K was at rest.
>
> I personally didn't like that and used to say: the observer does not
> move in respect to himself.
>
> That's why the observer is at rest. But that is just an arbitrary choice
> which could be made otherwise.
Why do you think that your "standard setting" is relevant to
Einstein's definition of simultaneity?
--------------------------
Why have you not responded to the following?
If it is something you do not understand, ask.
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. 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 opinions 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."
Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary
relative to each other.
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 desks 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.
This means:
TB = (TA + d/c)
When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously
shows (TA + d/c), which is the same.
t'A = (tB + d/c)
When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously
shows (tB + d/c), which is 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.
Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically
consistent.
This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's
predictions are in accordance with measurements.
Only real experiments can do that.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-02 15:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186aaf702aed64e6$410896$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666432 |
On 10/2/2025 2:57 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 02.10.2025 09:42, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Mittwoch000001, 01.10.2025 um 12:26 schrieb Python: >>> Le 30/09/2025 à 09:40, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Python: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what >>>>> he called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead >>>>> readers at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle >>>>> from Galileo but it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you. >>>> >>>> I don't agree here, because I took 'at rest' as synonym for 'the own >>>> system' and 'moving' for 'remote'. >>> >>> This is a misunderstanding on you side. Einstein didn't wrote >>> anything suggesting your interpretation. >> >> >> Sure, but I have not written, that Einstein said so, but that my usual >> setting would be this way. >> >> I usually 'halt' the observer and declare the observer to be at rest. >> >> This is just an arbitrary choice, but a practical one. >> >> You could also say, the observer would move with multiples of c, if >> you prefer that. But such a setting isn't very useful. >> >> >> Therefore my standard setiing setting is: the observer doesn't move >> and everything else does. >> >> Einstein on the other hand used 'at rest' numerous time, but didn't >> say, in respect to what the system K was at rest. >> >> I personally didn't like that and used to say: the observer does not >> move in respect to himself. >> >> That's why the observer is at rest. But that is just an arbitrary >> choice which could be made otherwise. > > Why do you think that your "standard setting" is relevant to > Einstein's definition of simultaneity? > > -------------------------- > > Why have you not responded to the following? > If it is something you do not understand, ask. > > > > 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. 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. Right. The intention of the idiot was - to "prove" that synchronization is practically impossible for the sake of his other idiocies. > > 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. SR is not a mathematical theory, it's a physical theory and it was not consistent - as it has been proven many times here. Not that a proof can affect a brainwashed religious maniac, of course. > That means that SR is what Einstein says it is, > you can't claim that Einstein is wrong. > Your or anybody's opinions 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.) Of course they weren't - until obedient doggies introduced brandly new methods of measuring time (too bad it was 50 years too late, but what to expect from complete idiots). > 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. Like "a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its wool, skin, and meat" - is a definition of a shark.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hoyet Bobienski <neen@tnisyoeh.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-02 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10bmegq$15nj2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666433 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> This document defines The Special Theory of Relativity(SR): >> https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf SR is a mathematical >> consistent theory. > > SR is not a mathematical theory, it's a physical theory and it was not > consistent - as it has been proven many times here. Not that a proof can > affect a brainwashed religious maniac, of course. kiss my ass, a physical not based on math is imbecility you are uneducated and unskilled, idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-03 10:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk9et6FklrkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666432 |
Am Donnerstag000002, 02.10.2025 um 14:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 02.10.2025 09:42, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Mittwoch000001, 01.10.2025 um 12:26 schrieb Python: >>> Le 30/09/2025 à 09:40, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Python: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what >>>>> he called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead >>>>> readers at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle >>>>> from Galileo but it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you. >>>> >>>> I don't agree here, because I took 'at rest' as synonym for 'the own >>>> system' and 'moving' for 'remote'. >>> >>> This is a misunderstanding on you side. Einstein didn't wrote >>> anything suggesting your interpretation. >> >> >> Sure, but I have not written, that Einstein said so, but that my usual >> setting would be this way. >> >> I usually 'halt' the observer and declare the observer to be at rest. >> >> This is just an arbitrary choice, but a practical one. >> >> You could also say, the observer would move with multiples of c, if >> you prefer that. But such a setting isn't very useful. >> >> >> Therefore my standard setiing setting is: the observer doesn't move >> and everything else does. >> >> Einstein on the other hand used 'at rest' numerous time, but didn't >> say, in respect to what the system K was at rest. >> >> I personally didn't like that and used to say: the observer does not >> move in respect to himself. >> >> That's why the observer is at rest. But that is just an arbitrary >> choice which could be made otherwise. > > Why do you think that your "standard setting" is relevant to > Einstein's definition of simultaneity? Sure. But I use this setting, anyhow.> > -------------------------- > > Why have you not responded to the following? > If it is something you do not understand, ask. > > > > Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity, > it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks > synchronous. No, because Einstein wrote about a method, which included clocks. But clocks are technical devices and are subject to human interactions. Time in contrast is not supposed to be affected by humans or clocks. So, Einstein's definition does not define time, but describes a technical method, which ultimatively synchronizes remote clocks. (And as an enignieer I know a few things about technical procedures.) If Einstein actually wanted to define simultineity he should have use a hypothetical signal, which connects without delay. That such a signal does not exist in reality does not hinder to define it and use it in a definition. The discrepancy to the real world and the real signal by light or radio waves could be put in 'by hand' and by calculating the delay of light to travgel between two points and adding the result to the timing signals. > Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous, > is a thought experiment. Really? Could he do that? > 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. > Well, yes. This is similar to a proof in mathematics. > 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. The mirror was supposed to stand near the clock at point B, while the observer at A sends out a beam of light at some known point in time. So, the observer at B (also named 'B') watches his mirror and tries to catch that moment, when a signal from A arrives, looks immediatly at his watch and tries to remember, where the hands were. But what Einstein didn't write was also important: he had to write down the read out of his clock and mail it to A. Ok, actually that method was the other way round: A reads out his clock at the start of the ray, writes that value down next A reads the own clock, once the ray returns and writes that value down. Then this paper is sent as a letter (by US-postal service or similar) to the remote station (the Moon for instance). There the observer at B receives the letter, calculates the delay, adds that delay to the start time and turns the own clock to the result. > 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.) Well, but I could. So lets assume 'Alpha Centaury'. the only problem: Us postal has no office there. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-03 10:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186aee859e53acc6$1842948$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666443 |
On 10/3/2025 10:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity, >> it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks >> synchronous. > > > No, because Einstein wrote about a method, which included clocks. > > But clocks are technical devices and are subject to human interactions. > > Time in contrast is not supposed to be affected by humans or clocks. Is not supposed, eh? But UTC is affected, GPS time is affected, TAI is affected, zone times are affected and so on. "Pure", unaffected by dirty humans time exists only in the religious delusions of physicists and wannabe physicists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 09:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkbutgF3974U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666444 |
Am Freitag000003, 03.10.2025 um 10:41 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > On 10/3/2025 10:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity, >>> it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks >>> synchronous. >> >> >> No, because Einstein wrote about a method, which included clocks. >> >> But clocks are technical devices and are subject to human interactions. >> >> Time in contrast is not supposed to be affected by humans or clocks. > > Is not supposed, eh? But UTC is affected, GPS time > is affected, TAI is affected, zone times are affected > and so on. > "Pure", unaffected by dirty humans time exists > only in the religious delusions of physicists and > wannabe physicists. > > Well, clocks do exist. But time isn't really a thing, which eventually could exist. What we call 'time' is actually a natural phenomenon. This 'thing' does in fact determine, that certain events happen to appear in some sort of regular frequency. What the time 'really is', that is an open question. But most likely its not a huge clock. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 09:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186b3a83f0c541e0$2188573$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666453 |
On 10/4/2025 9:03 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Freitag000003, 03.10.2025 um 10:41 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: >> On 10/3/2025 10:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >>>> Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity, >>>> it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks >>>> synchronous. >>> >>> >>> No, because Einstein wrote about a method, which included clocks. >>> >>> But clocks are technical devices and are subject to human interactions. >>> >>> Time in contrast is not supposed to be affected by humans or clocks. >> >> Is not supposed, eh? But UTC is affected, GPS time >> is affected, TAI is affected, zone times are affected >> and so on. >> "Pure", unaffected by dirty humans time exists >> only in the religious delusions of physicists and >> wannabe physicists. >> >> > Well, clocks do exist. But time isn't really a thing, which eventually > could exist. > > > What we call 'time' is actually a natural phenomenon. Wrong. What WE call time is an abstract administrative construct; what YOU call time is a sick, religious delusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-03 20:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <RkUDQ.13252$fVG4.6009@fx03.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666443 |
Den 03.10.2025 10:18, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Donnerstag000002, 02.10.2025 um 14:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>
>> Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity,
>> it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks
>> synchronous.
>
>
> No, because Einstein wrote about a method, which included clocks.
>
> But clocks are technical devices and are subject to human interactions.
>
> Time in contrast is not supposed to be affected by humans or clocks.
>
> So, Einstein's definition does not define time, but describes a
> technical method, which ultimatively synchronizes remote clocks.
>
> (And as an enignieer I know a few things about technical procedures.)
>
> If Einstein actually wanted to define simultineity he should have use a
> hypothetical signal, which connects without delay.
>
> That such a signal does not exist in reality does not hinder to define
> it and use it in a definition.
>
> The discrepancy to the real world and the real signal by light or radio
> waves could be put in 'by hand' and by calculating the delay of light to
> travgel between two points and adding the result to the timing signals.
This is irrelevant to Einstein's definition of simultaneity-
We are talking about: § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in §1 of his paper
defines simultaneity, and does not explain how to synchronise
asynchronous clocks.
>
>> Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous,
>> is a thought experiment.
>
> Really? Could he do that?
>
>> 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.
>>
> Well, yes.
>
> This is similar to a proof in mathematics.
>
>> 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.
>
> The mirror was supposed to stand near the clock at point B, while the
> observer at A sends out a beam of light at some known point in time.
>
> So, the observer at B (also named 'B') watches his mirror and tries to
> catch that moment, when a signal from A arrives, looks immediatly at his
> watch and tries to remember, where the hands were.
>
> But what Einstein didn't write was also important:
>
> he had to write down the read out of his clock and mail it to A.
> >
> Ok, actually that method was the other way round:
>
> A reads out his clock at the start of the ray, writes that value down
>
> next A reads the own clock, once the ray returns and writes that value
> down.
>
> Then this paper is sent as a letter (by US-postal service or similar) to
> the remote station (the Moon for instance).
>
> There the observer at B receives the letter, calculates the delay, adds
> that delay to the start time and turns the own clock to the result.
Why could Einstein write:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB − tA = t′A − tB" ?
Was it because:
1. A human observer at A had, by observing the hands of his clock,
measured that the clock showed tA when the ray was sent,
and that the clock showed t'A when he saw the reflected ray.
And a human observer at B had, by observing the hands of his clock,
measured that his clock showed tB when he saw the ray from A.
And when the measurements were done, the human observer at A
sent tA and t'A to the human observer at B who could calculate
if (tB − tA) = (t′A − tB) = d/c, in which case the two clocks
were synchronous.
2. Einstein demonstrated that if tA, t'A and tB were measured
with infinite precision, and the transit time is exactly d/c by
definition, then it logically follows that if (tB−tA) = (t′A−tB)
then tB = (tA + d/c) and t′A = (tB + d/c) which means that both
clocks simultaneously show the same.
Of course you know that none of the measurements described in
1. were made.
Einstein statement:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB − tA = t′A − tB"
is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.
It is not a result of real measurements.
You can see this explained in better detail below:
(Why did you snip it? Didn't you understand it?)
-----------------------------
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."
Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary
relative to each other.
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 desks 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.
This means:
TB = (TA + d/c)
When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously
shows (TA + d/c), which is the same.
t'A = (tB + d/c)
When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously
shows (tB + d/c), which is 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.
Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically
consistent.
This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's
predictions are in accordance with measurements.
Only real experiments can do that.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-03 23:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186b173d5363bb08$727406$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666445 |
On 10/3/2025 8:12 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> The discrepancy to the real world and the real signal by light or >> radio waves could be put in 'by hand' and by calculating the delay of >> light to travgel between two points and adding the result to the >> timing signals. > > > This is irrelevant to Einstein's definition of simultaneity- Or rather - the idiot's definition of simultaneity is irrelevant to the real world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-03 21:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p0dnmW0dL8ykZwcMZ7onqOIrfaM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666445 |
Le 03/10/2025 à 20:10, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : > Den 03.10.2025 10:18, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Donnerstag000002, 02.10.2025 um 14:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> >>> Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity, >>> it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks >>> synchronous. >> >> >> No, because Einstein wrote about a method, which included clocks. >> >> But clocks are technical devices and are subject to human interactions. >> >> Time in contrast is not supposed to be affected by humans or clocks. >> >> So, Einstein's definition does not define time, but describes a >> technical method, which ultimatively synchronizes remote clocks. >> >> (And as an enignieer I know a few things about technical procedures.) >> >> If Einstein actually wanted to define simultineity he should have use a >> hypothetical signal, which connects without delay. >> >> That such a signal does not exist in reality does not hinder to define >> it and use it in a definition. >> >> The discrepancy to the real world and the real signal by light or radio >> waves could be put in 'by hand' and by calculating the delay of light to >> travgel between two points and adding the result to the timing signals. > > > This is irrelevant to Einstein's definition of simultaneity- > > > We are talking about: § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > > It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in §1 of his paper > defines simultaneity, and does not explain how to synchronise > asynchronous clocks. > > >> >>> Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous, >>> is a thought experiment. >> >> Really? Could he do that? >> >>> 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. >>> >> Well, yes. >> >> This is similar to a proof in mathematics. >> >>> 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. >> >> The mirror was supposed to stand near the clock at point B, while the >> observer at A sends out a beam of light at some known point in time. >> >> So, the observer at B (also named 'B') watches his mirror and tries to >> catch that moment, when a signal from A arrives, looks immediatly at his >> watch and tries to remember, where the hands were. >> >> But what Einstein didn't write was also important: >> >> he had to write down the read out of his clock and mail it to A. >> > >> Ok, actually that method was the other way round: >> >> A reads out his clock at the start of the ray, writes that value down >> >> next A reads the own clock, once the ray returns and writes that value >> down. >> >> Then this paper is sent as a letter (by US-postal service or similar) to >> the remote station (the Moon for instance). >> >> There the observer at B receives the letter, calculates the delay, adds >> that delay to the start time and turns the own clock to the result. > > Why could Einstein write: > "In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if > tB − tA = t′A − tB" ? > > Was it because: > > 1. A human observer at A had, by observing the hands of his clock, > measured that the clock showed tA when the ray was sent, > and that the clock showed t'A when he saw the reflected ray. > And a human observer at B had, by observing the hands of his clock, > measured that his clock showed tB when he saw the ray from A. > And when the measurements were done, the human observer at A > sent tA and t'A to the human observer at B who could calculate > if (tB − tA) = (t′A − tB) = d/c, in which case the two clocks > were synchronous. > > 2. Einstein demonstrated that if tA, t'A and tB were measured > with infinite precision, and the transit time is exactly d/c by > definition, then it logically follows that if (tB−tA) = (t′A−tB) > then tB = (tA + d/c) and t′A = (tB + d/c) which means that both > clocks simultaneously show the same. > > Of course you know that none of the measurements described in > 1. were made. > > Einstein statement: > "In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if > tB − tA = t′A − tB" > is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR > and that the speed of light is isotropic. > > It is not a result of real measurements. > > You can see this explained in better detail below: > (Why did you snip it? Didn't you understand it?) > > ----------------------------- > > 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." > > Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary > relative to each other. > > 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 desks 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. > > This means: > > TB = (TA + d/c) > When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously > shows (TA + d/c), which is the same. > > t'A = (tB + d/c) > When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously > shows (tB + d/c), which is 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. > > Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically > consistent. > > This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's > predictions are in accordance with measurements. > Only real experiments can do that. The theory of relativity taught by people today is particularly stupid and arrogant. I'm not saying it's stupid; I'm saying that taught as it is, it's stupid. What's both terrible and wonderful about human history is that it doesn't even require an experiment to prove it (which is what Alain Aspect does, if we understand what he's doing). But we can demonstrate this very easily by considering a Langevin traveler in apparent speeds and placing ourselves at the level of a stargazer. It is absolutely clear and obvious that in the most classic example, its proper return time, for example, will be 9 years. We then consider the idea that for nine years, he sees the Earth approaching him at a speed of 4 c through his telescope (no one has ever been able to contradict him, it's so obvious). SO the Earth moves 36 ly during this time. This is incredibly logical. Everything else is just misunderstanding and human madness tinged with incredible arrogance towards those who say simple and verifiable things. This means that everything the good Dr. Hachel has been saying for 40 years about the geometry of space-time is true. I repeat, the rest is not a problem of science, it's a problem of generalized human arrogance. "There is absolutely no way this man can rule over us." The Jewish priests hated Jesus because he surpassed them. Always, always, always, the same problem recurs. "No one has ever spoken like this man, who can prove he's teaching nonsense?" The phenomenon recurs again. As soon as you make things clear and obvious, you've reached the establishment. It's as simple as that, and a seven-year-old can understand it. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-03 22:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Wf5gw3fCUVMfJ36gpgdWJN7HoQY@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666447 |
Le 03/10/2025 à 23:59, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 03/10/2025 à 20:10, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 03.10.2025 10:18, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Donnerstag000002, 02.10.2025 um 14:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> >>>> Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity, >>>> it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks >>>> synchronous. >>> >>> >>> No, because Einstein wrote about a method, which included clocks. >>> >>> But clocks are technical devices and are subject to human interactions. >>> >>> Time in contrast is not supposed to be affected by humans or clocks. >>> >>> So, Einstein's definition does not define time, but describes a >>> technical method, which ultimatively synchronizes remote clocks. >>> >>> (And as an enignieer I know a few things about technical procedures.) >>> >>> If Einstein actually wanted to define simultineity he should have use a >>> hypothetical signal, which connects without delay. >>> >>> That such a signal does not exist in reality does not hinder to define >>> it and use it in a definition. >>> >>> The discrepancy to the real world and the real signal by light or radio >>> waves could be put in 'by hand' and by calculating the delay of light to >>> travgel between two points and adding the result to the timing signals. >> >> >> This is irrelevant to Einstein's definition of simultaneity- >> >> >> We are talking about: § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >> >> It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in §1 of his paper >> defines simultaneity, and does not explain how to synchronise >> asynchronous clocks. >> >> >>> >>>> Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous, >>>> is a thought experiment. >>> >>> Really? Could he do that? >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> Well, yes. >>> >>> This is similar to a proof in mathematics. >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> The mirror was supposed to stand near the clock at point B, while the >>> observer at A sends out a beam of light at some known point in time. >>> >>> So, the observer at B (also named 'B') watches his mirror and tries to >>> catch that moment, when a signal from A arrives, looks immediatly at his >>> watch and tries to remember, where the hands were. >>> >>> But what Einstein didn't write was also important: >>> >>> he had to write down the read out of his clock and mail it to A. >>> > >>> Ok, actually that method was the other way round: >>> >>> A reads out his clock at the start of the ray, writes that value down >>> >>> next A reads the own clock, once the ray returns and writes that value >>> down. >>> >>> Then this paper is sent as a letter (by US-postal service or similar) to >>> the remote station (the Moon for instance). >>> >>> There the observer at B receives the letter, calculates the delay, adds >>> that delay to the start time and turns the own clock to the result. >> >> Why could Einstein write: >> "In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if >> tB − tA = t′A − tB" ? >> >> Was it because: >> >> 1. A human observer at A had, by observing the hands of his clock, >> measured that the clock showed tA when the ray was sent, >> and that the clock showed t'A when he saw the reflected ray. >> And a human observer at B had, by observing the hands of his clock, >> measured that his clock showed tB when he saw the ray from A. >> And when the measurements were done, the human observer at A >> sent tA and t'A to the human observer at B who could calculate >> if (tB − tA) = (t′A − tB) = d/c, in which case the two clocks >> were synchronous. >> >> 2. Einstein demonstrated that if tA, t'A and tB were measured >> with infinite precision, and the transit time is exactly d/c by >> definition, then it logically follows that if (tB−tA) = (t′A−tB) >> then tB = (tA + d/c) and t′A = (tB + d/c) which means that both >> clocks simultaneously show the same. >> >> Of course you know that none of the measurements described in >> 1. were made. >> >> Einstein statement: >> "In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if >> tB − tA = t′A − tB" >> is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR >> and that the speed of light is isotropic. >> >> It is not a result of real measurements. >> >> You can see this explained in better detail below: >> (Why did you snip it? Didn't you understand it?) >> >> ----------------------------- >> >> 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." >> >> Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary >> relative to each other. >> >> 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 desks 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. >> >> This means: >> >> TB = (TA + d/c) >> When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously >> shows (TA + d/c), which is the same. >> >> t'A = (tB + d/c) >> When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously >> shows (tB + d/c), which is 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. >> >> Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically >> consistent. >> >> This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's >> predictions are in accordance with measurements. >> Only real experiments can do that. > > The theory of relativity taught by people today is particularly stupid and > arrogant. > I'm not saying it's stupid; I'm saying that taught as it is, it's stupid. > What's both terrible and wonderful about human history is that it doesn't even > require an experiment to prove it (which is what Alain Aspect does, if we > understand what he's doing). > > But we can demonstrate this very easily by considering a Langevin traveler in > apparent speeds and placing ourselves at the level of a stargazer. > > It is absolutely clear and obvious that in the most classic example, its proper > return time, for example, will be 9 years. > > We then consider the idea that for nine years, he sees the Earth approaching him > at a speed of 4 c through his telescope (no one has ever been able to contradict > him, it's so obvious). > > SO the Earth moves 36 ly during this time. > > This is incredibly logical. > > Everything else is just misunderstanding and human madness tinged with > incredible arrogance towards those who say simple and verifiable things. > > This means that everything the good Dr. Hachel has been saying for 40 years > about the geometry of space-time is true. > > I repeat, the rest is not a problem of science, it's a problem of generalized > human arrogance. > > "There is absolutely no way this man can rule over us." > > The Jewish priests hated Jesus because he surpassed them. > > Always, always, always, the same problem recurs. > > "No one has ever spoken like this man, who can prove he's teaching nonsense?" > > The phenomenon recurs again. > > As soon as you make things clear and obvious, > you've reached the establishment. > > It's as simple as that, and a seven-year-old can understand it. > > R.H. Delusional, dementia, lies and confusions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 07:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186b335db1e3aa22$221810$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666448 |
On 10/4/2025 12:13 AM, Python wrote: > Le 03/10/2025 à 23:59, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> Le 03/10/2025 à 20:10, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : >>> Den 03.10.2025 10:18, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Donnerstag000002, 02.10.2025 um 14:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> >>>>> Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity, >>>>> it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks >>>>> synchronous. >>>> >>>> >>>> No, because Einstein wrote about a method, which included clocks. >>>> >>>> But clocks are technical devices and are subject to human interactions. >>>> >>>> Time in contrast is not supposed to be affected by humans or clocks. >>>> >>>> So, Einstein's definition does not define time, but describes a >>>> technical method, which ultimatively synchronizes remote clocks. >>>> >>>> (And as an enignieer I know a few things about technical procedures.) >>>> >>>> If Einstein actually wanted to define simultineity he should have >>>> use a hypothetical signal, which connects without delay. >>>> >>>> That such a signal does not exist in reality does not hinder to >>>> define it and use it in a definition. >>>> >>>> The discrepancy to the real world and the real signal by light or >>>> radio waves could be put in 'by hand' and by calculating the delay >>>> of light to travgel between two points and adding the result to the >>>> timing signals. >>> >>> >>> This is irrelevant to Einstein's definition of simultaneity- >>> >>> >>> We are talking about: § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >>> >>> It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in §1 of his paper >>> defines simultaneity, and does not explain how to synchronise >>> asynchronous clocks. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous, >>>>> is a thought experiment. >>>> >>>> Really? Could he do that? >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> Well, yes. >>>> >>>> This is similar to a proof in mathematics. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> The mirror was supposed to stand near the clock at point B, while >>>> the observer at A sends out a beam of light at some known point in >>>> time. >>>> >>>> So, the observer at B (also named 'B') watches his mirror and tries >>>> to catch that moment, when a signal from A arrives, looks immediatly >>>> at his watch and tries to remember, where the hands were. >>>> >>>> But what Einstein didn't write was also important: >>>> >>>> he had to write down the read out of his clock and mail it to A. >>>> > >>>> Ok, actually that method was the other way round: >>>> >>>> A reads out his clock at the start of the ray, writes that value down >>>> >>>> next A reads the own clock, once the ray returns and writes that >>>> value down. >>>> >>>> Then this paper is sent as a letter (by US-postal service or >>>> similar) to the remote station (the Moon for instance). >>>> >>>> There the observer at B receives the letter, calculates the delay, >>>> adds that delay to the start time and turns the own clock to the >>>> result. >>> >>> Why could Einstein write: >>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if >>> tB − tA = t′A − tB" ? >>> >>> Was it because: >>> >>> 1. A human observer at A had, by observing the hands of his clock, >>> measured that the clock showed tA when the ray was sent, >>> and that the clock showed t'A when he saw the reflected ray. >>> And a human observer at B had, by observing the hands of his clock, >>> measured that his clock showed tB when he saw the ray from A. >>> And when the measurements were done, the human observer at A >>> sent tA and t'A to the human observer at B who could calculate >>> if (tB − tA) = (t′A − tB) = d/c, in which case the two clocks >>> were synchronous. >>> >>> 2. Einstein demonstrated that if tA, t'A and tB were measured >>> with infinite precision, and the transit time is exactly d/c by >>> definition, then it logically follows that if (tB−tA) = (t′A−tB) >>> then tB = (tA + d/c) and t′A = (tB + d/c) which means that both >>> clocks simultaneously show the same. >>> >>> Of course you know that none of the measurements described in >>> 1. were made. >>> >>> Einstein statement: >>> "In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if >>> tB − tA = t′A − tB" >>> is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR >>> and that the speed of light is isotropic. >>> >>> It is not a result of real measurements. >>> >>> You can see this explained in better detail below: >>> (Why did you snip it? Didn't you understand it?) >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> >>> 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." >>> >>> Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary >>> relative to each other. >>> >>> 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 desks 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. >>> >>> This means: >>> >>> TB = (TA + d/c) >>> When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously >>> shows (TA + d/c), which is the same. >>> >>> t'A = (tB + d/c) >>> When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously >>> shows (tB + d/c), which is 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. >>> >>> Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically >>> consistent. >>> >>> This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's >>> predictions are in accordance with measurements. >>> Only real experiments can do that. >> >> The theory of relativity taught by people today is particularly stupid >> and arrogant. >> I'm not saying it's stupid; I'm saying that taught as it is, it's stupid. >> What's both terrible and wonderful about human history is that it >> doesn't even require an experiment to prove it (which is what Alain >> Aspect does, if we understand what he's doing). >> >> But we can demonstrate this very easily by considering a Langevin >> traveler in apparent speeds and placing ourselves at the level of a >> stargazer. >> >> It is absolutely clear and obvious that in the most classic example, >> its proper return time, for example, will be 9 years. >> >> We then consider the idea that for nine years, he sees the Earth >> approaching him at a speed of 4 c through his telescope (no one has >> ever been able to contradict him, it's so obvious). >> >> SO the Earth moves 36 ly during this time. >> >> This is incredibly logical. >> >> Everything else is just misunderstanding and human madness tinged with >> incredible arrogance towards those who say simple and verifiable things. >> >> This means that everything the good Dr. Hachel has been saying for 40 >> years about the geometry of space-time is true. >> >> I repeat, the rest is not a problem of science, it's a problem of >> generalized human arrogance. >> >> "There is absolutely no way this man can rule over us." >> >> The Jewish priests hated Jesus because he surpassed them. >> >> Always, always, always, the same problem recurs. >> >> "No one has ever spoken like this man, who can prove he's teaching >> nonsense?" >> >> The phenomenon recurs again. >> >> As soon as you make things clear and obvious, >> you've reached the establishment. >> >> It's as simple as that, and a seven-year-old can understand it. >> >> R.H. > > Delusional, dementia, lies and confusions. Typical for both physicists and wannabe physicists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 09:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkbvvgF3974U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666445 |
Am Freitag000003, 03.10.2025 um 20:12 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 03.10.2025 10:18, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Donnerstag000002, 02.10.2025 um 14:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> >>> Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity, >>> it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks >>> synchronous. >> >> >> No, because Einstein wrote about a method, which included clocks. >> >> But clocks are technical devices and are subject to human interactions. >> >> Time in contrast is not supposed to be affected by humans or clocks. >> >> So, Einstein's definition does not define time, but describes a >> technical method, which ultimatively synchronizes remote clocks. >> >> (And as an enignieer I know a few things about technical procedures.) >> >> If Einstein actually wanted to define simultineity he should have use >> a hypothetical signal, which connects without delay. >> >> That such a signal does not exist in reality does not hinder to define >> it and use it in a definition. >> >> The discrepancy to the real world and the real signal by light or >> radio waves could be put in 'by hand' and by calculating the delay of >> light to travgel between two points and adding the result to the >> timing signals. > > > This is irrelevant to Einstein's definition of simultaneity- > > > We are talking about: § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > > It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in §1 of his paper > defines simultaneity, and does not explain how to synchronise > asynchronous clocks. > Einstein wrote somehow 'time is what clocks say'. This would include clock setting into synchronization. Actually Einstein meant clocks and was talking about clock synchronization, since it makes no sense to try to adjust some parts of nature. >> >>> Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous, >>> is a thought experiment. >> >> Really? Could he do that? >> >>> 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. >>> >> Well, yes. >> >> This is similar to a proof in mathematics. >> >>> 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. >> >> The mirror was supposed to stand near the clock at point B, while the >> observer at A sends out a beam of light at some known point in time. >> >> So, the observer at B (also named 'B') watches his mirror and tries to >> catch that moment, when a signal from A arrives, looks immediatly at >> his watch and tries to remember, where the hands were. >> >> But what Einstein didn't write was also important: >> >> he had to write down the read out of his clock and mail it to A. >> > >> Ok, actually that method was the other way round: >> >> A reads out his clock at the start of the ray, writes that value down >> >> next A reads the own clock, once the ray returns and writes that value >> down. >> >> Then this paper is sent as a letter (by US-postal service or similar) >> to the remote station (the Moon for instance). >> >> There the observer at B receives the letter, calculates the delay, >> adds that delay to the start time and turns the own clock to the result. > > Why could Einstein write: > "In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if > tB − tA = t′A − tB" ? > > Was it because: > > 1. A human observer at A had, by observing the hands of his clock, > measured that the clock showed tA when the ray was sent, > and that the clock showed t'A when he saw the reflected ray. > And a human observer at B had, by observing the hands of his clock, > measured that his clock showed tB when he saw the ray from A. > And when the measurements were done, the human observer at A > sent tA and t'A to the human observer at B who could calculate > if (tB − tA) = (t′A − tB) = d/c, in which case the two clocks > were synchronous. Einstein had not mentioned this method. This method was Python's interpretation of Einstein's text. In fact no real method was presented by Einstein, which eventually could synchronizes remote clocks. That was, of course, the case, because Einstein wasn't talking about clocks but about time. But Einstein's method was wrong, because it could actually be used to set the remote clock to a time, which wasn't the local time of the remote location. So, we get synchronized clocks by Einstein's method (with Python's extensions), which unfortunately hasn't anything to do with time. > > 2. Einstein demonstrated that if tA, t'A and tB were measured > with infinite precision, and the transit time is exactly d/c by > definition, then it logically follows that if (tB−tA) = (t′A−tB) > then tB = (tA + d/c) and t′A = (tB + d/c) which means that both > clocks simultaneously show the same. > > Of course you know that none of the measurements described in > 1. were made. > > Einstein statement: > "In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if > tB − tA = t′A − tB" > is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR > and that the speed of light is isotropic. This was the hypothesis which Einstein tried to prove. Therefore it couldn't be used as prerequisite. > It is not a result of real measurements. > > You can see this explained in better detail below: > (Why did you snip it? Didn't you understand it?) > > ----------------------------- > > 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." > > Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary > relative to each other. > > 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. No, because you made an assumption, which now must be applied to other systems, too: > Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary > relative to each other. If you give it up and make A and/or B moving, then you get a problem. > That two clocks are synchronous means that they > simultaneously show the same. Sure, but is a 'circular definition', because 'synchronous' and 'simultaneous' are more or less the same thing. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web