Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #360762 > unrolled thread

QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ?

Started by	Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com>
First post	2015-08-14 12:21 -0700
Last post	2015-08-16 01:17 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 38 — 7 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

  QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 12:21 -0700
    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 13:33 -0700
      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-14 22:44 +0200
        Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:22 -0700
          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-15 07:38 +0200
            Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 03:41 -0700
              Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-17 17:22 +0200
                Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 09:10 -0700
                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Jason Burchett <jasb@h3ipotal.org> - 2015-08-17 16:19 +0000
                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-17 18:37 +0200
                    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 12:21 -0700
                      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-17 22:40 +0200
                        Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 10:35 -0700
                          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-18 20:27 +0200
                            Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:10 -0700
                              Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-18 22:44 +0200
                                Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 07:07 -0700
                                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-19 17:46 +0200
                                    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 10:41 -0700
                                      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-19 20:00 +0200
                                        Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 12:21 -0700
                                          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-08-19 19:48 +0000
                                          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-19 22:32 +0200
                                            Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 14:30 -0700
                                              Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-19 16:09 -0700
                                                Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 05:18 -0700
                                                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 05:53 -0700
                                                    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 08:06 -0700
                                                      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 08:52 -0700
                                                        Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 14:24 -0700
                                                          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-20 18:32 -0400
                                                          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 19:56 -0700
                                                            Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 10:35 -0700
                                                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-20 20:25 -0400
                                              Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-20 17:45 +0200
    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 14:40 -0700
      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-15 23:23 -0700
        Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-16 01:17 -0700

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

#360762 — QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ?

From	Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com>
Date	2015-08-14 12:21 -0700
Subject	QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ?
Message-ID	<a492b7da-4a05-49b2-8c86-ce73c403ecf4@googlegroups.com>

http://www.palais-decouverte.fr/fr/au-programme/activites/conferences/thema-fabuleuses-mutations/cycle-1915-2015-lodyssee-de-lespace-temps/
Interrogations philosophiques sur l'Univers, Jeudi 3 décembre 2015 à 19h, Jean-Michel Alimi, Luciano Boi, Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Qu'est-ce que l'espace-temps ?"

Une réponse préliminaire : L'espace-temps est une conséquence absurde du faux postulat de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière introduit par Einstein en 1905. L'absurdité est bien décrite par E. Klein ici :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtK_F4W0KJ0
E. Klein, univers bloc, kurt gödel vs présentisme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA8ca640T3Q
E. Klein : La notion d'univers bloc

Les Einsteiniens anglophones sont en train d'abandonner l'espace-temps :

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/11/whos-on-first-relativity-time-and-quantum-theory/
Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

http://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html
"Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute, said, "I have the distressing experience of physicists telling me that time is not real. ... It confuses me, because time seems to be real. Things happen. When I clap my hands, it happened. ... I would prefer to say that general relativity is not the final theory than to say that time does not exist." Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135:its-likely-that-times-are-changing
"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#360785

From	Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com>
Date	2015-08-14 13:33 -0700
Message-ID	<569e3bc9-9ff1-4c85-b26b-ceba3f02a87a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#360762

El viernes, 14 de agosto de 2015, 15:21:36 (UTC-4), Pentcho Valev  escribió:
> http://www.palais-decouverte.fr/fr/au-programme/activites/conferences/thema-fabuleuses-mutations/cycle-1915-2015-lodyssee-de-lespace-temps/ 
>  Interrogations philosophiques sur l'Univers, Jeudi 3 décembre 2015 à 19h, Jean-Michel Alimi, Luciano Boi, Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Qu'est-ce que l'espace-temps ?"
> 
> Une réponse préliminaire : L'espace-temps est une conséquence absurde du faux postulat de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière introduit par Einstein en 1905. L'absurdité est bien décrite par E. Klein ici :
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtK_F4W0KJ0 
>  E. Klein, univers bloc, kurt gödel vs présentisme
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA8ca640T3Q 
>  E. Klein : La notion d'univers bloc
> 
> Les Einsteiniens anglophones sont en train d'abandonner l'espace-temps :
> 
> https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 
>  What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE 
>  Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." 
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900 
>  New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century." 
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/11/whos-on-first-relativity-time-and-quantum-theory/ 
>  Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now." 
> 
> http://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html 
>  "Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute, said, "I have the distressing experience of physicists telling me that time is not real. ... It confuses me, because time seems to be real. Things happen. When I clap my hands, it happened. ... I would prefer to say that general relativity is not the final theory than to say that time does not exist." Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics." 
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html 
>  "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser." 
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html 
>  "...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter." 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review 
>  "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." 
> 
> http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726 
>  "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." 
> 
> http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135:its-likely-that-times-are-changing 
>  "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."
> 
> Pentcho Valev

We have NOT space-time yet in 1905 Einstein Relativity (1905R).

1905R and today Special Relativity (SR) are NOT the same theory.

Analyzing with care Section 1 (Definition od simultaneity) of 1905
Einstein June 30 paper, we can find that the new time definition does
NOT depend at all on any physical light property, including its
experimental vacuum speed constancy.

(The following is the repetition of one of my posts in your thread
with title "THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT"}.

Time is defined by 1905 Einstein in Section 1 of his June 30 paper.
Let us analyze jointly with sufficient detail the complete 1905 text
(Einstein's words are between [ ] and mine between { }).

[ 1. Definition of simultaneity.

Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
"stationary system".
 
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.
 
If we wish to describe the *motion* of a material point, we give the
values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear
carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no
physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand
by "time". We have to take into account that all our judgments in
which time plays a part are always judgments of *simultaneous events*.

If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock", I
mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch
to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events". ]

{ As we can read directly, put your attention in the fact that in
1905 Einstein Relativity (1905R) we have yet Newtonian equations,
Euclidean geometry, Cartesian coordinates and space separated from
time. }

[ It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending
the definition of "time" by substituting "the position of the small
hand of my watch" for "time". And in fact such a definition is
satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively
for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer
satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events
occurring at different places, or what comes to the same thing, to
evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch.

We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by
an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the
co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the
hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and
reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the
disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the
observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. ]

{ 1905 Einstein is preparing us to understand that the "time" for an
event occurring in some place (space point) of a stationary system
is NOT simply what a clock in that place indicates (as you seem
thinking when talking about time depending on that clock, being what
its hands indicate, precisely what Einstein just explain us to be no
longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events
occurring at different places of a stationary system). In the
following Einstein introduces the essential part of his relative
common "time" definition for all the space points of any stationary
system. }

[ We arrive at a much more practical determination along the
following line of thought.

If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in
all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption
to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We
have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time". We have not
defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined
at all unless we establish *by definition* that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel
from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" t_A from A
towards B, let it at the "B time" t_B be reflected at B in the
direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" t'_A.

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
contradictions, and possible for any number of points, and
that the following relations are universally valid:

1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the
clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with
the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have
settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks
located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition
of "simultaneous" or "synchronous",  and of "time". The "time" of an
event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a
stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being
synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations,
with a specified stationary clock.

In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity

2AB/(t'_A-t_A) = c

to be a universal constant, the velocity of light in empty space.

It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks
in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to
the stationary system we call it "the time of the stationary system". ]

{ As we can read directly, the time that defines 1905 Einstein
(relative to a stationary system) does NOT depend at all on any clock
measuring it. By the contrary, any clock measuring it must be made
and adjusted in such a way that fulfill the 1905 Einstein's time
definition, based only on imaginary physical experiments.

Analyzing with care the time definition, we soon find that any
specific value for the experimental constant light speed c is not
necessary, what means that we can substitute the physical light
speed by an imaginary moving agent with ANY uniform speed of all
the possible interval from zero to infinite. More ever, the return
path from B to A results then redundant and the synchronizing
requirement can be substituted by

AB/t_B-t_A = c

the simple Newtonian equation for any uniform speed c moving entity.
 
Your "experimental" GPS assertion t'=t is totally wrong. Read the GPS
history of its first satellite launching, to know how the predictions
of 1905R (and General Relativity) about the alteration of a clock
time rate due to change in velocity (and gravitational potential,
unknown yet in 1905) were confirmed experimentally, adjusting later
the  atomic clock aboard for synchronizing it with the designed 1905
Einstein common time of the GPS ECI stationary system. In today GPS
routine, the clock adjustment is done before the launching with the
same result.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

From	Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
Date	2015-08-14 22:44 +0200
Message-ID	<mqljvu$ltd$1@node2.news.atman.pl>
In reply to	#360785

From	Jason Burchett <jasb@h3ipotal.org>
Date	2015-08-17 16:19 +0000
Message-ID	<mqt1i9$slo$2@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#361095

QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ?

Contents

#360762 — QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ?

#360785

#360790

#360800

#360830

#361080

#361094

#361095

#361097

#361100

#361121

#361128

#361207

#361210

#361217

#361222

#361290

#361298

#361305

#361306