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 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-06 06:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186bce31c4f3c71c$924132$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666508 |
On 10/5/2025 11:37 PM, Python wrote: > Le 05/10/2025 à 23:03, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> Le 05/10/2025 à 22:50, Python a écrit : >>> Le 05/10/2025 à 02:26, Richard Hachel a écrit : >>>> Le 04/10/2025 à 23:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>>> Physics never understood what a clock is >>>>> and was always mistaking it with a >>>>> stopwatch. >>>> >>>> Absolutely! >>>> >>>> ABSOLUTELY !!! >>>> Physics never understood what a clock is >>>> and was always mistaking it with a >>>> stopwatch. >>>> >>>> In french : "Les physiciens n'ont jamais compris ce que c'était >>>> qu'une horloge en physique, ils ont toujours confondu ça avec un >>>> chronomètre". >>> ... >>>> En terme tout aussi clair, les physiciens confondent anisochronie >>>> et relativité des chronotropies internes. >>> >>> There is absolutely NO connection between these two statements, the >>> one from Wozniak and the one from you !!! Except being both asinine >>> (the one from Wozniak being plain wrong, and yours being meaningless >>> as none of your words has a proper definition). >>> >>> Are you that stupid or again acting as a troll and an idiot crackpot? >>> Both? >> >> Je ne connais pas la théorie de Maciej, je signale simplement que sa >> phrase : " Physics never understood what a clock is >> and was always mistaking it with a >> stopwatch." >> est tout à fait justifiée. > > Maciej said that clocks are not stopwatches and then that they are > stopwatches. Python is lying and slandering, as expected from a relativistic piece of shit. > Physicists are not confused as you both are. The only thing we can > actually measure about time is duration. Sure. Too bad that it's nothing important...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-06 14:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5MAfBWJ7rJDRLlUhH2q-CRzd6Tg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666511 |
Le 06/10/2025 à 06:59, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 10/5/2025 11:37 PM, Python wrote: > Python is lying and slandering Kłamał i oczerniał przez trzydzieści lat. Nie można mu odebrać wytrwałości w jego ideach. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 09:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkjujsFdp7iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666466 |
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 23:13 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 04.10.2025 09:21, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> 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'. >> >> Indeed. >> In physics 'time' must be measurable to have any meaning. >> The instrument used for measuring 'time' is called a 'clock'. > > Physics never understood what a clock is > and was always mistaking it with a > stopwatch. > The word 'clock' wasn't used for stopwatches that often. It was used mainly for huge mechanical devices, that often had a pendulum and played a little tune every hour. Later ships used smaller devices called 'chronometer'. Even later came little disk shaped things, which you could put into your pocket. All of these are pretty old scholl, since today everybody uses a smartphone for everything. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 09:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186c26988f5a11c6$3730018$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666532 |
On 10/7/2025 9:47 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 23:13 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: >> On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 04.10.2025 09:21, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> 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'. >>> >>> Indeed. >>> In physics 'time' must be measurable to have any meaning. >>> The instrument used for measuring 'time' is called a 'clock'. >> >> Physics never understood what a clock is >> and was always mistaking it with a >> stopwatch. >> > > The word 'clock' wasn't used for stopwatches that often. > > It was used mainly for huge mechanical devices, that often had a > pendulum and played a little tune every hour. > > Later ships used smaller devices called 'chronometer'. > > Even later came little disk shaped things, which you could put into your > pocket. > > All of these are pretty old scholl, since today everybody uses a > smartphone for everything. But anyway, the difference between a "clock" - a device providing a part of a timestamp, and a "stopwatch" - a device providing an interval - are significant enough to use different names for the devices. Time is not derivable by your priceless measurement, time is not a physical entity. It's cultural, and poor stinker Python calling nurses won't change anything. > > ... > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 10:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkepqsFh7l0U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666460 |
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 19:52 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 04.10.2025 09:21, skrev Thomas Heger: >> 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'. > > Indeed. > In physics 'time' must be measurable to have any meaning. > The instrument used for measuring 'time' is called a 'clock'. > So 'time' is what we measure with 'clocks'. Not quite. Measurements and the measured quantity are entirely different things. If time exists, then we had to assume, that time had also existed before clocks were even invented and also before human have been on Earth to eventually read out a clock. That why clocks measure time, but time does not depend on clocks. That is like e.g. voltage, which is a phenomenon that should also have existed, if voltmeters were not yet invented. Or distance, for instance, did also exist, before the meter was even defined (or any other unit). What physicists think or require isn't important for nature neither. (otherwise nature would constantly puke.) TH ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 10:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186b8c8638db9d5f$2682907$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666473 |
On 10/5/2025 10:55 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 19:52 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 04.10.2025 09:21, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> 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'. >> >> Indeed. >> In physics 'time' must be measurable to have any meaning. >> The instrument used for measuring 'time' is called a 'clock'. >> So 'time' is what we measure with 'clocks'. > > Not quite. > > Measurements and the measured quantity are entirely different things. > > If time exists, then we had to assume You had to, we didn't. > > That why clocks measure time, but time does not depend on clocks. Or at least - "we had to assume".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 20:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XKyEQ.19776$Q5d1.17040@fx11.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666473 |
Den 05.10.2025 10:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 19:52 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 04.10.2025 09:21, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>> Einstein wrote somehow 'time is what clocks say'.
>>
>> Indeed.
>> In physics 'time' must be measurable to have any meaning.
>> The instrument used for measuring 'time' is called a 'clock'.
>> So 'time' is what we measure with 'clocks'.
Even you, Thomas Heger, measure "time" with clocks.
So "time" is what you measure with your wristwatch.
Or do you have another name for the entity you measure
with your wristwatch?
> Not quite.
>
> Measurements and the measured quantity are entirely different things.
Does that mean that you can't measure "time" with your wristwatch?
>
> If time exists, then we had to assume, that time had also existed before
> clocks were even invented and also before human have been on Earth to
> eventually read out a clock.
Does that mean that you can't measure "time" with your wristwatch?
>
> That why clocks measure time, but time does not depend on clocks.
Does that mean that you can't measure "time" with your wristwatch?
>
> That is like e.g. voltage, which is a phenomenon that should also have
> existed, if voltmeters were not yet invented.
Does that mean that you can't measure "time" with your wristwatch?
>
> Or distance, for instance, did also exist, before the meter was even
> defined (or any other unit).
Does that mean that you can't measure "time" with your wristwatch?
>
> What physicists think or require isn't important for nature neither.
> (otherwise nature would constantly puke.)
>
Could it be that all your statements above are irrelevant
to the fact that you measure "time" with your wristwatch?
Why did you snip the rest?
Didn't you understand it?
Am I to understand that you are unable to read and understand it?
Please read it, and if you find a logical error in
Einst5ein's derivation, please point it out.
-----------------------------------
In SR 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.
Einstein made 'an imaginary physical experiment':
(a _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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 11:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <75f5ek9iq2fvf0h0d7qiloh4ntm9cjlrr7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666498 |
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:28:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >Den 05.10.2025 10:55, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 19:52 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 04.10.2025 09:21, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> Einstein wrote somehow 'time is what clocks say'. >>> >>> Indeed. >>> In physics 'time' must be measurable to have any meaning. >>> The instrument used for measuring 'time' is called a 'clock'. >>> So 'time' is what we measure with 'clocks'. > >Even you, Thomas Heger, measure "time" with clocks. >So "time" is what you measure with your wristwatch. >Or do you have another name for the entity you measure >with your wristwatch? > >> Not quite. >> >> Measurements and the measured quantity are entirely different things. > >Does that mean that you can't measure "time" with your wristwatch? > >> >> If time exists, then we had to assume, that time had also existed before >> clocks were even invented and also before human have been on Earth to >> eventually read out a clock. > >Does that mean that you can't measure "time" with your wristwatch? > >> >> That why clocks measure time, but time does not depend on clocks. > >Does that mean that you can't measure "time" with your wristwatch? > >> >> That is like e.g. voltage, which is a phenomenon that should also have >> existed, if voltmeters were not yet invented. > >Does that mean that you can't measure "time" with your wristwatch? > >> >> Or distance, for instance, did also exist, before the meter was even >> defined (or any other unit). > >Does that mean that you can't measure "time" with your wristwatch? > >> >> What physicists think or require isn't important for nature neither. >> (otherwise nature would constantly puke.) >> > >Could it be that all your statements above are irrelevant >to the fact that you measure "time" with your wristwatch? > > "What measure does your wristwatch say?" "It says, 12 and 15 inches pm." Oh, I'm going to be late by 39 feet!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 19:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <_FHR6RAbfO4iNXMrDfS3REkRexE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666498 |
Le 05/10/2025 à 20:25, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : > Den 05.10.2025 10:55, skrev Thomas Heger: > In SR the speed of light is isotropic c by definition. C'est ce qui différentie Einstein d'Hachel. Mais il devient alors évident que l'humanité entière va chier dans son froc. Mais, mes amis, la beauté du combat est belle à en pleurer. Qui va pouvoir croire que le trou du cul c'est l'un, et pas l'autre? Tout le monde devient fou. Le reste ne pourrait tenir que du miracle. Mais c'est évident. Quoi de plus évident que de dire à l'humanité vous avez le choix entre Einstein (qui dit que la vitesse de la lumière est isotropique) et Hachel (qui pue tellement de la gueule tous azimuts, vu qu'une telle idée lui semble aussi débile qu'honteuse, après des décennies d'études relativistes), cela va tous les faire rire, et qu'ils vont choisir leur camp sans même écouter la plaidoirie? Quoi de plus évident. Et s'il enfonce le clou avec des trucs théoriques encore plus déboussolants, tout le monde crie au secours et à l'assassin! Tout le monde préfère écouter Hawking parler de la fonction spaghettis du trou noir, et de la résurgence des explorateurs dans des fontaines blanches en tant que coquillettes. Et après une infinité de temps, of course... C'est EVIDENT. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 22:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bzAEQ.49670$Cyr6.12585@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666500 |
Den 05.10.2025 21:02, skrev Richard Hachel: > Le 05/10/2025 à 20:25, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : > >> In SR the speed of light is isotropic c by definition. > > C'est ce qui différentie Einstein d'Hachel. > > Mais il devient alors évident que l'humanité entière va chier dans son > froc. > Don't worry. You are the only part of humanity that care about what Doctor Hachel say, the vast majority of humanity has never heard about Doctor Hachel and will not give a shit. So you better wash your pants yourself. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laureano Hofmeister <efe@estsrl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-03 22:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10bpk8h$254jv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666443 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > (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. and this supposedly comes from an engineer, fucking idiot the story goes the einstine was just making obvious, how close enough a simultaneity could be made, as to prove another point. You guys are totally deranged.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <RLoE-5DzMz2CYEeuokODdVKtD5s@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666429 |
Le 02/10/2025 à 09:38, Thomas Heger a écrit : > 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'. They are the SAME thing. A coordinate system includes space AND time. > [snip complete nonsense] >> Nice to read. Are you progressing in the direction that your comments >> are asinine? >> > > No need to be rude! Given your attitude you deserve it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leonardo Bélanger <rrnl@lbdgrcr.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 14:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10brbf9$2hbvc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666457 |
Python wrote: > Le 02/10/2025 à 09:38, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Nice to read. Are you progressing in the direction that your comments >>> are asinine? >> >> No need to be rude! > > Given your attitude you deserve it. you are too stupid to deserve.. you only take
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 10:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkepccFh7l0U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666457 |
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 15:18 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'. > > They are the SAME thing. A coordinate system includes space AND time. No! Especially the Euclidean system (which Einstein mentioned) is meant to be 'timeless'. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <45IQxTyMXEr9_ypCGhKqAbVCpgs@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666472 |
Le 05/10/2025 à 10:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 15:18 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'. >> >> They are the SAME thing. A coordinate system includes space AND time. > > No! > > Especially the Euclidean system (which Einstein mentioned) is meant to > be 'timeless'. Absolutely not. If you missed that point there is no question about why your "comments" are dumb. « Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good » Newtonian mechanics involved both space AND time. Just a line above : « If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates. » Which is about the space coordinates, then : « If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. » See: TIME !!! Einstein explicitly wrote that what he consider a "system" involve both SPACE and TIME coordinates!!! Again: If you missed that point there is no question about why your "comments" are dumb.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 11:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkk4taFel7pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666507 |
Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 23:04 schrieb Python: > Le 05/10/2025 à 10:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 15:18 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'. >>> >>> They are the SAME thing. A coordinate system includes space AND time. >> >> No! >> >> Especially the Euclidean system (which Einstein mentioned) is meant to >> be 'timeless'. > > Absolutely not. If you missed that point there is no question about why > your "comments" are dumb. > > « Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of > Newtonian mechanics hold good » > > Newtonian mechanics involved both space AND time. lol Sure, Newton used space and time, but not in a single 'space'. Newton distinguished space and time as absolute, but fundamentally different quantities. The space Newton mean with 'absolute' was actually a real valued 3D physical space. That space is commonly called 'Euclidean space'. Other uses for the same term are also common, but I would prefer to restrict the use to Newtons absolute space. > > Just a line above : > > « If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co- > ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the > employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of > Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates. » Euclidean space and Cartesian coordinates do in fact belong together. And such coordinates are meant as 'timeless'. This means, that Cartesian coordinates do not depend on time and are not 'relative'. > Which is about the space coordinates, then : > > « If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the > values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. » > > See: TIME !!! See 'FUNCTION OF TIME' !!! The coordinates of that 'material point' are in fact a function of time. Such a function spits out coordinates if you plug in time values. But that doesn't mean, that coordinates contain time. > > Einstein explicitly wrote that what he consider a "system" involve both > SPACE and TIME coordinates!!! It's a little tricky, because the meaning of the term 'coordinates' isn't equal in physics and mathematics. In physics we mean 'spacial coordinates' with 'coordinates', while mathematicians can utilise all sorts of coordinates. Time isn't really a free parameter, because you cannot freely move in time. .. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 13:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <TtNhJyCqq3QShCy2kCp-jMfO-5Y@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666539 |
Le 07/10/2025 à 11:30, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 23:04 schrieb Python: >> Le 05/10/2025 à 10:42, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 15:18 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'. >>>> >>>> They are the SAME thing. A coordinate system includes space AND time. >>> >>> No! >>> >>> Especially the Euclidean system (which Einstein mentioned) is meant to >>> be 'timeless'. >> >> Absolutely not. If you missed that point there is no question about why >> your "comments" are dumb. >> >> « Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of >> Newtonian mechanics hold good » >> >> Newtonian mechanics involved both space AND time. > lol > > Sure, Newton used space and time, but not in a single 'space'. > > Newton distinguished space and time as absolute, but fundamentally > different quantities. > > > The space Newton mean with 'absolute' was actually a real valued 3D > physical space. > > That space is commonly called 'Euclidean space'. > > Other uses for the same term are also common, but I would prefer to > restrict the use to Newtons absolute space. > >> >> Just a line above : >> >> « If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co- >> ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the >> employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of >> Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates. » > > > Euclidean space and Cartesian coordinates do in fact belong together. > > And such coordinates are meant as 'timeless'. > > This means, that Cartesian coordinates do not depend on time and are not > 'relative'. > >> Which is about the space coordinates, then : >> >> « If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the >> values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. » >> >> See: TIME !!! > > See 'FUNCTION OF TIME' !!! > > The coordinates of that 'material point' are in fact a function of time. > > Such a function spits out coordinates if you plug in time values. > > But that doesn't mean, that coordinates contain time. > > >> >> Einstein explicitly wrote that what he consider a "system" involve both >> SPACE and TIME coordinates!!! > > It's a little tricky, because the meaning of the term 'coordinates' > isn't equal in physics and mathematics. > > In physics we mean 'spacial coordinates' with 'coordinates', while > mathematicians can utilise all sorts of coordinates. > > Time isn't really a free parameter, because you cannot freely move in time. > .. > TH You're showing a desperate amount of ignorance, incompetence, confusion and hypocrisy in this post. This is hopeless. A line "lol" from your is especially pathetic given how deep are YOUR confusions. You do not seem to have notice that Newton's equation involves space and time coordinates in a quite homogeneous way, to start with d^2(x(t),y(t),z(t))/dt^2 = F/m, as is much of physics from that time (look at Maxwell's equations for instance, or fluid dynamics equations). There is 0% chance for you to understand Einstein's paper on the ground of your very very feeble knowledge and comprehension of physics (and maths!). Could you answer a sensible answer to this simple question (I'm 100% sure you couldn't): Let a material body having these equations of motion in a given frame of reference: x = x(t) y = y(t) z = z(t) What is the FULL signification, in plain English, of the events that has coordinates (x(t), y(t), z(t), t) in this frame ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 15:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186c38ba76ae8130$1075305$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666541 |
On 10/7/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: > There is 0% chance for you to understand Einstein's paper on the ground > of your very very feeble knowledge and comprehension of physics (and > maths!). Some inconsistent mumble of a crazie insane enough to deny basic math too; no big deal to comprehend that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <-RUXUSSvt1a0fxFjkUxiD5l-Jao@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666542 |
Le 07/10/2025 à 15:32, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 10/7/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: > >> There is 0% chance for you to understand Einstein's paper on the ground >> of your very very feeble knowledge and comprehension of physics (and >> maths!). > > Some inconsistent mumble of a crazie insane > enough to deny basic math too; no big deal > to comprehend that. How come, then, that only ONE person on Earth pretend that Einstein is "[crazy] insane enough to deny basic math"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kYp9RX0F5NGTXKx1_DIvJK5dF7A@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666543 |
Le 07/10/2025 à 15:45, Python a écrit : > Le 07/10/2025 à 15:32, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/7/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >> >>> There is 0% chance for you to understand Einstein's paper on the ground >>> of your very very feeble knowledge and comprehension of physics (and >>> maths!). >> >> Some inconsistent mumble of a crazie insane >> enough to deny basic math too; no big deal >> to comprehend that. > > How come, then, that only ONE person on Earth pretend that Einstein is "[crazy] > insane enough to deny basic math"? C'est pas l'histoire. L'histoire, c'est qu'il applique des principes mathématiques à une physique abstraite. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web