Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #666351 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-28 11:19 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-10-02 10:31 +0000 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 36 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Universal anisochronism Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-28 11:19 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Harold Babosov <sava@ob.ru> - 2025-09-28 12:56 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-28 13:12 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-28 16:36 -0700
Re: Universal anisochronism "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 17:14 -0700
Re: Universal anisochronism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-28 10:23 -0700
Re: Universal anisochronism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Universal anisochronism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-29 16:11 -0700
Re: Universal anisochronism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-30 00:41 -0700
Re: Universal anisochronism Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-15 11:03 +0100
Re: Universal anisochronism Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-29 12:43 +0300
Re: Universal anisochronism Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-29 14:18 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-29 08:46 -0700
Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 15:52 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-29 19:19 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 21:35 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-30 16:02 +0300
Re: Universal anisochronism Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-30 13:37 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-01 13:22 +0300
Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 15:47 +0200
Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 14:00 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 16:10 +0200
Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 14:22 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 16:31 +0200
Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 16:50 +0200
Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 14:52 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 17:10 +0200
Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 15:18 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-30 17:47 +0200
Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 16:24 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Oleander Sadowski <nadre@ilasa.pl> - 2025-09-30 22:02 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 13:29 +0000
Re: Universal anisochronism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-29 15:50 +0200
Re: Universal anisochronism Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-02 08:46 +0200
Re: Universal anisochronism Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-02 10:31 +0000
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 14:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0gSmN7ER8ZHId3UhLefaUkMkut0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666396 |
Le 30/09/2025 à 15:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >> >>> Le 29/09/2025 à 11:43, Mikko a écrit : >>>> On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>> >>>>> The problem of synchronization. >>>>> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different >>>>> positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>> >>>> Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and >>>> there is >>>> no significant gravity. >>>> >>>>> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered >>>>> independent entities. >>>> >>>> In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place, >>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real >>>> world moving them will desynchronize them. >>>> >>>>> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each >>>>> clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its >>>>> own frame of reference. >>>> >>>> By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame >>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then >>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are synchronous. >>>> >>>>> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A >>>>> and B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it >>>>> assumes the signal was received by the two other points, the two >>>>> events tA and tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" >>>>> they occurred, but it knows "that they were, by definition, >>>>> simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and MB are equal." >>>> >>>> That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the same >>>> speed. >>>> >>>>> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are >>>>> not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>> >>>> They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>> >>> What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of the >>> theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, but with >>> very little understanding of what we're actually talking about. >> >> Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after that >> the special relativity isn't much harder. > > And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent. Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 16:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186a14c6393a28c3$1212359$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666397 |
On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote: > Le 30/09/2025 à 15:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>> >>>> Le 29/09/2025 à 11:43, Mikko a écrit : >>>>> On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>> >>>>>> The problem of synchronization. >>>>>> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different >>>>>> positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and >>>>> there is >>>>> no significant gravity. >>>>> >>>>>> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered >>>>>> independent entities. >>>>> >>>>> In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place, >>>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real >>>>> world moving them will desynchronize them. >>>>> >>>>>> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each >>>>>> clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to >>>>>> its own frame of reference. >>>>> >>>>> By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame >>>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then >>>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>> synchronous. >>>>> >>>>>> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A >>>>>> and B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it >>>>>> assumes the signal was received by the two other points, the two >>>>>> events tA and tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know >>>>>> "when" they occurred, but it knows "that they were, by definition, >>>>>> simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and MB are equal." >>>>> >>>>> That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the >>>>> same >>>>> speed. >>>>> >>>>>> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events >>>>>> are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>> >>>>> They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>> >>>> What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of >>>> the theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, but >>>> with very little understanding of what we're actually talking about. >>> >>> Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after that >>> the special relativity isn't much harder. >> >> And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent. > > Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening. > slander noun [ C or U ] uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or the making of such a statement and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered relativistic doggie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FwjmmcptBq36OBYAL0m1H_ced-Y@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666398 |
Le 30/09/2025 à 16:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 30/09/2025 à 15:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>> >>>>> Le 29/09/2025 à 11:43, Mikko a écrit : >>>>>> On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem of synchronization. >>>>>>> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different >>>>>>> positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and >>>>>> there is >>>>>> no significant gravity. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered >>>>>>> independent entities. >>>>>> >>>>>> In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place, >>>>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real >>>>>> world moving them will desynchronize them. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each >>>>>>> clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to >>>>>>> its own frame of reference. >>>>>> >>>>>> By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame >>>>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then >>>>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>> synchronous. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A >>>>>>> and B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it >>>>>>> assumes the signal was received by the two other points, the two >>>>>>> events tA and tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know >>>>>>> "when" they occurred, but it knows "that they were, by definition, >>>>>>> simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and MB are equal." >>>>>> >>>>>> That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the >>>>>> same >>>>>> speed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events >>>>>>> are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>> >>>>>> They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>>> >>>>> What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of >>>>> the theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, but >>>>> with very little understanding of what we're actually talking about. >>>> >>>> Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after that >>>> the special relativity isn't much harder. >>> >>> And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent. >> >> Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening. >> > slander > noun [ C or U ] > uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ > a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or > the making of such a statement > > and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered > relativistic doggie. As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice evening.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 16:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186a15e99f64f754$295066$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666399 |
On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote: > Le 30/09/2025 à 16:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 30/09/2025 à 15:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>> >>>>>> Le 29/09/2025 à 11:43, Mikko a écrit : >>>>>>> On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and >>>>>>> there is >>>>>>> no significant gravity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered >>>>>>>> independent entities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same >>>>>>> place, >>>>>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the >>>>>>> real >>>>>>> world moving them will desynchronize them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each >>>>>>>> clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to >>>>>>>> its own frame of reference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only >>>>>>> frame >>>>>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate >>>>>>> then >>>>>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>> synchronous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points >>>>>>>> A and B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at >>>>>>>> which it assumes the signal was received by the two other >>>>>>>> points, the two events tA and tB would have been simultaneous. M >>>>>>>> doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it knows "that they were, >>>>>>>> by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and >>>>>>>> MB are equal." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have >>>>>>> the same >>>>>>> speed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events >>>>>>>> are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>>>> >>>>>> What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of >>>>>> the theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, >>>>>> but with very little understanding of what we're actually talking >>>>>> about. >>>>> >>>>> Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after >>>>> that >>>>> the special relativity isn't much harder. >>>> >>>> And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent. >>> >>> Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>> >> slander >> noun [ C or U ] >> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, >> or the making of such a statement >> >> and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered >> relativistic doggie. > > As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice evening. > As I said: slander noun [ C or U ] uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or the making of such a statement and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered relativistic doggie. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hbtouD1jkoQWje-dxe05setB8jw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666400 |
Le 30/09/2025 à 16:31, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 15:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 29/09/2025 à 11:43, Mikko a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>>> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and >>>>>>>> there is >>>>>>>> no significant gravity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered >>>>>>>>> independent entities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same >>>>>>>> place, >>>>>>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the >>>>>>>> real >>>>>>>> world moving them will desynchronize them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each >>>>>>>>> clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to >>>>>>>>> its own frame of reference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only >>>>>>>> frame >>>>>>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate >>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>>> synchronous. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points >>>>>>>>> A and B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at >>>>>>>>> which it assumes the signal was received by the two other >>>>>>>>> points, the two events tA and tB would have been simultaneous. M >>>>>>>>> doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it knows "that they were, >>>>>>>>> by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and >>>>>>>>> MB are equal." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have >>>>>>>> the same >>>>>>>> speed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events >>>>>>>>> are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of >>>>>>> the theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, >>>>>>> but with very little understanding of what we're actually talking >>>>>>> about. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after >>>>>> that >>>>>> the special relativity isn't much harder. >>>>> >>>>> And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent. >>>> >>>> Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>>> >>> slander >>> noun [ C or U ] >>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, >>> or the making of such a statement >>> >>> and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered >>> relativistic doggie. >> >> As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice evening. >> > > > As I said: > slander > noun [ C or U ] > uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ > a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, > or the making of such a statement There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 16:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186a16f646436a37$1724019$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666401 |
On 9/30/2025 4:39 PM, Python wrote: > Le 30/09/2025 à 16:31, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 15:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 29/09/2025 à 11:43, Mikko a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>>>> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame >>>>>>>>> and there is >>>>>>>>> no significant gravity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are >>>>>>>>>> considered independent entities. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same >>>>>>>>> place, >>>>>>>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In >>>>>>>>> the real >>>>>>>>> world moving them will desynchronize them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since >>>>>>>>>> each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, >>>>>>>>>> specific to its own frame of reference. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, >>>>>>>>> only frame >>>>>>>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time >>>>>>>>> coordinate then >>>>>>>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>>>> synchronous. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to >>>>>>>>>> points A and B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the >>>>>>>>>> time at which it assumes the signal was received by the two >>>>>>>>>> other points, the two events tA and tB would have been >>>>>>>>>> simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>>>>>>> knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, >>>>>>>>>> since the distances MA and MB are equal." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have >>>>>>>>> the same >>>>>>>>> speed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two >>>>>>>>>> events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle >>>>>>>> of the theory of relativity, without which we can still say >>>>>>>> things, but with very little understanding of what we're >>>>>>>> actually talking about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and >>>>>>> after that >>>>>>> the special relativity isn't much harder. >>>>>> >>>>>> And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent. >>>>> >>>>> Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>>>> >>>> slander >>>> noun [ C or U ] >>>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their >>>> reputation, or the making of such a statement >>>> >>>> and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered >>>> relativistic doggie. >>> >>> As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>> >> >> >> As I said: >> slander >> noun [ C or U ] >> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, >> or the making of such a statement > > There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej. Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many others are confirming that it, just like they're confirming other wild assertions of relativistic idiots. Right? > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 14:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e4LZPWLd0OU5BBcDZgOvpwdkrNw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666402 |
Le 30/09/2025 à 16:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/30/2025 4:39 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:31, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 15:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 29/09/2025 à 11:43, Mikko a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame >>>>>>>>>> and there is >>>>>>>>>> no significant gravity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are >>>>>>>>>>> considered independent entities. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same >>>>>>>>>> place, >>>>>>>>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In >>>>>>>>>> the real >>>>>>>>>> world moving them will desynchronize them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since >>>>>>>>>>> each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, >>>>>>>>>>> specific to its own frame of reference. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, >>>>>>>>>> only frame >>>>>>>>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time >>>>>>>>>> coordinate then >>>>>>>>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>>>>> synchronous. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to >>>>>>>>>>> points A and B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the >>>>>>>>>>> time at which it assumes the signal was received by the two >>>>>>>>>>> other points, the two events tA and tB would have been >>>>>>>>>>> simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>>>>>>>> knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, >>>>>>>>>>> since the distances MA and MB are equal." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have >>>>>>>>>> the same >>>>>>>>>> speed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two >>>>>>>>>>> events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle >>>>>>>>> of the theory of relativity, without which we can still say >>>>>>>>> things, but with very little understanding of what we're >>>>>>>>> actually talking about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and >>>>>>>> after that >>>>>>>> the special relativity isn't much harder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent. >>>>>> >>>>>> Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>>>>> >>>>> slander >>>>> noun [ C or U ] >>>>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>>>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their >>>>> reputation, or the making of such a statement >>>>> >>>>> and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered >>>>> relativistic doggie. >>>> >>>> As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>>> >>> >>> >>> As I said: >>> slander >>> noun [ C or U ] >>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, >>> or the making of such a statement >> >> There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej. > > Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many > others are confirming that it, just like they're > confirming other wild assertions of relativistic > idiots. Right? Nurses : orange alert ! orange alert ! orange alert !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 17:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186a1806dba194be$297278$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666403 |
On 9/30/2025 4:52 PM, Python wrote: > Le 30/09/2025 à 16:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/30/2025 4:39 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:31, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 15:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le 29/09/2025 à 11:43, Mikko a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame >>>>>>>>>>> and there is >>>>>>>>>>> no significant gravity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are >>>>>>>>>>>> considered independent entities. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the >>>>>>>>>>> same place, >>>>>>>>>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In >>>>>>>>>>> the real >>>>>>>>>>> world moving them will desynchronize them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since >>>>>>>>>>>> each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, >>>>>>>>>>>> specific to its own frame of reference. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, >>>>>>>>>>> only frame >>>>>>>>>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time >>>>>>>>>>> coordinate then >>>>>>>>>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>>>>>> synchronous. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to >>>>>>>>>>>> points A and B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the >>>>>>>>>>>> time at which it assumes the signal was received by the two >>>>>>>>>>>> other points, the two events tA and tB would have been >>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>>>>>>>>> knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, >>>>>>>>>>>> since the distances MA and MB are equal." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B >>>>>>>>>>> have the same >>>>>>>>>>> speed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two >>>>>>>>>>>> events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle >>>>>>>>>> of the theory of relativity, without which we can still say >>>>>>>>>> things, but with very little understanding of what we're >>>>>>>>>> actually talking about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and >>>>>>>>> after that >>>>>>>>> the special relativity isn't much harder. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>>>>>> >>>>>> slander >>>>>> noun [ C or U ] >>>>>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>>>>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their >>>>>> reputation, or the making of such a statement >>>>>> >>>>>> and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered >>>>>> relativistic doggie. >>>>> >>>>> As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice >>>>> evening. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As I said: >>>> slander >>>> noun [ C or U ] >>>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, >>>> or the making of such a statement >>> >>> There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej. >> >> Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many >> others are confirming that it, just like they're >> confirming other wild assertions of relativistic >> idiots. Right? > > Nurses : orange alert ! orange alert ! orange alert ! slander noun [ C or U ] uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or the making of such a statement and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered relativistic doggie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Im-If9O8DIsVZnM-8aX0Hsu24U4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666404 |
Le 30/09/2025 à 17:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/30/2025 4:52 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/30/2025 4:39 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:31, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 15:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 29/09/2025 à 11:43, Mikko a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame >>>>>>>>>>>> and there is >>>>>>>>>>>> no significant gravity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are >>>>>>>>>>>>> considered independent entities. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the >>>>>>>>>>>> same place, >>>>>>>>>>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In >>>>>>>>>>>> the real >>>>>>>>>>>> world moving them will desynchronize them. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since >>>>>>>>>>>>> each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, >>>>>>>>>>>>> specific to its own frame of reference. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, >>>>>>>>>>>> only frame >>>>>>>>>>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time >>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate then >>>>>>>>>>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>>>>>>> synchronous. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to >>>>>>>>>>>>> points A and B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> time at which it assumes the signal was received by the two >>>>>>>>>>>>> other points, the two events tA and tB would have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>>>>>>>>>> knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, >>>>>>>>>>>>> since the distances MA and MB are equal." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B >>>>>>>>>>>> have the same >>>>>>>>>>>> speed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two >>>>>>>>>>>>> events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle >>>>>>>>>>> of the theory of relativity, without which we can still say >>>>>>>>>>> things, but with very little understanding of what we're >>>>>>>>>>> actually talking about. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and >>>>>>>>>> after that >>>>>>>>>> the special relativity isn't much harder. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> slander >>>>>>> noun [ C or U ] >>>>>>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>>>>>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their >>>>>>> reputation, or the making of such a statement >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered >>>>>>> relativistic doggie. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice >>>>>> evening. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As I said: >>>>> slander >>>>> noun [ C or U ] >>>>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>>>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, >>>>> or the making of such a statement >>>> >>>> There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej. >>> >>> Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many >>> others are confirming that it, just like they're >>> confirming other wild assertions of relativistic >>> idiots. Right? >> >> Nurses : orange alert ! orange alert ! orange alert ! > > slander > noun [ C or U ] > uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ > a false spoken statement about someone that damages their > reputation, or the making of such a statement > > and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered > relativistic doggie. Nurses: back to green, patient is stabilized.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 17:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186a1a0ef2b96b06$489482$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666405 |
On 9/30/2025 5:18 PM, Python wrote: > Le 30/09/2025 à 17:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/30/2025 4:52 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/30/2025 4:39 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:31, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 15:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 29/09/2025 à 11:43, Mikko a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that >>>>>>>>>>>>> frame and there is >>>>>>>>>>>>> no significant gravity. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered independent entities. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same place, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the real >>>>>>>>>>>>> world moving them will desynchronize them. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since >>>>>>>>>>>>>> each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific to its own frame of reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, >>>>>>>>>>>>> only frame >>>>>>>>>>>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time >>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate then >>>>>>>>>>>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronous. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> points A and B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time at which it assumes the signal was received by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> two other points, the two events tA and tB would have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since the distances MA and MB are equal." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B >>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>> speed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two >>>>>>>>>>>>>> events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What we really need to understand is the fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>> principle of the theory of relativity, without which we can >>>>>>>>>>>> still say things, but with very little understanding of what >>>>>>>>>>>> we're actually talking about. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and >>>>>>>>>>> after that >>>>>>>>>>> the special relativity isn't much harder. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice >>>>>>>>> evening. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> slander >>>>>>>> noun [ C or U ] >>>>>>>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>>>>>>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their >>>>>>>> reputation, or the making of such a statement >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered >>>>>>>> relativistic doggie. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice >>>>>>> evening. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said: >>>>>> slander >>>>>> noun [ C or U ] >>>>>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>>>>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, >>>>>> or the making of such a statement >>>>> >>>>> There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej. >>>> >>>> Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many >>>> others are confirming that it, just like they're >>>> confirming other wild assertions of relativistic >>>> idiots. Right? >>> >>> Nurses : orange alert ! orange alert ! orange alert ! >> >> slander >> noun [ C or U ] >> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their >> reputation, or the making of such a statement >> >> and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered >> relativistic doggie. > > Nurses: back to green, patient is stabilized. slander noun [ C or U ] uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or the making of such a statement and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered relativistic doggie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 16:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HFADEGo_Y62kaabQ3uD7qGIMd-U@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666406 |
Le 30/09/2025 à 17:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/30/2025 5:18 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 30/09/2025 à 17:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/30/2025 4:52 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:50, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/30/2025 4:39 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:31, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 16:10, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 30/09/2025 à 15:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 29/09/2025 à 11:43, Mikko a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame and there is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no significant gravity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered independent entities. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same place, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the real >>>>>>>>>>>>>> world moving them will desynchronize them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific to its own frame of reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only frame >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points A and B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time at which it assumes the signal was received by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two other points, the two events tA and tB would have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since the distances MA and MB are equal." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What we really need to understand is the fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>> principle of the theory of relativity, without which we can >>>>>>>>>>>>> still say things, but with very little understanding of what >>>>>>>>>>>>> we're actually talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and >>>>>>>>>>>> after that >>>>>>>>>>>> the special relativity isn't much harder. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice >>>>>>>>>> evening. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> slander >>>>>>>>> noun [ C or U ] >>>>>>>>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>>>>>>>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their >>>>>>>>> reputation, or the making of such a statement >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered >>>>>>>>> relativistic doggie. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice >>>>>>>> evening. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I said: >>>>>>> slander >>>>>>> noun [ C or U ] >>>>>>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>>>>>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, >>>>>>> or the making of such a statement >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej. >>>>> >>>>> Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many >>>>> others are confirming that it, just like they're >>>>> confirming other wild assertions of relativistic >>>>> idiots. Right? >>>> >>>> Nurses : orange alert ! orange alert ! orange alert ! >>> >>> slander >>> noun [ C or U ] >>> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >>> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their >>> reputation, or the making of such a statement >>> >>> and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered >>> relativistic doggie. >> >> Nurses: back to green, patient is stabilized. > > slander > noun [ C or U ] > uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ > a false spoken statement about someone that damages their > reputation, or the making of such a statement > > and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered > relativistic doggie. Nurses: I confirm. Patient is stabilized.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oleander Sadowski <nadre@ilasa.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-30 22:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10bhk1l$3vgae$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666402 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej. > > Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many others are confirming that > it, just like they're confirming other wild assertions of relativistic > idiots. Right? you are a retired mechanic engineer. Not electric.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-29 13:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lFSFlPT2W0OI66gAcJTJc2um5LI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666351 |
Le 28/09/2025 à 13:19, Richard Hachel a écrit : > The problem of synchronization. > Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different positions > within an inertial frame of reference? We have to start with what synchronization means and how it is useful for in practice. Go deep to the ground, what you NEVER do. You're paying yourself with words. You can label with a time value any event you want, in any way you want, but not all labeling systems are useful. The starting point is to have a clock colocated with the events you are recording (ANY measurement in physics is about a specific local event, at the end of the day, even if the measurement device is remote you end up receiving a signal at your place from this device). Attributing to a remote event a time label is basically considering that the measurement device we've put there is also a clock. A clock we've build at our place with the same technical process as the one we kept. But how to set it up ? This is what synchronization means. This is partly conventional, but there are properties of this setup we tend to prefer, because without these properties they would be useless : - A is synch with itself - if A is synch with B then B is synch with A - if A is synch with B and B is synch with C then A is synch with C Einstein-Poincaré's method insure (this is a mathematical FACT) this under the condition of invariance of light speed in Galilean frames of references. Another constraint we may want to impose is to makes Newton's laws of motion correct. These laws are about speed, they involve positions at remote places and times when an object was there. Again, so far, Einstein-Poincaré's method is experimentally in line with experiments. > In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered independent > entities. > In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock has its > own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own frame of reference. This is a paralogism. Newtonian absolute time => Possibility of synchronization (trivial) but the fact that Newtonian absolute time does not exist does not imply that synchronization is impossible.Synchronizing clocks is a A => B A false You cannot conclude anything about the truth of B. What follows "since" : "each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own frame of reference" is an unjustified statement. > Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and B. It is > clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes the signal was > received by the two other points, the two events tA and tB would have been > simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it knows "that they were, > by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and MB are equal." > However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are not > simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. For A, event tB occurs in the future of > tA. And conversely, for B, event tA occurs in the future of tB. tB, tA are not events, they are value. You've been doing this ridiculous confusion repeatedly. > In short, the concept of a universal, absolute present, the foundation of > Newtonian physics, does not exist. In the sense that different frames of reference cannot agree on simultaneity of events yes, but within single frame of reference (i.e. a network of clocks) it does exists. It is done routinely for train stations accros Europe. > This is the concept of universal anisochronism, and this is the fundamental > principle of the theory of relativity. This is a word you made up that describes something which is wrong. This is completely unrelated to the theory of Relativity which is a sound theory, while your bunch of nonsense is not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-29 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1869c51bfccf48ba$1191844$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666376 |
On 9/29/2025 3:29 PM, Python wrote: > Le 28/09/2025 à 13:19, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> The problem of synchronization. >> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different >> positions within an inertial frame of reference? > > We have to start with what synchronization means The problem is - you have no clue. For you "synchronization" is what your idiot guru defined it is, and that is like defining sheep as a "shark".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-02 08:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk6l63F68rgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666351 |
Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 13:19 schrieb Richard Hachel: > The problem of synchronization. > Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different > positions within an inertial frame of reference? > In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered > independent entities. > In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock > has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own frame > of reference. > Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and B. > It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes the > signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and tB > would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but > it knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the > distances MA and MB are equal." > However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are not > simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. For A, event tB occurs in the > future of tA. And conversely, for B, event tA occurs in the future of tB. > In short, the concept of a universal, absolute present, the foundation > of Newtonian physics, does not exist. > This is the concept of universal anisochronism, and this is the > fundamental principle of the theory of relativity. > R.H. You need to distinguish between simultaneity and apparent simultaneity. This is necessary, because light (or any other signal with e.g. radio waves) has finite velocity and that will cause some degree of delay. But that delay is caused by the finite speed of light and not because the remote clock is late. This would force us to correct the received signal by that delay, because otherwise we would ascribe to the remote clock, what the remote clock does not say. This could be done if we separate simultaneity from the impression and add the delay 'by hand'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-02 10:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e-KD3yR5ZnKTG3iwLKkWMj6Phtc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666426 |
Le 02/10/2025 à 08:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 13:19 schrieb Richard Hachel: >> The problem of synchronization. >> Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different >> positions within an inertial frame of reference? >> In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered >> independent entities. >> In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock >> has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own frame >> of reference. >> Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and B. >> It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes the >> signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and tB >> would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but >> it knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the >> distances MA and MB are equal." >> However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are not >> simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. For A, event tB occurs in the >> future of tA. And conversely, for B, event tA occurs in the future of tB. >> In short, the concept of a universal, absolute present, the foundation >> of Newtonian physics, does not exist. >> This is the concept of universal anisochronism, and this is the >> fundamental principle of the theory of relativity. >> R.H. > > > You need to distinguish between simultaneity and apparent simultaneity. > > This is necessary, because light (or any other signal with e.g. radio > waves) has finite velocity and that will cause some degree of delay. > > But that delay is caused by the finite speed of light and not because > the remote clock is late. > > This would force us to correct the received signal by that delay, > because otherwise we would ascribe to the remote clock, what the remote > clock does not say. > > This could be done if we separate simultaneity from the impression and > add the delay 'by hand'. > > > TH Encore une réponse triste à pleurer. C'est vraiment dommage de voir tant de gens ne faire aucun effort. C'est dramatique. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web