| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:01:29 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,681 |
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're indicating t'=t; that's what clock synchronization means.
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
We can do it
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
We can do it
Yes we can.
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
... Competent
engineers manage, of course, with pissing at
the absurd commands of [SR]
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine are
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
You have NO practical definition of what "t' = t" could mean except for trivial standby clocks.
... Competent
engineers manage, of course, with pissing at
the absurd commands of [SR]
Competent engineers wrote papers denying your handwaving. :-)
On 9/18/2025 10:00 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
You have NO practical definition of what "t' = t" could mean except for
trivial standby clocks.
We don't have, indeed, still GPS clocks
are synchronized somehow.
BTW, you have NO practical definition
of "definition".
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:40, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:00 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
You have NO practical definition of what "t' = t" could mean except
for trivial standby clocks.
We don't have, indeed, still GPS clocks
are synchronized somehow.
"We" ? Don't brag, you have not been involved in anything about GPS.
BTW, you have NO practical definition
of "definition".
BTW I have, in this case at least.
of "NO".
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine are >>>>
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't insult and slander)
to use light i.e. look at the other watch. I did so, and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from my place I can see than t = t'. Then
I moved to the train station. And checked again by looking at the clock
at my house. I noticed that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'(
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine are >>>>>
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine are
"indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't insult and slander)
to use light i.e. look at the other watch. I did so, and find a way to
insure (adjusting clocks) that from my place I can see than t = t'. Then
I moved to the train station. And checked again by looking at the clock
at my house. I noticed that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'(
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
poor stinker.
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine >>>>>>> are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine are
"indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't insult and
slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. I did so, and
find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from my place I can see
than t = t'. Then I moved to the train station. And checked again by
looking at the clock at my house. I noticed that, then, t =/= t'. I
was disappointed :'(
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between my
place and the station divided by c.
On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine >>>>>>>> are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine are >>>> "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't insult and
slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. I did so, and
find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from my place I can see
than t = t'. Then I moved to the train station. And checked again by
looking at the clock at my house. I noticed that, then, t =/= t'. I
was disappointed :'(
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between my
place and the station divided by c.
You're indeed funny to demand such
precision having ordinary clocks
from a railway station; well, if
you specified it earlier I would
just rotfl and go. But you didn't,
poor stinker.
Le 19/09/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>> mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine
are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't insult and >>>>> slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. I did so, and
find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from my place I can
see than t = t'. Then I moved to the train station. And checked
again by looking at the clock at my house. I noticed that, then, t
=/= t'. I was disappointed :'(
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between my
place and the station divided by c.
You're indeed funny to demand such
precision having ordinary clocks
from a railway station; well, if
you specified it earlier I would
just rotfl and go. But you didn't,
Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones and put
them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface of the Moon.
On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>>> mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine >>>>>> are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't insult and >>>>>> slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. I did so, and >>>>>> find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from my place I can
see than t = t'. Then I moved to the train station. And checked
again by looking at the clock at my house. I noticed that, then, t >>>>>> =/= t'. I was disappointed :'(
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between my
place and the station divided by c.
You're indeed funny to demand such
precision having ordinary clocks
from a railway station; well, if
you specified it earlier I would
just rotfl and go. But you didn't,
Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones and put
them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface of the Moon.
Engineering and solving gedanken
puzzles differ, poor stinker.
Significantly. No surprise you
know nothing about that.
Anyway, synchronizing clocks
means making them indicating t'=t
and mking "what clocks indicate"
galilean.
Le 19/09/2025 |a 15:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>>>> mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine >>>>>>> are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't insult and >>>>>>> slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. I did so, and >>>>>>> find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from my place I can >>>>>>> see than t = t'. Then I moved to the train station. And checked >>>>>>> again by looking at the clock at my house. I noticed that, then, t >>>>>>> =/= t'. I was disappointed :'(
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between my >>>>> place and the station divided by c.
You're indeed funny to demand such
precision having ordinary clocks
from a railway station; well, if
you specified it earlier I would
just rotfl and go. But you didn't,
Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones and put >>> them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface of the Moon.
Engineering and solving gedanken
puzzles differ, poor stinker.
Significantly. No surprise you
know nothing about that.
So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few meters or less. They actually exist.
Anyway, synchronizing clocks
means making them indicating t'=t
and mking "what clocks indicate"
galilean.
Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not preserve Maxwell's
laws.
You are grasping at straws :-)
Le 19/09/2025 |a 16:53, Python a |-crit :
Le 19/09/2025 |a 15:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>>>>> mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine >>>>>>>> are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't insult and >>>>>>>> slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. I did so, and >>>>>>>> find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from my place I can >>>>>>>> see than t = t'. Then I moved to the train station. And checked >>>>>>>> again by looking at the clock at my house. I noticed that, then, t >>>>>>>> =/= t'. I was disappointed :'(
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between my >>>>>> place and the station divided by c.
You're indeed funny to demand such
precision having ordinary clocks
from a railway station; well, if
you specified it earlier I would
just rotfl and go. But you didn't,
Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones and put >>>> them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface of the Moon.
Engineering and solving gedanken
puzzles differ, poor stinker.
Significantly. No surprise you
know nothing about that.
So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few meters or
less. They actually exist.
Anyway, synchronizing clocks
means making them indicating t'=t
and mking "what clocks indicate"
galilean.
Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not preserve Maxwell's
laws.
Also notice we are dealing with mutually at rest clocks, no transformation between coordinates systems is involved.
You are grasping at straws :-)
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
We can do it - that doesn't have to
be obvious or easy, but that's definitely
something we can manage in most
circumstances (with a good accuracy).
Now should we do it - and make "what
clocks indicate" to be t'=t - or should
we rather give up and obey "Laws of
Nature" announced by a mumbling idiot?
Maybe GPS wouldn't work if we didn't,
but what a magnificient symmetry we
would have instead it.
That is the question. Isn't it?
Le 19/09/2025 |a 15:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>>>> mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine >>>>>>> are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't insult >>>>>>> and slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. I did so, >>>>>>> and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from my place I >>>>>>> can see than t = t'. Then I moved to the train station. And
checked again by looking at the clock at my house. I noticed
that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'(
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between my >>>>> place and the station divided by c.
You're indeed funny to demand such
precision having ordinary clocks
from a railway station; well, if
you specified it earlier I would
just rotfl and go. But you didn't,
Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones and
put them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface of the Moon.
Engineering and solving gedanken
puzzles differ, poor stinker.
Significantly. No surprise you
know nothing about that.
So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few
meters or less. They actually exist.
Anyway, synchronizing clocks
means making them indicating t'=t
and mking "what clocks indicate"
galilean.
Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not preserve Maxwell's laws.
Le 19/09/2025 |a 17:09, Python a |-crit :
Le 19/09/2025 |a 16:53, Python a |-crit :
Le 19/09/2025 |a 15:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station >>>>>>>>>>>>> an mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>> mine are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't >>>>>>>>> insult and slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. >>>>>>>>> I did so, and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from >>>>>>>>> my place I can see than t = t'. Then I moved to the train
station. And checked again by looking at the clock at my house. >>>>>>>>> I noticed that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'(
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between >>>>>>> my place and the station divided by c.
You're indeed funny to demand such
precision having ordinary clocks
from a railway station; well, if
you specified it earlier I would
just rotfl and go. But you didn't,
Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones and >>>>> put them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface of the
Moon.
Engineering and solving gedanken
puzzles differ, poor stinker.
Significantly. No surprise you
know nothing about that.
So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few
meters or less. They actually exist.
Anyway, synchronizing clocks
means making them indicating t'=t
and mking "what clocks indicate"
galilean.
Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not preserve
Maxwell's laws.
Also notice we are dealing with mutually at rest clocks, no
transformation between coordinates systems is involved.
Notice also that for v=0 LT predict t = t'
On 9/19/2025 5:11 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 17:09, Python a |-crit :
Le 19/09/2025 |a 16:53, Python a |-crit :
Le 19/09/2025 |a 15:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>>> mine are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't >>>>>>>>>> insult and slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. >>>>>>>>>> I did so, and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from >>>>>>>>>> my place I can see than t = t'. Then I moved to the train >>>>>>>>>> station. And checked again by looking at the clock at my house. >>>>>>>>>> I noticed that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'(
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between >>>>>>>> my place and the station divided by c.
You're indeed funny to demand such
precision having ordinary clocks
from a railway station; well, if
you specified it earlier I would
just rotfl and go. But you didn't,
Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones and >>>>>> put them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface of the >>>>>> Moon.
Engineering and solving gedanken
puzzles differ, poor stinker.
Significantly. No surprise you
know nothing about that.
So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few
meters or less. They actually exist.
Anyway, synchronizing clocks
means making them indicating t'=t
and mking "what clocks indicate"
galilean.
Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not preserve
Maxwell's laws.
Also notice we are dealing with mutually at rest clocks, no
transformation between coordinates systems is involved.
Notice also that for v=0 LT predict t = t'
Notice that v<>0 in GPS.
On 9/19/2025 4:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 15:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Engineering and solving gedanken
On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>>>>> mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an mine >>>>>>>> are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't insult >>>>>>>> and slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. I did so, >>>>>>>> and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from my place I >>>>>>>> can see than t = t'. Then I moved to the train station. And
checked again by looking at the clock at my house. I noticed
that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'(
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between my >>>>>> place and the station divided by c.
You're indeed funny to demand such
precision having ordinary clocks
from a railway station; well, if
you specified it earlier I would
just rotfl and go. But you didn't,
Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones and
put them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface of the Moon. >>>
puzzles differ, poor stinker.
Significantly. No surprise you
know nothing about that.
So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few
meters or less. They actually exist.
You're not solving problems from an
armchair in engineering. It's not
entirely impossible, but it will
most likely suck.
You're not solving general cases
in engineering. It's not entirely
impossible, but it will most likely
suck.
And synchronizing clocks at some meters
looks like an absurd, at this distance
you can always use one and just split
its output.
Personally I would rather
try the same at 5km too.
Anyway, synchronizing clocks
means making them indicating t'=t
and mking "what clocks indicate"
galilean.
Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not preserve
Maxwell's laws.
A pity, but we can easily survive
without preserving them. Much easier
than without synchronization. And
a preferred frame obviously exists
anyway, at least 3 of them - geocentric
classical, heliocentric, ECI.
Le 19/09/2025 |a 20:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 5:11 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 17:09, Python a |-crit :
Le 19/09/2025 |a 16:53, Python a |-crit :
Le 19/09/2025 |a 15:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>>>> mine are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't >>>>>>>>>>> insult and slander) to use light i.e. look at the other >>>>>>>>>>> watch. I did so, and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) >>>>>>>>>>> that from my place I can see than t = t'. Then I moved to the >>>>>>>>>>> train station. And checked again by looking at the clock at >>>>>>>>>>> my house. I noticed that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'( >>>>>>>>>>>
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance
between my place and the station divided by c.
You're indeed funny to demand such
precision having ordinary clocks
from a railway station; well, if
you specified it earlier I would
just rotfl and go. But you didn't,
Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones >>>>>>> and put them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface >>>>>>> of the Moon.
Engineering and solving gedanken
puzzles differ, poor stinker.
Significantly. No surprise you
know nothing about that.
So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few
meters or less. They actually exist.
Anyway, synchronizing clocks
means making them indicating t'=t
and mking "what clocks indicate"
galilean.
Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not
preserve Maxwell's laws.
Also notice we are dealing with mutually at rest clocks, no
transformation between coordinates systems is involved.
Notice also that for v=0 LT predict t = t'
Notice that v<>0 in GPS.
We were not talking of GPS.
We are talking about comoving clocks.
On 9/19/2025 8:54 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 20:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 5:11 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 17:09, Python a |-crit :
Le 19/09/2025 |a 16:53, Python a |-crit :
Le 19/09/2025 |a 15:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:Just not the question you were asked.
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>>>>> mine are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't >>>>>>>>>>>> insult and slander) to use light i.e. look at the other >>>>>>>>>>>> watch. I did so, and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) >>>>>>>>>>>> that from my place I can see than t = t'. Then I moved to the >>>>>>>>>>>> train station. And checked again by looking at the clock at >>>>>>>>>>>> my house. I noticed that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'( >>>>>>>>>>>>
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance
between my place and the station divided by c.
You're indeed funny to demand such
precision having ordinary clocks
from a railway station; well, if
you specified it earlier I would
just rotfl and go. But you didn't,
Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones >>>>>>>> and put them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface >>>>>>>> of the Moon.
Engineering and solving gedanken
puzzles differ, poor stinker.
Significantly. No surprise you
know nothing about that.
So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few >>>>>> meters or less. They actually exist.
Anyway, synchronizing clocks
means making them indicating t'=t
and mking "what clocks indicate"
galilean.
Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not
preserve Maxwell's laws.
Also notice we are dealing with mutually at rest clocks, no
transformation between coordinates systems is involved.
Notice also that for v=0 LT predict t = t'
Notice that v<>0 in GPS.
We were not talking of GPS.
We are talking about comoving clocks.
It's my thread, I'm afraid; decide what is
talked about in yours.
Le 19/09/2025 |a 20:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 4:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 15:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 1:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 13:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 12:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 06:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/18/2025 10:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Just not the question you were asked.
On 9/18/2025 10:16 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 22:00, Python a |-crit :
Le 18/09/2025 |a 21:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station >>>>>>>>>>>>> an mine are
Of course, no answer. Exactly as expected.
I answered.
I asked you once how to check if a clock a nearby station an >>>>>>>>> mine are "indicating t'=t" You suggested (for ONCE you didn't >>>>>>>>> insult and slander) to use light i.e. look at the other watch. >>>>>>>>> I did so, and find a way to insure (adjusting clocks) that from >>>>>>>>> my place I can see than t = t'. Then I moved to the train
station. And checked again by looking at the clock at my house. >>>>>>>>> I noticed that, then, t =/= t'. I was disappointed :'(
1)You didn't specify what precision you neeed,
Quite obvious now : a better precision than the distance between >>>>>>> my place and the station divided by c.
You're indeed funny to demand such
precision having ordinary clocks
from a railway station; well, if
you specified it earlier I would
just rotfl and go. But you didn't,
Ok, so let's just change clocks models into high-precision ones and >>>>> put them at a significant distance (say 2km) on the surface of the
Moon.
Engineering and solving gedanken
puzzles differ, poor stinker.
Significantly. No surprise you
know nothing about that.
So take precise enough clocks to correspond to a distance of a few
meters or less. They actually exist.
You're not solving problems from an
armchair in engineering. It's not
entirely impossible, but it will
most likely suck.
You're not solving general cases
in engineering. It's not entirely
impossible, but it will most likely
suck.
And synchronizing clocks at some meters
looks like an absurd, at this distance
you can always use one and just split
its output.
Split what ? With what transmission lines ? How do you evaluate the
delay to consider ?
Just guessing is wrong Wozmaniak.
Anyway, synchronizing clocks
means making them indicating t'=t
and mking "what clocks indicate"
galilean.
Galilean ? In a way yes. But Galiean transformations do not preserve
Maxwell's laws.
A pity, but we can easily survive
without preserving them. Much easier
than without synchronization. And
a preferred frame obviously exists
anyway, at least 3 of them - geocentric
classical, heliocentric, ECI.
i.e. Hand waving, grasping at straws, admitting ignorance (for once).
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
We can do it
Yes we can.
No, you can't. Your idiot guru has announced it's
practically impossible and your wannabe standard
of second is trying to forbid that. Competent
engineers manage, of course, with pissing at
the absurd commands of your absurd religion.
Am Donnerstag000018, 18.09.2025 um 21:51 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light,
which travels from there to here (where we are as observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote
clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Donnerstag000018, 18.09.2025 um 21:51 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs called
'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light,
which travels from there to here (where we are as observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote
clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is NOT
t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but t'_A - t_B =
t_B - t_A.
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is NOTBut this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but t'_A - t_B =
t_B - t_A.
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
Op 18/09/2025 om 21:51 schreef Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
So you don't accept light-[!!]clocks being *real* clocks?
Op 18/09/2025 om 21:51 schreef Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 a 15:36, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
So you don't accept light-[!!]clocks being *real* clocks?
guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
Op 18/09/2025 om 21:51 schreef Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
So you don't accept light-[!!]clocks being *real* clocks?
You may argue that all precision clocks actually -are- light clocks.
After all, a cesium clock is just a resonant microwave cavity
that you count the periods of. (with some corrections applied :-)
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs called
'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light,
which travels from there to here (where we are as observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote
clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is NOT
t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but t'_A - t_B
= t_B - t_A.
But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be equal on
both ways (towards the remote station and back).
To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the field of application to no-moving stations.
So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that
restriction and simply forgot to write it down.
So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in respect to
each other.
Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want to
synchronize them.
For practical reason we chose to synchronize clock 'B' to 'A-time'.
The other way round would actually be also possible, too, but certainly
not both, because it would cause a 'dead lock' if we try to synch clock
A to clock B and clock B to clock A simultaneously.
Einstein forgot to mention that, too.
But as friendly as we are, we simply assume that Einstein meant the case 'clock B gets synchronized to clock A'.
So: how wanted Einstein to do that?
Well, sending a signal from A to B and reflecting it back to A, would be
the method of choice.
A could measure the delay, but B can't, because B gets only one 'beep', hence has nothing to measure.
That's why A needs to tell the operator in B, to what time he wants his clock to be set.
How could A do that???
Well, he could divide the delay by two, add that value to the current
local time, encode the result into some sort of signal and send it to
the remote station.
There the signal had to be decoded and the clock set accordingly.
Are there any alternatives???
I would say: no.
BUT: Einstein didn't mention any part of this method.
TH
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs
called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light,
which travels from there to here (where we are as observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote
clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others.
Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs
called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light, >>>>> which travels from there to here (where we are as observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote >>>>> clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others.
Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
Like the following definition of a shark:
a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its wool, skin, and meat
Le 22/09/2025 |a 22:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs
called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of
light, which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). >>>>>>
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see
remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others.
Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
Like the following definition of a shark:
a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its
wool, skin, and meat
Which parts of the definition appears to you as disconnected to the
subject at stake as much as defining, basically, a shark as what is
called a sheep?
On 9/22/2025 10:51 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/09/2025 |a 22:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs
called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of
light, which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). >>>>>>>
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see
remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others.
Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
Like the following definition of a shark:
a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its
wool, skin, and meat
Which parts of the definition appears to you as disconnected to the
subject at stake as much as defining, basically, a shark as what is
called a sheep?
Disconected or not, synchronization
in the reality is - simply - different.
Le 22/09/2025 |a 23:29, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 10:51 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/09/2025 |a 22:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>>>>>> called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of >>>>>>>> light, which travels from there to here (where we are as
observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see >>>>>>>> remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others.
Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
Like the following definition of a shark:
a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its
wool, skin, and meat
Which parts of the definition appears to you as disconnected to the
subject at stake as much as defining, basically, a shark as what is
called a sheep?
Disconected or not, synchronization
in the reality is - simply - different.
Just because you say so ?
Did you ever look at how an ACTUAL synchronization systems work ? For > train stations? For cities? For computers?
On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 15:36:42 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
wrote:
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
We can do it - that doesn't have to
be obvious or easy, but that's definitely
something we can manage in most
circumstances (with a good accuracy).
Now should we do it - and make "what
clocks indicate" to be t'=t - or should
we rather give up and obey "Laws of
Nature" announced by a mumbling idiot?
Maybe GPS wouldn't work if we didn't,
but what a magnificient symmetry we
would have instead it.
That is the question. Isn't it?
The only possible way to synchronize
two clocks is if both clocks 'occupy' the same space.
And that's impossible!
Each clock has it's own space and time, and cannot be shared.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 10:23:24 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 15:36:42 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
wrote:
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
We can do it - that doesn't have to
be obvious or easy, but that's definitely
something we can manage in most
circumstances (with a good accuracy).
Now should we do it - and make "what
clocks indicate" to be t'=t - or should
we rather give up and obey "Laws of
Nature" announced by a mumbling idiot?
Maybe GPS wouldn't work if we didn't,
but what a magnificient symmetry we
would have instead it.
That is the question. Isn't it?
The only possible way to synchronize
two clocks is if both clocks 'occupy' the same space.
And that's impossible!
Each clock has it's own space and time, and cannot be shared.
Now, if you attempt to synchronize two clocks an inch from each
other...the other clock will always be in another time zone.
On 9/22/2025 10:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 10:23:24 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 15:36:42 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
wrote:
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
We can do it - that doesn't have to
be obvious or easy, but that's definitely
something we can manage in most
circumstances (with a good accuracy).
Now should we do it - and make "what
clocks indicate" to be t'=t - or should
we rather give up and obey "Laws of
Nature" announced by a mumbling idiot?
Maybe GPS wouldn't work if we didn't,
but what a magnificient symmetry we
would have instead it.
That is the question. Isn't it?
The only possible way to synchronize
two clocks is if both clocks 'occupy' the same space.
And that's impossible!
Each clock has it's own space and time, and cannot be shared.
Now, if you attempt to synchronize two clocks an inch from each
other...the other clock will always be in another time zone.
Going into into infinitesimal differences here?
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs
called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light,
which travels from there to here (where we are as observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote
clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others.
Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A.
An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B.
Local observations only!
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is NOT
t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but t'_A - t_B
= t_B - t_A.
But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be equal on
both ways (towards the remote station and back).
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity
are stationary in the same frame of reference.
To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the field of
application to no-moving stations.
So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that
restriction and simply forgot to write it down.
He didn't forget to write it down. See quotation above.
"If at the point A of space there is a clock"
"If there is at the point B of space another clock"
In more modern nomenclature we will use "frame of reference"
in stead of "space".
So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in respect
to each other.
Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want to
synchronize them.
No, Einstein will not synchronise them, he will see if
they are synchronous.
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs
called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of light, >>>>> which travels from there to here (where we are as observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see remote >>>>> clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks in
'B' show?
There had to be some sort of communication or observation between A and
B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others.
Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A.
An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B.
Local observations only!
Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations?
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is NOT >>>> t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but t'_A - t_B >>>> = t_B - t_A.
But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be equal on
both ways (towards the remote station and back).
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for
moving clocks.
The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity
are stationary in the same frame of reference.
Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization.
To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell the
remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his clock.
So: how could that be done, if there is no communication?
To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the field of
application to no-moving stations.
So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that
restriction and simply forgot to write it down.
He didn't forget to write it down. See quotation above.
"If at the point A of space there is a clock"
"If there is at the point B of space another clock"
In more modern nomenclature we will use "frame of reference"
in stead of "space".
'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'.
So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous.
So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in respect
to each other.
Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want to
synchronize them.
No, Einstein will not synchronise them, he will see if
they are synchronous.
How, if he can't observe the remote clock?
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs
called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of
light, which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). >>>>>
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see
remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks in
'B' show?
How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances,
and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method
which should be applicable for all cases in all future.
How do we do it?
The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in
the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame),
they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
On 9/22/2025 11:44 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/09/2025 |a 23:29, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 10:51 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/09/2025 |a 22:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>>>>>>> called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of >>>>>>>>> light, which travels from there to here (where we are as
observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see >>>>>>>>> remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >>>>>> Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
Like the following definition of a shark:
a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its
wool, skin, and meat
Which parts of the definition appears to you as disconnected to the
subject at stake as much as defining, basically, a shark as what is
called a sheep?
Disconected or not, synchronization
in the reality is - simply - different.
Just because you say so ?
Just because that's how the real world looks like.
Did you ever look at how an ACTUAL synchronization systems work ? For > train
stations? For cities? For computers?
Python, , according [SR] ACTUAL synchronization
systems are improper and forbidden by Laws of Nature.
poor stinker
On 9/23/2025 9:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances,
and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method
which should be applicable for all cases in all future.
Too bad that he [A.E.] was that stupid. Well,
some years later he even announced basic
math false.
How do we do it?
The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in
the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame),
they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
Too bad that you're a brainwashed idiot
believing such (and even much stupider)
tales.
Le 23/09/2025 |a 07:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 11:44 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/09/2025 |a 23:29, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 10:51 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/09/2025 |a 22:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>>>>>>>> called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of >>>>>>>>>> light, which travels from there to here (where we are as
observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see >>>>>>>>>> remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >>>>>>> Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
Like the following definition of a shark:
a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its >>>>>> wool, skin, and meat
Which parts of the definition appears to you as disconnected to the >>>>> subject at stake as much as defining, basically, a shark as what is >>>>> called a sheep?
Disconected or not, synchronization
in the reality is - simply - different.
Just because you say so ?
Just because that's how the real world looks like.
Looks like? Actually not. The actual procedures used in the real world
to synchronize clocks are matching with Einstein-Poincar|- procedures.
This is public knowledge.
Did you ever look at how an ACTUAL synchronization systems work ? For
train stations? For cities? For computers?
Python, , according [SR] ACTUAL synchronization
systems are improper and forbidden by Laws of Nature.
Certainly not. You not know what you pretend to talk about.
On 9/23/2025 10:19 PM, Python wrote:
Le 23/09/2025 |a 07:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 11:44 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/09/2025 |a 23:29, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 10:51 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/09/2025 |a 22:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>>>>>>>>> called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of >>>>>>>>>>> light, which travels from there to here (where we are as >>>>>>>>>>> observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see >>>>>>>>>>> remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >>>>>>>> Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
Like the following definition of a shark:
a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its >>>>>>> wool, skin, and meat
Which parts of the definition appears to you as disconnected to the >>>>>> subject at stake as much as defining, basically, a shark as what is >>>>>> called a sheep?
Disconected or not, synchronization
in the reality is - simply - different.
Just because you say so ?
Just because that's how the real world looks like.
Looks like? Actually not. The actual procedures used in the real world
to synchronize clocks are matching with Einstein-Poincar|- procedures.
This is public knowledge.
They don't
This is public knowledge, and according to the
teachings of [A.E.] no synchronization is
possible for GPS. And neither for TAI.
Did you ever look at how an ACTUAL synchronization systems work ? For >>>> > train stations? For cities? For computers?
Python, , according [SR] ACTUAL synchronization
systems are improper and forbidden by Laws of Nature.
Certainly not. You not know what you pretend to talk about.
Certainly yes.
Your idiot guru has introduced
his definition of "synchronization" to "prove"
that [practically] no synchronization is possible.
Of course, professionals of GPS have ignored
... waving arms and scream
lying piece of shit, the idiot
Le 23/09/2025 |a 21:57, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/23/2025 9:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances,
and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method
which should be applicable for all cases in all future.
Too bad that he [A.E.] was that stupid. Well,
some years later he even announced basic
math false.
He certainly never did so.
How do we do it?
The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in
the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame),
they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
Too bad that you're a brainwashed idiot
believing such (and even much stupider)
tales.
Slandering again?
On 9/23/2025 10:20 PM, Python wrote:
Le 23/09/2025 |a 21:57, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/23/2025 9:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances,
and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method
which should be applicable for all cases in all future.
Too bad that he [A.E.] was that stupid. Well,
some years later he even announced basic
math false.
He certainly never did so.
He certainly did
How do we do it?
The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in
the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame),
they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
Too bad that you're a brainwashed idiot
believing such (and even much stupider)
tales.
Slandering again?
Slandering would be if I wrote about nurses
allegedly changing his shitty sheets
poor stinker
... that Pythagorean theorem
is not "for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2"
but some inconsistent idiocy imagined
by them.
Den 23.09.2025 10:04, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 a 10:44, Thomas Heger a ocrit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs
called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of
light, which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). >>>>>>
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see
remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks in
'B' show?
Please read the whole post before you respond,
You ask the same questions over an over, and snip the part
of my post were all your questions are addressed.
That's unacceptable behaviour!
So let's start again.
READ THE WHOLE POST, AND DON'T ASK QUESTIONS WHICH ARE ANSWERED
IN MY POST!
Note this:
-----------
There is no "Einstein's method for synchronising clocks".
There is only "Einstein's definition of simultaneity",
which makes it possible to determine if clocks are synchronous.
quote from o 1. Definition of Simultaneity >-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
| at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
| proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
| are simultaneous with these events.
| If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
| respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
| at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
| neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A.
An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B.
Local observations only!
quote from o 1. Definition of Simultaneity >-------------------------------------------
| "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 oA timeo and a oB time.o
The German word "Festsetzung" is translated with "assumption".
A better translation would be "definition".
So we have to make further _definitions_:
quote from o 1. Definition of Simultaneity >-------------------------------------------
| "We have not defined a common otimeo for A and B, for
| the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
| by definition that the otimeo required by light to travel
| from A to B equals the otimeo it requires to travel from
| B to A."
That means that _by definition_, the light _always_ uses the
same time to go from A to B as it uses to go from from B to A.
However, we must use clocks to measure these times.
So we must add:
Clocks are synchronous if they simultaneously show the same.
(That's what "synchronous" means!)
Now anybody can figure out a method to see if the clocks
are synchronous.
I will describe a method which is slightly different from Einstein's.
In my version A and B are symmetrical.
1.1. The observer at A sends a light pulse towards B when
his clock shows tA.
1.2 The observer at B note that his clock shows t'B when
the light pulse hits his light detector.
2.1. The observer at B sends a light pulse towards A when
his clock shows tB.
2.2. The observer at A note that his clock shows t'A when
the pulse hits his light detector.
When these four measurements are made, the observers communicate
through an appropriate medium (shouting, radio, optic fibre,
snail mail, whatever) and analyse the measurements.
They know that light always uses the same time both ways. >==========================================================
Let the transit time be T, and let clock B be F ahead of clock A.
If clocks A is showing tA, clock B is simultaneously showing tA+F.
F may be anything from zero to a long time.
We then have: t'B = tA + T + F
and: t'A = tB + T - F
so: (t'B - tA) = T + F
(t'A - tB) = T - F
Note that (t'B - tA) + (t'A - tB) = 2T
If (t'B - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (T + F) = (T - F),
which is true only if F = 0,
the clocks simultaneously shown the same.
Thus:
In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
t'B ? tA = t?A ? tB.
--------------------------------------------------
Einstein's method is slightly different.
The only difference is that the light pulse is reflected
off a mirror at B, so tB = t'B
quote from o 1. Definition of Simultaneity >-------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the oA timeo tA from A towards B,
| let it at the oB timeo tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the oA timeo t?A."
tA, tB and t'A are precisely defined as:
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.
quote from o 1. Definition of Simultaneity >-------------------------------------------
| " In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
| tB ? tA = t?A ? tB."
(The German "laufen synchron" is translated with "synchronize".
A better translation would be "are synchronous".)
If tB ? tA ? t?A ? tB then the clocks are not synchronous.
-------------------
Note that Einstein says nothing about how to make
asynchronous clocks synchronous. He only says that
if tB ? tA = t?A ? tB
then the clock at A and the clock at B are synchronous.
This is a definition of simultaneity, not a description
of how to synchronise clock.
Le 24/09/2025 |a 00:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/23/2025 10:19 PM, Python wrote:
Le 23/09/2025 |a 07:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 11:44 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/09/2025 |a 23:29, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 10:51 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/09/2025 |a 22:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/22/2025 10:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human >>>>>>>>>>>> organs called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means >>>>>>>>>>>> of light, which travels from there to here (where we are as >>>>>>>>>>>> observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we >>>>>>>>>>>> see remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >>>>>>>>> Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
Like the following definition of a shark:
a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for >>>>>>>> its wool, skin, and meat
Which parts of the definition appears to you as disconnected to >>>>>>> the subject at stake as much as defining, basically, a shark as >>>>>>> what is called a sheep?
Disconected or not, synchronization
in the reality is - simply - different.
Just because you say so ?
Just because that's how the real world looks like.
Looks like? Actually not. The actual procedures used in the real
world to synchronize clocks are matching with Einstein-Poincar|-
procedures.
This is public knowledge.
They don't
They do. Read.
This is public knowledge, and according to the
teachings of [A.E.] no synchronization is
possible for GPS. And neither for TAI.
No.
Did you ever look at how an ACTUAL synchronization systems work ?
For > train stations? For cities? For computers?
Python, , according [SR] ACTUAL synchronization
systems are improper and forbidden by Laws of Nature.
Certainly not. You not know what you pretend to talk about.
Certainly yes.
No
Your idiot guru has introduced
his definition of "synchronization" to "prove"
that [practically] no synchronization is possible.
Quite the opposite.
Of course, professionals of GPS have ignored
Quite the opposite. Relativity is built-in GPS :-)
Le 24/09/2025 |a 00:07, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/23/2025 10:20 PM, Python wrote:
Le 23/09/2025 |a 21:57, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/23/2025 9:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances,
and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method
which should be applicable for all cases in all future.
Too bad that he [A.E.] was that stupid. Well,
some years later he even announced basic
math false.
He certainly never did so.
He certainly did
No he didn't :-) You have no clues in math (not only in math btw).
How do we do it?
The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in
the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame),
they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
Too bad that you're a brainwashed idiot
believing such (and even much stupider)
tales.
Slandering again?
Slandering would be if I wrote about nurses
allegedly changing his shitty sheets
This is not slandering
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs
called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of
light, which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). >>>>>>
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see
remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks in
'B' show?
There had to be some sort of communication or observation between A
and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others.
Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A.
An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B.
Local observations only!
Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations?
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is
NOT t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but t'_A >>>>> - t_B = t_B - t_A.
But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be equal on
both ways (towards the remote station and back).
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for
moving clocks.
The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity
are stationary in the same frame of reference.
Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization.
To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell the
remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his clock.
So: how could that be done, if there is no communication?
To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the field of
application to no-moving stations.
So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that
restriction and simply forgot to write it down.
He didn't forget to write it down. See quotation above.
"If at the point A of space there is a clock"
"If there is at the point B of space another clock"
In more modern nomenclature we will use "frame of reference"
in stead of "space".
'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'.
So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous.
So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in respect
to each other.
Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want to
synchronize them.
No, Einstein will not synchronise them, he will see if
they are synchronous.
How, if he can't observe the remote clock?
Which of these proposition are true?
- You don't read the posts you're answering to
- You are abysmally stupid
- You are utterly dishonest
Note that they are not mutually exclusive.
Note this:
-----------
There is no "Einstein's method for synchronising clocks".
There is only "Einstein's definition of simultaneity",
which makes it possible to determine if clocks are synchronous.
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A.
An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B.
Local observations only!
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
|-a in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.
|-a We have so far defined only an rCLA timerCY and a rCLB time.rCY
The German word "Festsetzung" is translated with "assumption".
A better translation would be "definition".
So we have to make further _definitions_:
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "We have not defined a common rCLtimerCY for A and B, for
|-a the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
|-a by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel
|-a from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from
|-a B to A."
That means that _by definition_, the light _always_ uses the
same time to go from A to B as it uses to go from from B to A.
However, we must use clocks to measure these times.
So we must add:
Clocks are synchronous if they simultaneously show the same.
(That's what "synchronous" means!)
Now anybody can figure out a method to see if the clocks
are synchronous.
I will describe a method which is slightly different from Einstein's.
In my version A and B are symmetrical.
1.1. The observer at A sends a light pulse towards B when
-a-a-a-a his clock shows tA.
1.2-a The observer at B note that his clock shows t'B when
-a-a-a-a the light pulse hits his light detector.
2.1. The observer at B sends a light pulse towards A when
-a-a-a-a his clock shows tB.
2.2. The observer at A note that his clock shows t'A when
-a-a-a-a the pulse hits his light detector.
When these four measurements are made, the observers communicate
through an appropriate medium (shouting, radio, optic fibre,
snail mail, whatever)-a and analyse the measurements.
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs
called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of
light, which travels from there to here (where we are as observers). >>>>>>>
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see
remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks in
'B' show?
There had to be some sort of communication or observation between A
and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others.
Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A.
An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B.
Local observations only!
Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations?
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is >>>>>> NOT t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but t'_A >>>>>> - t_B = t_B - t_A.
But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be equal on >>>>> both ways (towards the remote station and back).
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for
moving clocks.
The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity
are stationary in the same frame of reference.
Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization.
To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell the
remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his clock.
So: how could that be done, if there is no communication?
To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the field of
application to no-moving stations.
So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that
restriction and simply forgot to write it down.
He didn't forget to write it down. See quotation above.
"If at the point A of space there is a clock"
"If there is at the point B of space another clock"
In more modern nomenclature we will use "frame of reference"
in stead of "space".
'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'.
So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous.
So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in respect >>>>> to each other.
Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want to
synchronize them.
No, Einstein will not synchronise them, he will see if
they are synchronous.
How, if he can't observe the remote clock?
Which of these proposition are true?
- You don't read the posts you're answering to
- You are abysmally stupid
- You are utterly dishonest
Note that they are not mutually exclusive.
Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization of two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was appropriate.
I wrote:
no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work.
I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way.
And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm stupid.
If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow address
the problem and answer my own question, how you could possibly
snchronize clocks by Einstein's method.
In short:
Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
to be valid.
t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock in B.
So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically):
1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B
2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B
3) B reflects the signal back towards A
4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A
Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time.
(the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at the
same time)
This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which contains
the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set.
BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method.
Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A would
be fullfilled.
But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value in
measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ?
As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very briefly
when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a little flash).
That's it!
Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ?
Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single
'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:..
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for
moving clocks.
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:..
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for
moving clocks.
It is actually explained later in Einstein's article.
On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:..
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for
moving clocks.
It is actually explained later in Einstein's article.
It is. But you try to lie that the idiot
didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS.
disgusting piece of lying shit...
Le 24/09/2025 |a 21:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:..
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for >>>>>> moving clocks.
It is actually explained later in Einstein's article.
It is. But you try to lie that the idiot
didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS.
Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of the frame.
Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property.
On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 21:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:..
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for >>>>>>> moving clocks.
It is actually explained later in Einstein's article.
It is. But you try to lie that the idiot
didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS.
Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of the frame. >>
Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property.
In the teachings of [A.E.] there is
no "Synchronization of moving clocks".
In the real world synchronization is
absolute.
the idiot, moronic, poor stinker
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 21:02 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...
Note this:
-----------
There is no "Einstein's method for synchronising clocks".
There is only "Einstein's definition of simultaneity",
which makes it possible to determine if clocks are synchronous.
< big snip >
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "We have not defined a common rCLtimerCY for A and B, for
|-a the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
|-a by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel
|-a from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from
|-a B to A."
If time is local, you can't have 'common time'.
'Common time' would require something already excluded:
'absolute space' and 'absolute time'.
A more geometrical explanation for this problem goes like this:
Definition of 'vertical'.
We have 'New York' and a vertical line there and we have 'Paris' and a vertical line there, too, but we have no vertical line, which is
vertical in New York and Paris as well.
Sure, that is true, but because no such line could exist.
Le 24/09/2025 |a 21:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 21:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:..
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined >>>>>>>> for moving clocks.
It is actually explained later in Einstein's article.
It is. But you try to lie that the idiot
didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS.
Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of the
frame.
Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property.
In the teachings of [A.E.] there is
no "Synchronization of moving clocks".
Not in this very paper, but you feel free to use your brain if you have
a functional one. Oh sorry :-(
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
In the real world synchronization is
absolute.
No.
Den 24.09.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 21:02 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...
Note this:
-----------
There is no "Einstein's method for synchronising clocks".
There is only "Einstein's definition of simultaneity",
which makes it possible to determine if clocks are synchronous.
-a< big snip >
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "We have not defined a common rCLtimerCY for A and B, for
|-a the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
|-a by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel
|-a from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from
|-a B to A."
If time is local, you can't have 'common time'.
You didn't get far before you interrupted with
a nonsensical comment.
'Common time' would require something already excluded:
'absolute space' and 'absolute time'.
Or it can mean the "common time" shown by your wristwatch.
Since the wristwatches of the real world
are pissing
Le 24/09/2025 |a 23:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
...
Since the wristwatches of the real world
are pissing
Your watches are pissing? Weird.
Le 24/09/2025 a 23:10, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
..
Since the wristwatches of the real world
are pissing
Your watches are pissing? Weird.
On 9/24/2025 9:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 21:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 21:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:..
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined >>>>>>>>> for moving clocks.
It is actually explained later in Einstein's article.
It is. But you try to lie that the idiot
didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS.
Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of the
frame.
Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property.
In the teachings of [A.E.] there is
no "Synchronization of moving clocks".
Not in this very paper, but you feel free to use your brain if you have
a functional one. Oh sorry :-(
Just some paragraphs above you wrote:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
moronic lies are of a very, very poor quality.
Le 24/09/2025 |a 23:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 9:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 21:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 21:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>> ..
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined >>>>>>>>>> for moving clocks.
It is actually explained later in Einstein's article.
It is. But you try to lie that the idiot
didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS.
Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of
the frame.
Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property.
In the teachings of [A.E.] there is
no "Synchronization of moving clocks".
Not in this very paper, but you feel free to use your brain if you
have a functional one. Oh sorry :-(
Just some paragraphs above you wrote:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
They are not in sync in their (changing) own frames.
They are corrected (not only offset) in order to be in synch a a single Earth-bound frame.
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
On 9/25/2025 1:04 AM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 23:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 9:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 21:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 21:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>> ..
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined >>>>>>>>>>> for moving clocks.
It is actually explained later in Einstein's article.
It is. But you try to lie that the idiot
didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS.
Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of
the frame.
Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property.
In the teachings of [A.E.] there is
no "Synchronization of moving clocks".
Not in this very paper, but you feel free to use your brain if you
have a functional one. Oh sorry :-(
Just some paragraphs above you wrote:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
They are not in sync in their (changing) own frames.
They are corrected (not only offset) in order to be in synch a a single
Earth-bound frame.
And is that what that mumbling idiot
you're worshipping has predicted?
That clocks will indicate not his
local idiocy, but a time from a
preferred frame (which, according
to his moronic delusions, doesn't
exist)?
It is not, and you know very well
it is not. According to the idiot
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
And when the professionals of GPS
ignored the idiot's delusions - you're
pretending that it's not really any
synchronization.
Just like "sharks eating fishes
are not true sharks, because true
sharks est grass - by definition
we wrote!!!!!"
And is that what that mumbling idiot you're worshipping has predicted?
That clocks will indicate not his local idiocy, but a time from a
preferred frame (which, according
Le 25/09/2025 |a 07:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/25/2025 1:04 AM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 23:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 9:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 21:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 9:21 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 21:18, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/24/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>>> ..
If the distance between the clocks changes with time, >>>>>>>>>>>>> then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be >>>>>>>>>>>> defined for moving clocks.
It is actually explained later in Einstein's article.
It is. But you try to lie that the idiot
didn't forbid the synchronization in GPS.
Synchronization of co-moving clocks is a property independent of >>>>>>> the frame.
Synchronization of moving clocks is a frame dependent property.
In the teachings of [A.E.] there is
no "Synchronization of moving clocks".
Not in this very paper, but you feel free to use your brain if you
have a functional one. Oh sorry :-(
Just some paragraphs above you wrote:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
They are not in sync in their (changing) own frames.
They are corrected (not only offset) in order to be in synch a a
single Earth-bound frame.
And is that what that mumbling idiot
you're worshipping has predicted?
That clocks will indicate not his
local idiocy, but a time from a
preferred frame (which, according
to his moronic delusions, doesn't
exist)?
It is not, and you know very well
it is not. According to the idiot
-a >>>>>>>>> If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
-a >>>>>>>>> then the clocks can't be synchronous.
And when the professionals of GPS
ignored the idiot's delusions - you're
pretending that it's not really any
synchronization.
Just like "sharks eating fishes
are not true sharks, because true
sharks est grass - by definition
we wrote!!!!!"
Yawn...
...
Yawn...
Right, Sleep, have
beautiful dreams of the perfect
world fitting the delusions
of [A.E.]
poor stinker, idiot, sick, delusional
On 9/22/2025 12:44 PM, guido wugi wrote:
Op 18/09/2025 om 21:51 schreef Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
So you don't accept light-[!!]clocks being *real* clocks?
AFAIK light clocks only exist in relativistic
gedankens, but I'don't know every clock of
the world.
Doesn't matter - "synchronized clocks"
and "indicating t'=t clocks" - are the same
for me, it's just a language dependency,
without any "experimental" content.
Do you have-a a different opinion?
Le 25/09/2025 |a 09:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
...
Yawn...
Right, Sleep, have
beautiful dreams of the perfect
world-a fitting the delusions
of [A.E.]
Not tired, just bored by your delusional refuted and demented rants.
Nothing "perfect" here. Only stuff that makes sense and works.
Op 22/09/2025 om 13:03 schreef Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/22/2025 12:44 PM, guido wugi wrote:
Op 18/09/2025 om 21:51 schreef Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
So you don't accept light-[!!]clocks being *real* clocks?
AFAIK light clocks only exist in relativistic
gedankens, but I'don't know every clock of
the world.
Doesn't matter - "synchronized clocks"
and "indicating t'=t clocks" - are the same
for me, it's just a language dependency,
without any "experimental" content.
Do you have-a a different opinion?
Being synchronised and t=t' work only when in the same inertial state.
Once the clocks part toward different inertial motion states,
synchronicity and simultaneity are gone.
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>>>>>> called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of >>>>>>>> light, which travels from there to here (where we are as
observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see >>>>>>>> remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks
in 'B' show?
There had to be some sort of communication or observation between A
and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others.
Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer >>>>> |-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A.
An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B.
Local observations only!
Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations?
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is >>>>>>> NOT t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A.
But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be equal >>>>>> on both ways (towards the remote station and back).
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for
moving clocks.
The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity
are stationary in the same frame of reference.
Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization.
To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell the
remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his clock.
So: how could that be done, if there is no communication?
To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the field of >>>>>> application to no-moving stations.
So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that
restriction and simply forgot to write it down.
He didn't forget to write it down. See quotation above.
"If at the point A of space there is a clock"
"If there is at the point B of space another clock"
In more modern nomenclature we will use "frame of reference"
in stead of "space".
'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'.
So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous.
So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in
respect to each other.
Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want to
synchronize them.
No, Einstein will not synchronise them, he will see if
they are synchronous.
How, if he can't observe the remote clock?
Which of these proposition are true?
- You don't read the posts you're answering to
- You are abysmally stupid
- You are utterly dishonest
Note that they are not mutually exclusive.
Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization of
two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was appropriate.
I wrote:
no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work.
I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way.
And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm stupid.
I already did, NUMEROUS times !!!
If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow address
the problem and answer my own question, how you could possibly
snchronize clocks by Einstein's method.
In short:
Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
to be valid.
t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock in B.
So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically):
Practice
1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B
2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B
3) B reflects the signal back towards A
4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A
Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time.
(the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at the
same time)
We can compute an offset to apply to clock A or clock B, or even to both
by dividing these offset by two.
This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which
contains the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set.
BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method.
Definitely NOT. Hopefully.
Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
would be fullfilled.
But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value in
measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ?
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is either true or not, right?
If it's true, there is nothing to do. Let's see what could be done if it
is not true below.
As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very briefly
when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a little flash).
That's it!
Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ?
Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single
'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ?
B can read his clock at "beep" time, right?
Let's look again at Einstein condition : t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
Anyone can check if it's true or not as long as they know t'_A, t_B and
t_A.
If you consider that someone (at A, at B or anywhere else) checking if
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
is true or not, you can assume that he/she know these values. Your insistance that Einstein should have written that down explicitly is ridiculous. To subtract two value you OBVIOUSLY need to know them. Come
on Thomas !!!
Anyway, if t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is false then the offset to be applied
to clock B is :
t_A + (t'_A - t_A)/2
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:..
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for
moving clocks.
It is actually explained later in Einstein's article.
But how could you understand this later part if don't even understand a SINGLE WORD of the part about synchronizing co-moving (i.e. mutually at rest) clocks?
You cannot even spot that if someone is supposed to compute A - B he/she obviously has to know A and B. You are an helpless case of dementia, hypocrisy and stubbornness.
On 9/25/2025 10:52 PM, guido wugi wrote:
Op 22/09/2025 om 13:03 schreef Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/22/2025 12:44 PM, guido wugi wrote:
Op 18/09/2025 om 21:51 schreef Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/18/2025 9:15 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Time is what clocks indicate.
If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.
If they stand side by side sure.
If they don't or are moving wrt each other it's not that easy.
Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are
synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.
So you don't accept light-[!!]clocks being *real* clocks?
AFAIK light clocks only exist in relativistic
gedankens, but I'don't know every clock of
the world.
Doesn't matter - "synchronized clocks"
and "indicating t'=t clocks" - are the same
for me, it's just a language dependency,
without any "experimental" content.
Do you have-a a different opinion?
Being synchronised and t=t' work only when in the same inertial state.
Still "clocks indicating t'=t' and
"clocks synchronized" are synonyms.
Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 10:32 schrieb Python:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>>>>>>> called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of >>>>>>>>> light, which travels from there to here (where we are as
observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see >>>>>>>>> remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what clocks >>>>> in 'B' show?
There had to be some sort of communication or observation between A >>>>> and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >>>>>> Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer >>>>>> |-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A.
An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B.
Local observations only!
Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations? >>>>>
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is >>>>>>>> NOT t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but >>>>>>>> t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A.
But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be equal >>>>>>> on both ways (towards the remote station and back).
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for
moving clocks.
The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity
are stationary in the same frame of reference.
Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization.
To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell the >>>>> remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his clock. >>>>>
So: how could that be done, if there is no communication?
To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the field of >>>>>>> application to no-moving stations.
So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that
restriction and simply forgot to write it down.
He didn't forget to write it down. See quotation above.
"If at the point A of space there is a clock"
"If there is at the point B of space another clock"
In more modern nomenclature we will use "frame of reference"
in stead of "space".
'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'.
So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous.
So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in
respect to each other.
Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want to >>>>>>> synchronize them.
No, Einstein will not synchronise them, he will see if
they are synchronous.
How, if he can't observe the remote clock?
Which of these proposition are true?
- You don't read the posts you're answering to
- You are abysmally stupid
- You are utterly dishonest
Note that they are not mutually exclusive.
Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization of
two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was appropriate. >>>
I wrote:
no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work.
I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way.
And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm stupid.
I already did, NUMEROUS times !!!
If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow address
the problem and answer my own question, how you could possibly
snchronize clocks by Einstein's method.
In short:
Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
to be valid.
t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock in B.
So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically):
Practice
1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B
2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B
3) B reflects the signal back towards A
4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A
Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time.
(the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at the
same time)
We can compute an offset to apply to clock A or clock B, or even to both
by dividing these offset by two.
This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which
contains the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set.
BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method.
Definitely NOT. Hopefully.
Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
would be fullfilled.
But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value in
measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ?
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is either true or not, right?
If it's true, there is nothing to do. Let's see what could be done if it
is not true below.
As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very briefly
when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a little flash).
That's it!
Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ?
Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single
'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ?
B can read his clock at "beep" time, right?
Sure, but B can ONLY read the own clock and 't_B' from that.
t'_A and t_A are unknown in A, unless A tells the observer in B, what
t_A and t'_A are.
Somehow A needs to send this information to B, because otherwise B
cannot compute t'_A - t_B or t_B - t_A.
Another problem occurs, because t'_A is later than t_B.
This means, that the time of arrival of the reflected signal isn't detectable in B at all.
Since time-informations get outdated very fast, the observer in A would
need to figure out the delay in advance, encode it into the timing
signal, too, and send the result to the remote station.
Another option would be [...]
Let's look again at Einstein condition : t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
Anyone can check if it's true or not as long as they know t'_A, t_B and
t_A.
If you consider that someone (at A, at B or anywhere else) checking if
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
is true or not, you can assume that he/she know these values. Your
insistance that Einstein should have written that down explicitly is
ridiculous. To subtract two value you OBVIOUSLY need to know them. Come
on Thomas !!!
Anyway, if t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is false then the offset to be applied
to clock B is :
t_A + (t'_A - t_A)/2
In my view it should be:
t_B = (t'_A - t_A)/2
This wouldn't helpt B in any way, because t'_A is unknown in B, because
t'_A is the time of arrival of the reflected signal at A.
That time is unknown in B!
Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 20:43 schrieb Python:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:..
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for
moving clocks.
It is actually explained later in Einstein's article.
If Einstein's method to synchronize stationary remote clocks is
nonsense, how much sense would you expect from his method for moving clocks?
But how could you understand this later part if don't even understand a
SINGLE WORD of the part about synchronizing co-moving (i.e. mutually at
rest) clocks?
You cannot even spot that if someone is supposed to compute A - B he/she
obviously has to know A and B. You are an helpless case of dementia,
hypocrisy and stubbornness.
Well, 'A' and 'B' were not numbers, but NAMES of two remote locations.
That's why 'A-B' wouldn't make sense, to beginn with.
Le 26/09/2025 |a 08:28, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 10:32 schrieb Python:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:I already did, NUMEROUS times !!!
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>>>>>>>> called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of >>>>>>>>>> light, which travels from there to here (where we are as
observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see >>>>>>>>>> remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what
clocks in 'B' show?
There had to be some sort of communication or observation between >>>>>> A and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense. >>>>>>
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >>>>>>> Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate >>>>>>> |-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer >>>>>>> |-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate >>>>>>> |-a neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A. >>>>>>> An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B. >>>>>>> Local observations only!
Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations? >>>>>>
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula >>>>>>>>> is NOT t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) >>>>>>>>> but t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A.
But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be
equal on both ways (towards the remote station and back).
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for >>>>>> moving clocks.
The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity
are stationary in the same frame of reference.
Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization.
To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell
the remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his >>>>>> clock.
So: how could that be done, if there is no communication?
To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the field >>>>>>>> of application to no-moving stations.
So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that >>>>>>>> restriction and simply forgot to write it down.
He didn't forget to write it down. See quotation above.
"If at the point A of space there is a clock"
"If there is at the point B of space another clock"
In more modern nomenclature we will use "frame of reference"
in stead of "space".
'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'.
So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. >>>>>>
So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in
respect to each other.
Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want to >>>>>>>> synchronize them.
No, Einstein will not synchronise them, he will see if
they are synchronous.
How, if he can't observe the remote clock?
Which of these proposition are true?
- You don't read the posts you're answering to
- You are abysmally stupid
- You are utterly dishonest
Note that they are not mutually exclusive.
Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization of
two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was
appropriate.
I wrote:
no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work.
I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way.
And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm stupid. >>>
If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow
address the problem and answer my own question, how you could
possibly snchronize clocks by Einstein's method.
In short:
Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
to be valid.
t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock in B. >>>>
So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically):
Practice
1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B
2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B
3) B reflects the signal back towards A
4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A
Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time.
(the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at
the same time)
We can compute an offset to apply to clock A or clock B, or even to
both by dividing these offset by two.
This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which
contains the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set.
BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method.
Definitely NOT. Hopefully.
Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
would be fullfilled.
But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value in
measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ?
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is either true or not, right?
If it's true, there is nothing to do. Let's see what could be done if
it is not true below.
As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very
briefly when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a
little flash).
That's it!
Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ?
Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single
'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ?
B can read his clock at "beep" time, right?
Sure, but B can ONLY read the own clock and 't_B' from that.
t'_A and t_A are unknown in A, unless A tells the observer in B, what
t_A and t'_A are.
A knows t'_A and t_A. What prevent this information to be conmunicated
(by any mean) to B
(same for t_B to be communicated to A).
Somehow A needs to send this information to B, because otherwise B
cannot compute t'_A - t_B or t_B - t_A.
This is exactly what I told you. YES.
Another problem occurs, because t'_A is later than t_B.
This is NOT a problem.
This means, that the time of arrival of the reflected signal isn't
detectable in B at all.
This is NOT a problem : this information play NO role in the procedure.
Since time-informations get outdated very fast, the observer in A
would need to figure out the delay in advance, encode it into the
timing signal, too, and send the result to the remote station.
No. Only t_A, t_B and t'_A are needed. NOTHING MORE.
Another option would be [...]
We don't care. We're talking about Einstein procedure.
Am Freitag000026, 26.09.2025 um 09:09 schrieb Python:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 08:28, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 10:32 schrieb Python:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:I already did, NUMEROUS times !!!
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human organs >>>>>>>>>>> called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means of >>>>>>>>>>> light, which travels from there to here (where we are as >>>>>>>>>>> observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we see >>>>>>>>>>> remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what
clocks in 'B' show?
There had to be some sort of communication or observation between >>>>>>> A and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't make sense. >>>>>>>
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >>>>>>>> Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate >>>>>>>> |-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which >>>>>>>> |-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer >>>>>>>> |-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate >>>>>>>> |-a neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A. >>>>>>>> An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B. >>>>>>>> Local observations only!
Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local observations? >>>>>>>
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula >>>>>>>>>> is NOT t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) >>>>>>>>>> but t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A.
But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be >>>>>>>>> equal on both ways (towards the remote station and back).
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined for >>>>>>> moving clocks.
The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity
are stationary in the same frame of reference.
Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>
To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell >>>>>>> the remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of his >>>>>>> clock.
So: how could that be done, if there is no communication?
To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the field >>>>>>>>> of application to no-moving stations.
So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that >>>>>>>>> restriction and simply forgot to write it down.
He didn't forget to write it down. See quotation above.
"If at the point A of space there is a clock"
"If there is at the point B of space another clock"
In more modern nomenclature we will use "frame of reference"
in stead of "space".
'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'.
So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. >>>>>>>
So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in >>>>>>>>> respect to each other.
Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want to >>>>>>>>> synchronize them.
No, Einstein will not synchronise them, he will see if
they are synchronous.
How, if he can't observe the remote clock?
Which of these proposition are true?
- You don't read the posts you're answering to
- You are abysmally stupid
- You are utterly dishonest
Note that they are not mutually exclusive.
Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization of >>>>> two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was
appropriate.
I wrote:
no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work.
I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way.
And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm stupid. >>>>
If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow
address the problem and answer my own question, how you could
possibly snchronize clocks by Einstein's method.
In short:
Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
to be valid.
t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock in B. >>>>>
So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically):
Practice
1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B
2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B
3) B reflects the signal back towards A
4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A
Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time.
(the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at
the same time)
We can compute an offset to apply to clock A or clock B, or even to
both by dividing these offset by two.
This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which
contains the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set.
BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method.
Definitely NOT. Hopefully.
Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
would be fullfilled.
But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value in >>>>> measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ?
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is either true or not, right?
If it's true, there is nothing to do. Let's see what could be done if >>>> it is not true below.
As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very
briefly when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a
little flash).
That's it!
Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ?
Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single
'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ?
B can read his clock at "beep" time, right?
Sure, but B can ONLY read the own clock and 't_B' from that.
t'_A and t_A are unknown in A, unless A tells the observer in B, what
t_A and t'_A are.
A knows t'_A and t_A. What prevent this information to be conmunicated
(by any mean) to B
(same for t_B to be communicated to A).
Somehow A needs to send this information to B, because otherwise B
cannot compute t'_A - t_B or t_B - t_A.
This is exactly what I told you. YES.
Another problem occurs, because t'_A is later than t_B.
This is NOT a problem.
This means, that the time of arrival of the reflected signal isn't
detectable in B at all.
This is NOT a problem : this information play NO role in the procedure.
Since time-informations get outdated very fast, the observer in A
would need to figure out the delay in advance, encode it into the
timing signal, too, and send the result to the remote station.
No. Only t_A, t_B and t'_A are needed. NOTHING MORE.
Another option would be [...]
We don't care. We're talking about Einstein procedure.
Ok.
But in the case of 'snail mail' the only possible way would be this:
A sends a signal at t_A
B receives a 'ping' at a certain time t_B, which the observer reads from
his own clock.
He writes that value down and mails the letter to A.
A knows when he had sent out the signal in terms of 'A-time' t_A.
From the time of arrival of the reflected signal t'_A he can figure out
the delay and when B should have received the signal in measures of 'A-time'.
Now A receives the letter from B and reads, what the observer B actually measured in terms of 'B-time' of the same event.
A can now figure out the discrepancy between A-time and B-time.
This would enable A to set his clock accordingly, so that it would show 'B-time' and both clocks are in synch.
But there are two problems with this solution:
1) A couldn't really use a 'B-time-clock' in his environment, which
based on 'A-time'.
2) Actually he wanted the clock in B to become set to 'A-time'.
Le 27/09/2025 |a 08:28, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000026, 26.09.2025 um 09:09 schrieb Python:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 08:28, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 10:32 schrieb Python:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>>> Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human >>>>>>>>>>>> organs called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means >>>>>>>>>>>> of light, which travels from there to here (where we are as >>>>>>>>>>>> observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we >>>>>>>>>>>> see remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what
clocks in 'B' show?
There had to be some sort of communication or observation
between A and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't >>>>>>>> make sense.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >>>>>>>>> Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate >>>>>>>>> |-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which >>>>>>>>> |-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all >>>>>>>>> |-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an >>>>>>>>> observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate >>>>>>>>> |-a neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A. >>>>>>>>> An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B. >>>>>>>>> Local observations only!
Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local
observations?
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking
formula is NOT t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted >>>>>>>>>>> as wrong) but t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A.
But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be >>>>>>>>>> equal on both ways (towards the remote station and back).
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined >>>>>>>> for moving clocks.
The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity
are stationary in the same frame of reference.
Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>>
To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell >>>>>>>> the remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of >>>>>>>> his clock.
So: how could that be done, if there is no communication?
To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the >>>>>>>>>> field of application to no-moving stations.
So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that >>>>>>>>>> restriction and simply forgot to write it down.
He didn't forget to write it down. See quotation above.
"If at the point A of space there is a clock"
"If there is at the point B of space another clock"
In more modern nomenclature we will use "frame of reference" >>>>>>>>> in stead of "space".
'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'.
So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. >>>>>>>>
So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in >>>>>>>>>> respect to each other.
Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want >>>>>>>>>> to synchronize them.
No, Einstein will not synchronise them, he will see if
they are synchronous.
How, if he can't observe the remote clock?
Which of these proposition are true?
- You don't read the posts you're answering to
- You are abysmally stupid
- You are utterly dishonest
Note that they are not mutually exclusive.
Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization
of two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was
appropriate.
I wrote:
no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the >>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work. >>>>>>
I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way.
And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm
stupid.
I already did, NUMEROUS times !!!
If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow
address the problem and answer my own question, how you could
possibly snchronize clocks by Einstein's method.
In short:
Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
to be valid.
t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock
in B.
So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically):
Practice
1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B
2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B
3) B reflects the signal back towards A
4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A
Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time.
(the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at >>>>>> the same time)
We can compute an offset to apply to clock A or clock B, or even to >>>>> both by dividing these offset by two.
This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which
contains the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set.
BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method.
Definitely NOT. Hopefully.
Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>>>>> would be fullfilled.
But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value
in measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ?
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is either true or not, right?
If it's true, there is nothing to do. Let's see what could be done
if it is not true below.
As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very
briefly when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a
little flash).
That's it!
Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ?
Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single >>>>>> 'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ?
B can read his clock at "beep" time, right?
Sure, but B can ONLY read the own clock and 't_B' from that.
t'_A and t_A are unknown in A, unless A tells the observer in B,
what t_A and t'_A are.
A knows t'_A and t_A. What prevent this information to be
conmunicated (by any mean) to B
(same for t_B to be communicated to A).
Somehow A needs to send this information to B, because otherwise B
cannot compute t'_A - t_B or t_B - t_A.
This is exactly what I told you. YES.
Another problem occurs, because t'_A is later than t_B.
This is NOT a problem.
This means, that the time of arrival of the reflected signal isn't
detectable in B at all.
This is NOT a problem : this information play NO role in the procedure.
Since time-informations get outdated very fast, the observer in A
would need to figure out the delay in advance, encode it into the
timing signal, too, and send the result to the remote station.
No. Only t_A, t_B and t'_A are needed. NOTHING MORE.
Another option would be [...]
We don't care. We're talking about Einstein procedure.
Ok.
But in the case of 'snail mail' the only possible way would be this:
A sends a signal at t_A
B receives a 'ping' at a certain time t_B, which the observer reads
from his own clock.
He writes that value down and mails the letter to A.
A knows when he had sent out the signal in terms of 'A-time' t_A.
-aFrom the time of arrival of the reflected signal t'_A he can figure
out the delay and when B should have received the signal in measures
of 'A-time'.
Now A receives the letter from B and reads, what the observer B
actually measured in terms of 'B-time' of the same event.
A can now figure out the discrepancy between A-time and B-time.
This would enable A to set his clock accordingly, so that it would
show 'B-time' and both clocks are in synch.
But there are two problems with this solution:
1) A couldn't really use a 'B-time-clock' in his environment, which
based on 'A-time'.
2) Actually he wanted the clock in B to become set to 'A-time'.
You, again, did not pay attention. Things are far more simple than you nonsense.
Step 1 : perform the exchange of light signal as described in Einstein's article.
When it is done here is the situation :
- observer at A know t_A and t'_A
- observer at B knows t_B
Step 1.5:
A writes down t_A on a piece of paper and sent it by snail mail, horse, pigeon, whatever to B.
Step 2
At reception (the time of reception DOES NOT MATTER), B can check :
Is t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A ?
If TRUE then do nothing : clocks are already in sync (Einstein procedure explicitly)
If FALSE then B can apply an offset to its clock, i.e add the value (t_A
+ t'_A)/2 to whatever it is displaying.
Clocks are then in sync.
Am Samstag000027, 27.09.2025 um 10:25 schrieb Python:
Le 27/09/2025 |a 08:28, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000026, 26.09.2025 um 09:09 schrieb Python:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 08:28, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000024, 24.09.2025 um 10:32 schrieb Python:
Le 24/09/2025 |a 07:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000023, 23.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Python:
Le 23/09/2025 |a 09:59, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Montag000022, 22.09.2025 um 22:09 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>>>> Den 22.09.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.09.2025 um 11:50 schrieb Python:
Le 21/09/2025 |a 10:44, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
'showing' is meant as reference to our use of the human >>>>>>>>>>>>> organs called 'eyes'.
These organs detect signals from remote locations by means >>>>>>>>>>>>> of light, which travels from there to here (where we are as >>>>>>>>>>>>> observers).
This trip does in fact need some amount of time, hence we >>>>>>>>>>>>> see remote clocks with a little delay.
This would mean:
if we see t'=t than both clocks are out of synch.
Right.
That's why there are no visual observations
of remote clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity.
If so, then how could the observer in 'A' possibly know what >>>>>>>>> clocks in 'B' show?
There had to be some sort of communication or observation
between A and B, because otherwise the entire operation wouldn't >>>>>>>>> make sense.
You have been told this a _lot_ of times by Python, me and others. >>>>>>>>>> Why do you never learn?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer >>>>>>>>>> |-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate >>>>>>>>>> |-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which >>>>>>>>>> |-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all >>>>>>>>>> |-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an >>>>>>>>>> observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate >>>>>>>>>> |-a neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A. >>>>>>>>>> An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B. >>>>>>>>>> Local observations only!
Sure, but how do you synchronize clocks with only local
observations?
If the distance between the clocks changes with time,
Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking >>>>>>>>>>>> formula is NOT t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted >>>>>>>>>>>> as wrong) but t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A.
But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.
In this case the time for transit of the signal wouldn't be >>>>>>>>>>> equal on both ways (towards the remote station and back). >>>>>>>>>>
then the clocks can't be synchronous.
Why?
I see no particular reason, why 'in synch' couldn't be defined >>>>>>>>> for moving clocks.
The clocks in Einstein's definition of simultaneity
are stationary in the same frame of reference.
Well, OK, but that wouldn't solve the problem of synchronization. >>>>>>>>>
To synch a remote clock to the own time, you would need to tell >>>>>>>>> the remote observer, to which time he had to turn the knobs of >>>>>>>>> his clock.
So: how could that be done, if there is no communication?
To make this equation valid, Einstein had to restrict the >>>>>>>>>>> field of application to no-moving stations.
So, let's be generous and assume, that he actually meant that >>>>>>>>>>> restriction and simply forgot to write it down.
He didn't forget to write it down. See quotation above.
"If at the point A of space there is a clock"
"If there is at the point B of space another clock"
In more modern nomenclature we will use "frame of reference" >>>>>>>>>> in stead of "space".
'frame of reference' means 'space plus a measure of time'.
So 'space' and 'frame of reference' are not meant to be synonymous. >>>>>>>>>
So: now we have two stations (A and B), which do not move in >>>>>>>>>>> respect to each other.
Now we still have two disconnected clocks in A and B and want >>>>>>>>>>> to synchronize them.
No, Einstein will not synchronise them, he will see if
they are synchronous.
How, if he can't observe the remote clock?
Which of these proposition are true?
- You don't read the posts you're answering to
- You are abysmally stupid
- You are utterly dishonest
Note that they are not mutually exclusive.
Your answer didn't address the topic, which was 'synchronization >>>>>>> of two remote clocks' and whether or not Einstein's method was
appropriate.
I wrote:
no, Einstein's method as described in his article of 1905 'On the >>>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' was nonsense and would not work. >>>>>>>
I gave you numerous hints, why I would think that way.
And all you have to reply was your question, whether or not I'm >>>>>>> stupid.
I already did, NUMEROUS times !!!
If you like to defend Einstein's position, you should somehow
address the problem and answer my own question, how you could
possibly snchronize clocks by Einstein's method.
In short:
Einstein wanted to send a light pulse from A to B and then wanted >>>>>>>
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A
to be valid.
t'_A and t_A are measured by the clock in A and t_B by the clock >>>>>>> in B.
So, now we have to do the method in 'practise' (theoretically):
Practice
1) A sends a light pulse from A towards B
2) B recoginzes this pulse at time t_B
3) B reflects the signal back towards A
4) A receives the reflected pulse at time t'_A
Now it's our aim to set the clock at B synchronous to A-time.
(the other way round would also be possible, but not both ways at >>>>>>> the same time)
We can compute an offset to apply to clock A or clock B, or even to >>>>>> both by dividing these offset by two.
This could be done by sending a coded signal from A to B, which >>>>>>> contains the time, to which the clock at B needs to be set.
BUT: that was NOT Einstein's method.
Definitely NOT. Hopefully.
Instead Einstein wanted, that the condition t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A >>>>>>> would be fullfilled.
But how could that be done, if B does not know the correct value >>>>>>> in measures of 'A-time', to which his clock had to be set? ? ?
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A is either true or not, right?
If it's true, there is nothing to do. Let's see what could be done >>>>>> if it is not true below.
As you see from above: B is involved in the process only very
briefly when B receives a little 'beep' (or in case of light a
little flash).
That's it!
Now what should B do with this 'beep'? ? ? ?
Or in other words: how could B possibly extract t_B from a single >>>>>>> 'beep'? ? ? ? ? ? ?
B can read his clock at "beep" time, right?
Sure, but B can ONLY read the own clock and 't_B' from that.
t'_A and t_A are unknown in A, unless A tells the observer in B,
what t_A and t'_A are.
A knows t'_A and t_A. What prevent this information to be
conmunicated (by any mean) to B
(same for t_B to be communicated to A).
Somehow A needs to send this information to B, because otherwise B
cannot compute t'_A - t_B or t_B - t_A.
This is exactly what I told you. YES.
Another problem occurs, because t'_A is later than t_B.
This is NOT a problem.
This means, that the time of arrival of the reflected signal isn't
detectable in B at all.
This is NOT a problem : this information play NO role in the procedure. >>>>
Since time-informations get outdated very fast, the observer in A
would need to figure out the delay in advance, encode it into the
timing signal, too, and send the result to the remote station.
No. Only t_A, t_B and t'_A are needed. NOTHING MORE.
Another option would be [...]
We don't care. We're talking about Einstein procedure.
Ok.
But in the case of 'snail mail' the only possible way would be this:
A sends a signal at t_A
B receives a 'ping' at a certain time t_B, which the observer reads
from his own clock.
He writes that value down and mails the letter to A.
A knows when he had sent out the signal in terms of 'A-time' t_A.
-aFrom the time of arrival of the reflected signal t'_A he can figure
out the delay and when B should have received the signal in measures
of 'A-time'.
Now A receives the letter from B and reads, what the observer B
actually measured in terms of 'B-time' of the same event.
A can now figure out the discrepancy between A-time and B-time.
This would enable A to set his clock accordingly, so that it would
show 'B-time' and both clocks are in synch.
But there are two problems with this solution:
1) A couldn't really use a 'B-time-clock' in his environment, which
based on 'A-time'.
2) Actually he wanted the clock in B to become set to 'A-time'.
You, again, did not pay attention. Things are far more simple than you
nonsense.
Step 1 : perform the exchange of light signal as described in Einstein's
article.
When it is done here is the situation :
- observer at A know t_A and t'_A
- observer at B knows t_B
Step 1.5:
A writes down t_A on a piece of paper and sent it by snail mail, horse,
pigeon, whatever to B.
Step 2
At reception (the time of reception DOES NOT MATTER), B can check :
Is t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A ?
If TRUE then do nothing : clocks are already in sync (Einstein procedure
explicitly)
If FALSE then B can apply an offset to its clock, i.e add the value (t_A
+ t'_A)/2 to whatever it is displaying.
Clocks are then in sync.
Ok
That seems to be possible, too.
Actually I have not found this solution myself, even if I have dealt
with this problem for quite a lot of time.
But why didn't Einstein mention this solution?
My problem was, that I thought about 'local time' and therefore wanted 'A-time' to be named 't' and 'B-time' values 'tau'.
So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and
based on system K.
But that wasn't actually Einstein's use of the letter 't'.
It was only my impression of Einstein's intentions, because I have read
the paper several times and introduced concepts from that paper which occured later also to the beginning, where they do not apply.
Paul told you. Einstein only need a synchronisation checking procedure
in order to go on the definition of a common time within a frame of reference.
The way clocks are actually, in practice, synchronized can use other
means than light propagation in vacuum.
On 9/28/2025 10:39 AM, Python wrote:
Paul told you. Einstein only need a synchronisation checking procedure
in order to go on the definition of a common time within a frame of
reference.
Not quite
[A.E] concocted this
to "prove" that global synchronization is
impossible, that good clocks are desynchronizing
clocks and so on.
The way clocks are actually, in practice, synchronized can use other
means than light propagation in vacuum.
And they do. Of course, you're trying to
persuade that the only sunchronization is
[A.E]'s synchronization.
the idiot, the idiot, disgusting piece of lying shit, doggie
Le 28/09/2025 |a 11:11, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/28/2025 10:39 AM, Python wrote:
Paul told you. Einstein only need a synchronisation checking
procedure in order to go on the definition of a common time within a
frame of reference.
Not quite
Quite
[A.E] concocted this to "prove" that global synchronization is
impossible, that good clocks are desynchronizing
clocks and so on.
Quite the opposite.
Your misunderstandings of A.E. article are abysmal.
The way clocks are actually, in practice, synchronized can use other
means than light propagation in vacuum.
And they do. Of course, you're trying to
persuade that the only sunchronization is
[A.E]'s synchronization.
I am trying to explain (persuade if you wish) how Einstein's
synchronization method makes sense.
On 9/28/2025 11:15 AM, Python wrote:
Le 28/09/2025 |a 11:11, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/28/2025 10:39 AM, Python wrote:
Paul told you. Einstein only need a synchronisation checking
procedure in order to go on the definition of a common time within a
frame of reference.
Not quite
Quite
[A.E] concocted this to "prove" that global synchronization is
impossible, that good clocks are desynchronizing
clocks and so on.
Quite the opposite.
Opposite? [A.E] has been proving
that global synchronization is possible?
Are you sure?
Your misunderstandings of A.E. article are abysmal.
The way clocks are actually, in practice, synchronized can Bullshituse other
means than light propagation in vacuum.
And they do. Of course, you're trying to
persuade that the only sunchronization is
[A.E]'s synchronization.
I am trying to explain (persuade if you wish) how Einstein's
synchronization method makes sense.
You were trying to persuade that everything
bows before The Holiest Procedure. ,
the real synchronization is what we did in
GPS, for instance.
Global synchronization is definitely possible.
Doesn't have to be easy, of course - but it
was never easy.
The idiot, poor stinker, Bullshit
Le 28/09/2025 |a 09:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :..
So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and
based on system K.
You opinion is wrong.
Am Samstag000027, 27.09.2025 um 10:25 schrieb Python:
You, again, did not pay attention. Things are far more simple than you
nonsense.
Step 1 : perform the exchange of light signal as described in
Einstein's article.
When it is done here is the situation :
- observer at A know t_A and t'_A
- observer at B knows t_B
Step 1.5:
A writes down t_A on a piece of paper and sent it by snail mail,
horse, pigeon, whatever to B.
Step 2
At reception (the time of reception DOES NOT MATTER), B can check :
Is t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A ?
If TRUE then do nothing : clocks are already in sync (Einstein
procedure explicitly)
If FALSE then B can apply an offset to its clock, i.e add the value
(t_A + t'_A)/2 to whatever it is displaying.
Clocks are then in sync.
Ok
That seems to be possible, too.
Actually I have not found this solution myself, even if I have dealt
with this problem for quite a lot of time.
But why didn't Einstein mention this solution?
Am Samstag000027, 27.09.2025 um 10:25 schrieb Python:
You, again, did not pay attention. Things are far more simple than you
nonsense.
Step 1 : perform the exchange of light signal as described in
Einstein's article.
When it is done here is the situation :
- observer at A know t_A and t'_A
- observer at B knows t_B
Step 1.5:
A writes down t_A on a piece of paper and sent it by snail mail,
horse, pigeon, whatever to B.
Step 2
At reception (the time of reception DOES NOT MATTER), B can check :
Is t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A ?
If TRUE then do nothing : clocks are already in sync (Einstein
procedure explicitly)
If FALSE then B can apply an offset to its clock, i.e add the value
(t_A + t'_A)/2 to whatever it is displaying.
Clocks are then in sync.
Ok
That seems to be possible, too.
Actually I have not found this solution myself, even if I have dealt
with this problem for quite a lot of time.
But why didn't Einstein mention this solution?
Den 28.09.2025 09:47, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Samstag000027, 27.09.2025 um 10:25 schrieb Python:
You, again, did not pay attention. Things are far more simple than
you nonsense.
Step 1 : perform the exchange of light signal as described in
Einstein's article.
When it is done here is the situation :
- observer at A know t_A and t'_A
- observer at B knows t_B
Step 1.5:
A writes down t_A on a piece of paper and sent it by snail mail,
horse, pigeon, whatever to B.
Step 2
At reception (the time of reception DOES NOT MATTER), B can check :
Is t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A ?
If TRUE then do nothing : clocks are already in sync (Einstein
procedure explicitly)
If FALSE then B can apply an offset to its clock, i.e add the value
(t_A + t'_A)/2 to whatever it is displaying.
Clocks are then in sync.
Ok
That seems to be possible, too.
Actually I have not found this solution myself, even if I have dealt
with this problem for quite a lot of time.
But why didn't Einstein mention this solution?
Because:
How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances,
and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method
which should be applicable for all cases in all future.
To illustrate the problem let's ask:
How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks?
Let two clocks A and B be stationary at the geoid at equator.
Clock B is a distance L east of clock A.
We know that clock A is synchronous with UTC, and we want to
synchronise clock B to UTC.
How do we do it?
The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in
the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame),
they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
On 9/29/2025 9:41 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.09.2025 09:47, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Samstag000027, 27.09.2025 um 10:25 schrieb Python:
You, again, did not pay attention. Things are far more simple than
you nonsense.
Step 1 : perform the exchange of light signal as described in
Einstein's article.
When it is done here is the situation :
- observer at A know t_A and t'_A
- observer at B knows t_B
Step 1.5:
A writes down t_A on a piece of paper and sent it by snail mail,
horse, pigeon, whatever to B.
Step 2
At reception (the time of reception DOES NOT MATTER), B can check :
Is t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A ?
If TRUE then do nothing : clocks are already in sync (Einstein
procedure explicitly)
If FALSE then B can apply an offset to its clock, i.e add the value
(t_A + t'_A)/2 to whatever it is displaying.
Clocks are then in sync.
Ok
That seems to be possible, too.
Actually I have not found this solution myself, even if I have dealt
with this problem for quite a lot of time.
But why didn't Einstein mention this solution?
Because:
How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances,
and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method
which should be applicable for all cases in all future.
It would be and it was. Your idiot guru was a true
idiot.
To illustrate the problem let's ask:
How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks?
Ignoring The Holiest And The One And Only
Procedure Of Synchronization announced by
your idiot guru.
Let two clocks A and B be stationary at the geoid at equator.
Clock B is a distance L east of clock A.
We know that clock A is synchronous with UTC, and we want to
synchronise clock B to UTC.
How do we do it?
The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in
the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame),
they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
You're an idiot to believe they're NOT.
How do we do it?
The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in
the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame),
they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
You're an idiot to believe they're NOT.
Because a senile Polish crank is barking and barfing?
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?
tau is a time coordinate in another frame of reference, definitely not "B-time".
Nevertheless tau is defined in this *other* frame of reference in
*exactly* the same way t is (with t_A, t'_A, t_B etc.) with a set of
clocks at rest in this other frame.
IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what he
called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead readers
at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle from Galileo but
it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you.
Well, it was actually a guess.So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and
based on system K.
You opinion is wrong.
But that wasn't actually Einstein's use of the letter 't'.
It wasn't, sure.
It was only my impression of Einstein's intentions, because I have
read the paper several times and introduced concepts from that paper
which occured later also to the beginning, where they do not apply.
You have introduced your own fantasies into a paper you completely
failed to understand. This leads to the absolute bunch of nonsense that
is your comments on it.
Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Python:
...
My problem was, that I thought about 'local time' and therefore wanted
'A-time' to be named 't' and 'B-time' values 'tau'.
Why "what you want" would be of any interest when it comes to analyze
Einstein's paper?
Well, actually the author had to tell his story and the reader had to read.
If the author writes stories, which you could interpret in many
different ways, than the text has to be understood by the least likely interpretation, because ambiguity goes against the author.
tau is a time coordinate in another frame of reference, definitely not
"B-time".
Sure: A has a time called 'A-time' and B a time called 'B-time'
Since 'A-time' is not equal to 'B-time'
A and B belong to two different frames of reference.
Nevertheless tau is defined in this *other* frame of reference in
*exactly* the same way t is (with t_A, t'_A, t_B etc.) with a set of
clocks at rest in this other frame.
IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what he
called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead readers
at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle from Galileo but
it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you.
I don't agree here, because I took 'at rest' as synonym for 'the own
system' and 'moving' for 'remote'.
But you are in fact right, that relativity is mutally symmetric and we
are in fact free to chose, which frame is moveing and which one at rest.
Well, it was actually a guess.So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and
based on system K.
You opinion is wrong.
That I had to guess, that was actually not my fault.
But that wasn't actually Einstein's use of the letter 't'.
It wasn't, sure.
Later Einstein used two different names for the time measure in the own
and the remote system.
This is what I would call 'backfire', because if this scheme was used
later, it had for consistency been used earlier, too.>
It was only my impression of Einstein's intentions, because I have
read the paper several times and introduced concepts from that paper
which occured later also to the beginning, where they do not apply.
You have introduced your own fantasies into a paper you completely
failed to understand. This leads to the absolute bunch of nonsense that
is your comments on it.
No, not completely.
I have not found a way, by which I could synchronize two remote clocks
by the use of Einstein's equation, because I had ascribed variables to
the wrong points.
But, as a matter of fact, I'm as a reader are not supposed to read Einstein's mind.
I wanted actually proper definitions of variables (actually demanded them).
What I also wanted would be 'continuity' in the setting and the used variable names.
Einstein in contrast made it extremely difficult to find out, what he actually had in mind (what in -my oppinion- an author is actually
obliged to write).
I wrote my comments from the hypothetical perferspective of a professor
and treated the text as if it would be the homework of a student.
In this my rule was 'ambiguity counts against the author'.
Le 28/09/2025 |a 10:39, Python a |-crit :
Le 28/09/2025 |a 09:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :..
So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and
based on system K.
You opinion is wrong.
More precisely: t is "A-time" if it is labeling an event at the position
of clock A. Otherwise it is "B-time" (clock B being at the position of
this event). These two values are assumed to be taken from clocks at B synchronized with A according to the definition in paragraph I.1.
Same for "tau" btw, in the "moving system" you can set up a network of clocks synchronized the same way as in the "stationary system" :
"Further, let the time t of the stationary system be determined for all points thereof at which there are clocks by means of light signals in
the manner indicated in -o 1; similarly let the time $\tau$ of the moving system be determined for all points of the moving system at which there
are clocks at rest relatively to that system by applying the method,
given in -o 1, of light signals between the points at which the latter clocks are located."
See? tau is defined exactly the same way t is, but in another "system"
i.e. "frame of reference".
Le 30/09/2025 |a 09:40, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Python:
...
My problem was, that I thought about 'local time' and therefore
wanted 'A-time' to be named 't' and 'B-time' values 'tau'.
Why "what you want" would be of any interest when it comes to analyze
Einstein's paper?
Well, actually the author had to tell his story and the reader had to
read.
If the author writes stories, which you could interpret in many
different ways, than the text has to be understood by the least likely
interpretation, because ambiguity goes against the author.
Einstein's paper left no room for interpretation. You introduced them because you misunderstood 99% of what he wrote.
tau is a time coordinate in another frame of reference, definitely
not "B-time".
Sure: A has a time called 'A-time' and B a time called 'B-time'
Since 'A-time' is not equal to 'B-time'
What could it means for two values that are constantly changing (a
number displayed by a clock !) to be "equal" or "not equal" ?
A and B belong to two different frames of reference.
No. They are clocks mutually at rest, which is a definition of devices
in a single frame of reference.
Moreover everything belong to ALL frames of reference. Everything than happens, happens for anyone.
Nevertheless tau is defined in this *other* frame of reference in
*exactly* the same way t is (with t_A, t'_A, t_B etc.) with a set of
clocks at rest in this other frame.
IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what he
called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead
readers at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle from
Galileo but it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you.
I don't agree here, because I took 'at rest' as synonym for 'the own
system' and 'moving' for 'remote'.
This is a misunderstanding on you side. Einstein didn't wrote anything suggesting your interpretation.
But you are in fact right, that relativity is mutally symmetric and we
are in fact free to chose, which frame is moveing and which one at rest.
Nice to read. Are you progressing in the direction that your comments
are asinine?
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.10.2025 um 12:26 schrieb Python:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 09:40, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Python:
IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what
he called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead
readers at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle from
Galileo but it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you.
I don't agree here, because I took 'at rest' as synonym for 'the own
system' and 'moving' for 'remote'.
This is a misunderstanding on you side. Einstein didn't wrote anything
suggesting your interpretation.
Sure, but I have not written, that Einstein said so, but that my usual setting would be this way.
I usually 'halt' the observer and declare the observer to be at rest.
This is just an arbitrary choice, but a practical one.
You could also say, the observer would move with multiples of c, if you prefer that. But such a setting isn't very useful.
Therefore my standard setiing setting is: the observer doesn't move and everything else does.
Einstein on the other hand used 'at rest' numerous time, but didn't say,
in respect to what the system K was at rest.
I personally didn't like that and used to say: the observer does not
move in respect to himself.
That's why the observer is at rest. But that is just an arbitrary choice which could be made otherwise.
Den 02.10.2025 09:42, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.10.2025 um 12:26 schrieb Python:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 09:40, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Python:
I don't agree here, because I took 'at rest' as synonym for 'the own
IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what
he called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead
readers at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle
from Galileo but it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you. >>>>
system' and 'moving' for 'remote'.
This is a misunderstanding on you side. Einstein didn't wrote
anything suggesting your interpretation.
Sure, but I have not written, that Einstein said so, but that my usual
setting would be this way.
I usually 'halt' the observer and declare the observer to be at rest.
This is just an arbitrary choice, but a practical one.
You could also say, the observer would move with multiples of c, if
you prefer that. But such a setting isn't very useful.
Therefore my standard setiing setting is: the observer doesn't move
and everything else does.
Einstein on the other hand used 'at rest' numerous time, but didn't
say, in respect to what the system K was at rest.
I personally didn't like that and used to say: the observer does not
move in respect to himself.
That's why the observer is at rest. But that is just an arbitrary
choice which could be made otherwise.
Why do you think that your "standard setting" is relevant to
Einstein's definition of simultaneity?
--------------------------
Why have you not responded to the following?
If it is something you do not understand, ask.
Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity,
it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks
synchronous.
Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous,
is a thought experiment.
A thought experiment is to see the logical consequences of a set
of assumptions.
A thought experiment does not prove that the assumptions are true.
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
With what kind of precession do you think it in 1905 was possible
to "determine the time values of events" "by finding the positions
of the hands"? And the observer at B had to find the position of
the hands when he saw the ray hit the mirror.
At the very best the precision would be in the order of second,
which is many order of magnitudes more than the transit time.
(Einstein never imagined that point B should be beyond the Moon.)
So of course this is a thought experiment and was never meant
to really be performed. Einstein expected the reader to
understand that. Which physicist and other knowledgeable
people did.
You can't synchronise real clocks with a thought experiment,
so that was obviously not Einstein's intension.
I have posted the following before. Will you read it this time?
---------------------------------
This document defines The Special Theory of Relativity(SR): https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
SR is a mathematical consistent theory.
That means that SR is what Einstein says it is,
you can't claim that Einstein is wrong.
Your or anybody's opinions are irrelevant.
It is even irrelevant if SR's predictions are
in accordance with measurements.
(But if they weren't SR would long since been
forgotten and we wouldn't have this discussion.)
This definition together with the two postulates of SR means:
-a-a-a-a-a The speed of light is isotropic c by definition.
This is a definition of simultaneity, se below.
This document defines The Special Theory of Relativity(SR):
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf SR is a mathematical
consistent theory.
SR is not a mathematical theory, it's a physical theory and it was not consistent - as it has been proven many times here. Not that a proof can affect a brainwashed religious maniac, of course.
Le 30/09/2025 |a 09:40, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
There is 0% ambiguity in Einstein's paper.
Mais il applique une contraction des longueur et des distances de fa|oon particuli|?rement imb|-cile, et contre m|-me les transformations de Poincar|--Lorentz. Un objet qui se d|-place rapidement ne voit pas les distances devant lui se contracter. A 0.8c une distance de 100 m|?tres ne devient pas 60 m|?tres. Elle devient 300 m|?tres.
Den 02.10.2025 09:42, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.10.2025 um 12:26 schrieb Python:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 09:40, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Python:
I don't agree here, because I took 'at rest' as synonym for 'the own
IMHO what Einstein should have been avoid is to label frames (what
he called "system") as "stationary" or "moving". It didn't mislead
readers at that time who were aware of the Relativity Principle
from Galileo but it definitely mislead a lot of people, including you. >>>>
system' and 'moving' for 'remote'.
This is a misunderstanding on you side. Einstein didn't wrote
anything suggesting your interpretation.
Sure, but I have not written, that Einstein said so, but that my usual
setting would be this way.
I usually 'halt' the observer and declare the observer to be at rest.
This is just an arbitrary choice, but a practical one.
You could also say, the observer would move with multiples of c, if
you prefer that. But such a setting isn't very useful.
Therefore my standard setiing setting is: the observer doesn't move
and everything else does.
Einstein on the other hand used 'at rest' numerous time, but didn't
say, in respect to what the system K was at rest.
I personally didn't like that and used to say: the observer does not
move in respect to himself.
That's why the observer is at rest. But that is just an arbitrary
choice which could be made otherwise.
Why do you think that your "standard setting" is relevant to
Einstein's definition of simultaneity?
--------------------------
Why have you not responded to the following?
If it is something you do not understand, ask.
Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity,
it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks
synchronous.
Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous,
is a thought experiment.
A thought experiment is to see the logical consequences of a set
of assumptions.
A thought experiment does not prove that the assumptions are true.
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
With what kind of precession do you think it in 1905 was possible
to "determine the time values of events" "by finding the positions
of the hands"? And the observer at B had to find the position of
the hands when he saw the ray hit the mirror.
At the very best the precision would be in the order of second,
which is many order of magnitudes more than the transit time.
(Einstein never imagined that point B should be beyond the Moon.)
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.
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-a and the real signal by light or radio waves could be put in 'by hand' and by calculating the delay of light to travgel between two points and adding the result to the timing signals.
Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous,
is a thought experiment.
Really? Could he do that?
A thought experiment is to see the logical consequences of a setWell, yes.
of assumptions.
A thought experiment does not prove that the assumptions are true.
This is similar to a proof in mathematics.
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
With what kind of precession do you think it in 1905 was possible
to "determine the time values of events" "by finding the positions
of the hands"? And the observer at B had to find the position of
the hands when he saw the ray hit the mirror.
The mirror was supposed to stand near the clock at point B, while the observer at A sends out a beam of light at some known point in time.
So, the observer at B (also named 'B') watches his mirror and tries to
catch that moment, when a signal from A arrives, looks immediatly at his watch and tries to remember, where the hands were.
But what Einstein didn't write was also important:
he had to write down the read out of his clock and mail it to A.
Ok, actually that method was the other way round:
A reads out his clock at the start of the ray, writes that value down
next A reads the own clock, once the ray returns and writes that value
down.
Then this paper is sent as a letter (by US-postal service or similar) to
the remote station (the Moon for instance).
There the observer at B receives the letter, calculates the delay, adds
that delay to the start time and turns the own clock to the result.
The discrepancy to the real world-a 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-
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-a 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: -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in -o1 of his paper
defines simultaneity, and does not explain how to synchronise
asynchronous clocks.
Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous,
is a thought experiment.
Really? Could he do that?
A thought experiment is to see the logical consequences of a setWell, yes.
of assumptions.
A thought experiment does not prove that the assumptions are true.
This is similar to a proof in mathematics.
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
With what kind of precession do you think it in 1905 was possible
to "determine the time values of events" "by finding the positions
of the hands"? And the observer at B had to find the position of
the hands when he saw the ray hit the mirror.
The mirror was supposed to stand near the clock at point B, while the
observer at A sends out a beam of light at some known point in time.
So, the observer at B (also named 'B') watches his mirror and tries to
catch that moment, when a signal from A arrives, looks immediatly at his
watch and tries to remember, where the hands were.
But what Einstein didn't write was also important:
he had to write down the read out of his clock and mail it to A.
Ok, actually that method was the other way round:
A reads out his clock at the start of the ray, writes that value down
next A reads the own clock, once the ray returns and writes that value
down.
Then this paper is sent as a letter (by US-postal service or similar) to
the remote station (the Moon for instance).
There the observer at B receives the letter, calculates the delay, adds
that delay to the start time and turns the own clock to the result.
Why could Einstein write:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB" ?
Was it because:
1. A human observer at A had, by observing the hands of his clock,
measured that the clock showed tA when the ray was sent,
and that the clock showed t'A when he saw the reflected ray.
And a human observer at B had, by observing the hands of his clock,
measured that his clock showed tB when he saw the ray from A.
And when the measurements were done, the human observer at A
sent tA and t'A to the human observer at B who could calculate
if (tB reA tA) = (trC#A reA tB) = d/c, in which case the two clocks
were synchronous.
2. Einstein demonstrated that if tA, t'A and tB were measured
with infinite precision, and the transit time is exactly d/c by
definition, then it logically follows that if (tBreAtA) = (trC#AreAtB)
then tB = (tA + d/c) and trC#A = (tB + d/c) which means that both
clocks simultaneously show the same.
Of course you know that none of the measurements described in
1. were made.
Einstein statement:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB"
is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.
It is not a result of real measurements.
You can see this explained in better detail below:
(Why did you snip it? Didn't you understand it?)
-----------------------------
We start with this quote:
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| we establish
| by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel
| from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from
| B to A."
Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary
relative to each other.
This definition together with the two postulates of SR means:
The speed of light is isotropic c by definition.
This is a definition of simultaneity, se below.
That two clocks are synchronous means that they
simultaneously show the same.
Now Einstein made the following _thought experiment_:
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
| let it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC#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 reA tA = trC#A reA 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.
Le 03/10/2025 |a 20:10, "Paul B. Andersen" a |-crit :
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-a 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: -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in -o1 of his paper
defines simultaneity, and does not explain how to synchronise
asynchronous clocks.
Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous,
is a thought experiment.
Really? Could he do that?
A thought experiment is to see the logical consequences of a setWell, yes.
of assumptions.
A thought experiment does not prove that the assumptions are true.
This is similar to a proof in mathematics.
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
With what kind of precession do you think it in 1905 was possible
to "determine the time values of events" "by finding the positions
of the hands"? And the observer at B had to find the position of
the hands when he saw the ray hit the mirror.
The mirror was supposed to stand near the clock at point B, while the
observer at A sends out a beam of light at some known point in time.
So, the observer at B (also named 'B') watches his mirror and tries to
catch that moment, when a signal from A arrives, looks immediatly at his >>> watch and tries to remember, where the hands were.
But what Einstein didn't write was also important:
he had to write down the read out of his clock and mail it to A.
Ok, actually that method was the other way round:
A reads out his clock at the start of the ray, writes that value down
next A reads the own clock, once the ray returns and writes that value
down.
Then this paper is sent as a letter (by US-postal service or similar) to >>> the remote station (the Moon for instance).
There the observer at B receives the letter, calculates the delay, adds >>> that delay to the start time and turns the own clock to the result.
Why could Einstein write:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB" ?
Was it because:
1. A human observer at A had, by observing the hands of his clock,
measured that the clock showed tA when the ray was sent,
and that the clock showed t'A when he saw the reflected ray.
And a human observer at B had, by observing the hands of his clock,
measured that his clock showed tB when he saw the ray from A.
And when the measurements were done, the human observer at A
sent tA and t'A to the human observer at B who could calculate
if (tB reA tA) = (trC#A reA tB) = d/c, in which case the two clocks
were synchronous.
2. Einstein demonstrated that if tA, t'A and tB were measured
with infinite precision, and the transit time is exactly d/c by
definition, then it logically follows that if (tBreAtA) = (trC#AreAtB) >> then tB = (tA + d/c) and trC#A = (tB + d/c) which means that both
clocks simultaneously show the same.
Of course you know that none of the measurements described in
1. were made.
Einstein statement:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB"
is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.
It is not a result of real measurements.
You can see this explained in better detail below:
(Why did you snip it? Didn't you understand it?)
-----------------------------
We start with this quote:
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| we establish
| by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel
| from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from
| B to A."
Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary
relative to each other.
This definition together with the two postulates of SR means:
The speed of light is isotropic c by definition.
This is a definition of simultaneity, se below.
That two clocks are synchronous means that they
simultaneously show the same.
Now Einstein made the following _thought experiment_:
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
| let it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC#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 reA tA = trC#A reA tB.
This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.
Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically
consistent.
This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's
predictions are in accordance with measurements.
Only real experiments can do that.
The theory of relativity taught by people today is particularly stupid and arrogant.
I'm not saying it's stupid; I'm saying that taught as it is, it's stupid. What's both terrible and wonderful about human history is that it doesn't even
require an experiment to prove it (which is what Alain Aspect does, if we understand what he's doing).
But we can demonstrate this very easily by considering a Langevin traveler in
apparent speeds and placing ourselves at the level of a stargazer.
It is absolutely clear and obvious that in the most classic example, its proper
return time, for example, will be 9 years.
We then consider the idea that for nine years, he sees the Earth approaching him
at a speed of 4 c through his telescope (no one has ever been able to contradict
him, it's so obvious).
SO the Earth moves 36 ly during this time.
This is incredibly logical.
Everything else is just misunderstanding and human madness tinged with incredible arrogance towards those who say simple and verifiable things.
This means that everything the good Dr. Hachel has been saying for 40 years about the geometry of space-time is true.
I repeat, the rest is not a problem of science, it's a problem of generalized
human arrogance.
"There is absolutely no way this man can rule over us."
The Jewish priests hated Jesus because he surpassed them.
Always, always, always, the same problem recurs.
"No one has ever spoken like this man, who can prove he's teaching nonsense?"
The phenomenon recurs again.
As soon as you make things clear and obvious,
you've reached the establishment.
It's as simple as that, and a seven-year-old can understand it.
R.H.
(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.
Le 03/10/2025 |a 23:59, Richard Hachel-a a |-crit :
Le 03/10/2025 |a 20:10, "Paul B. Andersen" a |-crit :
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-a 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: -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in-a -o1 of his paper
defines simultaneity, and does not explain how to synchronise
asynchronous clocks.
Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous,
is a thought experiment.
Really? Could he do that?
A thought experiment is to see the logical consequences of a setWell, yes.
of assumptions.
A thought experiment does not prove that the assumptions are true.
This is similar to a proof in mathematics.
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer >>>>> |-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
With what kind of precession do you think it in 1905 was possible
to "determine the time values of events" "by finding the positions
of the hands"? And the observer at B had to find the position of
the hands when he saw the ray hit the mirror.
The mirror was supposed to stand near the clock at point B, while
the observer at A sends out a beam of light at some known point in
time.
So, the observer at B (also named 'B') watches his mirror and tries
to catch that moment, when a signal from A arrives, looks immediatly
at his watch and tries to remember, where the hands were.
But what Einstein didn't write was also important:
he had to write down the read out of his clock and mail it to A.
Ok, actually that method was the other way round:
A reads out his clock at the start of the ray, writes that value down
next A reads the own clock, once the ray returns and writes that
value down.
Then this paper is sent as a letter (by US-postal service or
similar) to the remote station (the Moon for instance).
There the observer at B receives the letter, calculates the delay,
adds that delay to the start time and turns the own clock to the
result.
Why could Einstein write:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB" ?
Was it because:
1. A human observer at A had, by observing the hands of his clock,
-a-a-a measured that the clock showed tA when the ray was sent,
-a-a-a and that the clock showed t'A when he saw the reflected ray.
-a-a-a And a human observer at B had, by observing the hands of his clock, >>> -a-a-a measured that his clock showed tB when he saw the ray from A.
-a-a-a And when the measurements were done, the human observer at A
-a-a-a sent tA and t'A to the human observer at B who could calculate
-a-a-a if (tB reA tA) = (trC#A reA tB) = d/c, in which case the two clocks >>> -a-a-a were synchronous.
2. Einstein demonstrated that if tA, t'A and tB were measured
-a-a-a with infinite precision, and the transit time is exactly d/c by
-a-a-a definition, then it logically follows that if (tBreAtA) = (trC#AreAtB)
-a-a-a then-a tB = (tA + d/c) and trC#A = (tB + d/c) which means that both >>> -a-a-a clocks simultaneously show the same.
Of course you know that none of the measurements described in
1. were made.
Einstein statement:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB"
is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.
It is not a result of real measurements.
You can see this explained in better detail below:
(Why did you snip it? Didn't you understand it?)
-----------------------------
We start with this quote:
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
|-a we establish
|-a by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel
|-a from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from
|-a B to A."
Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary
relative to each other.
This definition together with the two postulates of SR means:
-a-a-a-a-a-a The speed of light is isotropic c by definition.
This is a definition of simultaneity, se below.
That two clocks are synchronous means that they
simultaneously show the same.
Now Einstein made the following _thought experiment_:
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
| let it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC#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
-a-a-a-a 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-a = tA + d/c + F
and:-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a t'A = tB + d/c - F
so:-a (tB - tA)-a = d/c + F
-a-a-a-a-a (t'A - tB) = d/c - F
If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB)-a then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F),
which is true only if F = 0,
the clocks simultaneously show the same.
This means:
-a-a-a TB = (TA + d/c)
-a When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously
-a shows (TA + d/c), which is the same.
-a-a-a t'A = (tB + d/c)
-a When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously
-a shows (tB + d/c), which is the same.
Thus:
-a In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB.
This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.
Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically
consistent.
This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's
predictions are in accordance with measurements.
Only real experiments can do that.
The theory of relativity taught by people today is particularly stupid
and arrogant.
I'm not saying it's stupid; I'm saying that taught as it is, it's stupid.
What's both terrible and wonderful about human history is that it
doesn't even require an experiment to prove it (which is what Alain
Aspect does, if we understand what he's doing).
But we can demonstrate this very easily by considering a Langevin
traveler in apparent speeds and placing ourselves at the level of a
stargazer.
It is absolutely clear and obvious that in the most classic example,
its proper return time, for example, will be 9 years.
We then consider the idea that for nine years, he sees the Earth
approaching him at a speed of 4 c through his telescope (no one has
ever been able to contradict him, it's so obvious).
SO the Earth moves 36 ly during this time.
This is incredibly logical.
Everything else is just misunderstanding and human madness tinged with
incredible arrogance towards those who say simple and verifiable things.
This means that everything the good Dr. Hachel has been saying for 40
years about the geometry of space-time is true.
I repeat, the rest is not a problem of science, it's a problem of
generalized human arrogance.
"There is absolutely no way this man can rule over us."
The Jewish priests hated Jesus because he surpassed them.
Always, always, always, the same problem recurs.
"No one has ever spoken like this man, who can prove he's teaching
nonsense?"
The phenomenon recurs again.
As soon as you make things clear and obvious,
you've reached the establishment.
It's as simple as that, and a seven-year-old can understand it.
R.H.
Delusional, dementia, lies and confusions.
On 10/3/2025 10:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity,
it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks
synchronous.
No, because Einstein wrote about a method, which included clocks.
But clocks are technical devices and are subject to human interactions.
Time in contrast is not supposed to be affected by humans or clocks.
Is not supposed, eh? But UTC is affected, GPS time
is affected, TAI is affected, zone times are affected
and so on.
"Pure", unaffected by dirty humans time exists
only in the religious delusions of physicists and
wannabe physicists.
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-a 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: -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in-a -o1 of his paper
defines simultaneity, and does not explain how to synchronise
asynchronous clocks.
Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous,
is a thought experiment.
Really? Could he do that?
A thought experiment is to see the logical consequences of a setWell, yes.
of assumptions.
A thought experiment does not prove that the assumptions are true.
This is similar to a proof in mathematics.
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
With what kind of precession do you think it in 1905 was possible
to "determine the time values of events" "by finding the positions
of the hands"? And the observer at B had to find the position of
the hands when he saw the ray hit the mirror.
The mirror was supposed to stand near the clock at point B, while the
observer at A sends out a beam of light at some known point in time.
So, the observer at B (also named 'B') watches his mirror and tries to
catch that moment, when a signal from A arrives, looks immediatly at
his watch and tries to remember, where the hands were.
But what Einstein didn't write was also important:
he had to write down the read out of his clock and mail it to A.
Ok, actually that method was the other way round:
A reads out his clock at the start of the ray, writes that value down
next A reads the own clock, once the ray returns and writes that value
down.
Then this paper is sent as a letter (by US-postal service or similar)
to the remote station (the Moon for instance).
There the observer at B receives the letter, calculates the delay,
adds that delay to the start time and turns the own clock to the result.
Why could Einstein write:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
-a-a-a-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB" ?
Was it because:
1. A human observer at A had, by observing the hands of his clock,
-a-a measured that the clock showed tA when the ray was sent,
-a-a and that the clock showed t'A when he saw the reflected ray.
-a-a And a human observer at B had, by observing the hands of his clock,
-a-a measured that his clock showed tB when he saw the ray from A.
-a-a And when the measurements were done, the human observer at A
-a-a sent tA and t'A to the human observer at B who could calculate
-a-a if (tB reA tA) = (trC#A reA tB) = d/c, in which case the two clocks
-a-a were synchronous.
2. Einstein demonstrated that if tA, t'A and tB were measured
-a-a with infinite precision, and the transit time is exactly d/c by
-a-a definition, then it logically follows that if (tBreAtA) = (trC#AreAtB)
-a-a then-a tB = (tA + d/c) and trC#A = (tB + d/c) which means that both
-a-a clocks simultaneously show the same.
Of course you know that none of the measurements described in
1. were made.
Einstein statement:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
-a-a-a-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB"
is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.
It is not a result of real measurements.
You can see this explained in better detail below:
(Why did you snip it? Didn't you understand it?)
-----------------------------
We start with this quote:
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
|-a we establish
|-a by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel
|-a from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from
|-a B to A."
Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary
relative to each other.
This definition together with the two postulates of SR means:
-a-a-a-a-a The speed of light is isotropic c by definition.
This is a definition of simultaneity, se below.
Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary
relative to each other.
That two clocks are synchronous means that they
simultaneously show the same.
Am Freitag000003, 03.10.2025 um 10:41 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 10/3/2025 10:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:Well, clocks do exist. But time isn't really a thing, which eventually
Einstein's _only_ point was to define simultaneity,
it was not to show how you can make two asynchronous clocks
synchronous.
No, because Einstein wrote about a method, which included clocks.
But clocks are technical devices and are subject to human interactions.
Time in contrast is not supposed to be affected by humans or clocks.
Is not supposed, eh? But UTC is affected, GPS time
is affected, TAI is affected, zone times are affected
and so on.
"Pure", unaffected by dirty humans time exists
only in the religious delusions of physicists and
wannabe physicists.
could exist.
What we call 'time' is actually a natural phenomenon.
Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 12:40 schrieb Python:
Le 28/09/2025 |a 10:39, Python a |-crit :
Le 28/09/2025 |a 09:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :..
So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time' and
based on system K.
You opinion is wrong.
More precisely: t is "A-time" if it is labeling an event at the position
of clock A. Otherwise it is "B-time" (clock B being at the position of
this event). These two values are assumed to be taken from clocks at B
synchronized with A according to the definition in paragraph I.1.
You forgot that 'snail mail' was required for your method in -o1.
But how would you do that, if system B is receding at significant pace?
Same for "tau" btw, in the "moving system" you can set up a network of
clocks synchronized the same way as in the "stationary system" :
No: the method from -o1 required, that A and B do not move in respect to each other.
If they do, a different definition for synchronicity would be necessary:
you cannot use the equation from -o 1:
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
because that is only valid if A and B do not move.
My proposal was:
[irrelevance]
The problem was: you need to know the delay and Einstein made no
attempts to figure that out.
"Further, let the time t of the stationary system be determined for allSure, but Einstein didn't use the term 'frame of reference' in that article.
points thereof at which there are clocks by means of light signals in
the manner indicated in -o 1; similarly let the time $\tau$ of the moving >> system be determined for all points of the moving system at which there
are clocks at rest relatively to that system by applying the method,
given in -o 1, of light signals between the points at which the latter
clocks are located."
See? tau is defined exactly the same way t is, but in another "system"
i.e. "frame of reference".
Instead he used only coordinate systems and time measures, which are associated with these coordinate systems.
BUT: the time t was NOT valid uniformly throughout its coordinate
system, but only in the vicinity of the clock.
This means: Einstein gave the impression, as if he wanted top make time dependent of the location.
This in turn would only make sense, if he didn't wanted to take the
delay into consideration.
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.10.2025 um 12:26 schrieb Python:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 09:40, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
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'.
[snip complete nonsense]
Nice to read. Are you progressing in the direction that your comments
are asinine?
No need to be rude!
Le 02/10/2025 |a 09:38, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
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.
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-a 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: -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in-a -o1 of his paper
defines simultaneity, and does not explain how to synchronise
asynchronous clocks.
Einstein wrote somehow 'time is what clocks say'.
This would include clock setting into synchronization.
Actually Einstein meant clocks and was talking about clock
synchronization, since it makes no sense to try to adjust some parts of nature.
Einstein's method to see if clocks are synchronous,
is a thought experiment.
Really? Could he do that?
A thought experiment is to see the logical consequences of a setWell, yes.
of assumptions.
A thought experiment does not prove that the assumptions are true.
This is similar to a proof in mathematics.
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
With what kind of precession do you think it in 1905 was possible
to "determine the time values of events" "by finding the positions
of the hands"? And the observer at B had to find the position of
the hands when he saw the ray hit the mirror.
The mirror was supposed to stand near the clock at point B, while the
observer at A sends out a beam of light at some known point in time.
So, the observer at B (also named 'B') watches his mirror and tries
to catch that moment, when a signal from A arrives, looks immediatly
at his watch and tries to remember, where the hands were.
But what Einstein didn't write was also important:
he had to write down the read out of his clock and mail it to A.
Ok, actually that method was the other way round:
A reads out his clock at the start of the ray, writes that value down
next A reads the own clock, once the ray returns and writes that
value down.
Then this paper is sent as a letter (by US-postal service or similar)
to the remote station (the Moon for instance).
There the observer at B receives the letter, calculates the delay,
adds that delay to the start time and turns the own clock to the result.
Why could Einstein write:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB" ?
Was it because:
1. A human observer at A had, by observing the hands of his clock,
-a-a-a measured that the clock showed tA when the ray was sent,
-a-a-a and that the clock showed t'A when he saw the reflected ray.
-a-a-a And a human observer at B had, by observing the hands of his clock, >> -a-a-a measured that his clock showed tB when he saw the ray from A.
-a-a-a And when the measurements were done, the human observer at A
-a-a-a sent tA and t'A to the human observer at B who could calculate
-a-a-a if (tB reA tA) = (trC#A reA tB) = d/c, in which case the two clocks >> -a-a-a were synchronous.
Einstein had not mentioned this method.
This method was Python's interpretation of Einstein's text.
In fact no real method was presented by Einstein, which eventually could synchronizes remote clocks.
That was, of course, the case, because Einstein wasn't talking about
clocks but about time.
But Einstein's method was wrong, because it could actually be used to
set the remote clock to a time, which wasn't the local time of the
remote location.
So, we get synchronized clocks by Einstein's method (with Python's extensions), which unfortunately hasn't anything to do with time.
2. Einstein demonstrated that if tA, t'A and tB were measured
-a-a-a with infinite precision, and the transit time is exactly d/c by
-a-a-a definition, then it logically follows that if (tBreAtA) = (trC#AreAtB)
-a-a-a then-a tB = (tA + d/c) and trC#A = (tB + d/c) which means that both >> -a-a-a clocks simultaneously show the same.
Of course you know that none of the measurements described in
1. were made.
Einstein statement:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB"
is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.
This was the hypothesis which Einstein tried to prove. Therefore it
couldn't be used as prerequisite.
It is not a result of real measurements.
You can see this explained in better detail below:
(Why did you snip it? Didn't you understand it?)
-----------------------------
We start with this quote:
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
|-a we establish
|-a by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel
|-a from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from
|-a B to A."
Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary
relative to each other.
This definition together with the two postulates of SR means:
-a-a-a-a-a-a 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.
Sure, but is a 'circular definition', because 'synchronous' and 'simultaneous' are more or less the same thing.
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 worlda 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: o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
It is an indisputable fact that Einstein ina o1 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'.
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-a 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: -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in-a -o1 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'.
Please read it, and if you find a logical error in
Einst5ein's derivation,-a please point it out.
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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.
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
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.
Please read it, and if you find a logical error in
Einst5ein's derivation,-a please point it out.
And relativistic idiots will get VERY
offended, scream "UUUUUUU!!!! UUUUUU!!!
and run.
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.
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
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.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of yours?
Please read it, and if you find a logical error in
Einst5ein's derivation,-a please point it out.
And relativistic idiots will get VERY
offended, scream "UUUUUUU!!!! UUUUUU!!!
and run.
This is what you do when refuted.
Le 02/10/2025 |a 08:31, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 12:40 schrieb Python:
Le 28/09/2025 |a 10:39, Python a |-crit :
Le 28/09/2025 |a 09:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :..
So, in my opinion all variables with a 't' are meant as 'A-time'
and based on system K.
You opinion is wrong.
More precisely: t is "A-time" if it is labeling an event at the
position of clock A. Otherwise it is "B-time" (clock B being at the
position of this event). These two values are assumed to be taken
from clocks at B synchronized with A according to the definition in
paragraph I.1.
You forgot that 'snail mail' was required for your method in -o1.
This is a non-problem. There are many ways to transmit an information
from A to B and the other wy around.
But how would you do that, if system B is receding at significant pace?
Receding from what? A and B are in relative rest.
Same for "tau" btw, in the "moving system" you can set up a network
of clocks synchronized the same way as in the "stationary system" :
No: the method from -o1 required, that A and B do not move in respect
to each other.
There is no problem to set up a set of clocks in mutual rest in the
"moving system". Tau is then defined the same way t in in the
"stationary system".
If they do, a different definition for synchronicity would be necessary:
you cannot use the equation from -o 1:
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
because that is only valid if A and B do not move.
Well. Then do not move relatively to each other.
My 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.
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-a 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: -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in-a -o1 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'.
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-a 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: -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in-a -o1 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 why clocks measure time, but time does not depend on clocks.
Clock is a device providing [a less significant part of] a timestamp.
It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval, which is a measurement result.
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
Clock is a device providing [a less significant part of] a timestamp.
It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
idiot, it's NOT a measurement; measurement of what, the force of the
spring, the vibration of the piezoelectric quartz, or what??
On 10/5/2025 11:39 AM, Humb Szczepanski wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
Clock is a device providing [a less significant part of] a timestamp.
It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval, which is a
measurement result.
idiot, it's NOT a measurement; measurement of what, the force of the
spring, the vibration of the piezoelectric quartz, or what??
Right, idiot, it is not. The world is not spinning around childish games
of physicists, time is about timestamping. Measurements and intervals
have little significance.
On 10/5/2025 12:39 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
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.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of yours?
Clock is a device providing [a less significant
part of] a timestamp. It's a stopwatch which is
providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
Stuff too complicated for relativistic idiots,
for their idiot guru and for physics in general.
Le 05/10/2025 |a 08:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 12:39 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
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.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of yours?
Clock is a device providing [a less significant
part of] a timestamp. It's a stopwatch which is
providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
So it is a stopwatch after all. Efye
Stuff too complicated for relativistic idiots,
for their idiot guru and for physics in general.
You seriously think that any time measurement is an interval as is any distance
mearument ? Really ?
Le 05/10/2025 |a 08:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
You seriously think that any time measurement is an interval as is any distance
mearument ? Really ?
Le 05/10/2025 |a 08:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 12:39 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
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.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of yours?
Clock is a device providing-a [a less significant
part of] a timestamp. It's a stopwatch which is
providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
So it is a stopwatch after all. Efye
Stuff too complicated for relativistic idiots,
for their idiot guru and for physics in general.
You seriously think that any time measurement is an interval
Le 05/10/2025 a 16:35, Python a ocrit :
Le 05/10/2025 a 08:03, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
You seriously think that any time measurement is an interval as is any distance
mearument ? Really ?
Aucun rapport.
S'il ne s'agissait que de cela, on n'aurait pas eu besoin d'Henri
Poincaro pour en parler, et encore moins de Richard Hachel qui, via le
colon ascendant, va enculer l'humanito jusque sous la clavicule gauche.
Crotin tu es, crotin tu resteras, rempli de morve, de haine et de >suffisance.
Comme si un coucou comme toi pouvais servir a quelque chose.
Guignol et fainoant tu es, bouffon et coucou tu resteras.
Ne buvant que le lait d'un syst*me docadent.
Et crachant sur la vache.
R.H.
Le 05/10/2025 |a 16:35, Python a |-crit :
Le 05/10/2025 |a 08:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
You seriously think that any time measurement is an interval as is any
distance mearument ? Really ?
Aucun rapport.
S'il ne s'agissait que de cela, on n'aurait pas eu besoin d'Henri
Poincar|- pour en parler, et encore moins de Richard Hachel qui, via le colon ascendant, va enculer l'humanit|- jusque sous la clavicule gauche.
Cr|-tin tu es, cr|-tin tu resteras, rempli de morve, de haine et de suffisance.
Comme si un coucou comme toi pouvais servir |a quelque chose.
Guignol et fain|-ant tu es, bouffon et coucou tu resteras.
Ne buvant que le lait d'un syst|?me d|-cadent.
Et crachant sur la vache.
Le 05/10/2025 |a 16:35, Python a |-crit :
Le 05/10/2025 |a 08:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 12:39 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
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.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of yours?
Clock is a device providing-a [a less significant
part of] a timestamp. It's a stopwatch which is
providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
So it is a stopwatch after all. Efye
Stuff too complicated for relativistic idiots,
for their idiot guru and for physics in general.
You seriously think that any time measurement is an interval as is any
distance mearument ? Really ?
Erratum:
You seriously think that phycisists didn't notice that any time
measurement is an interval mesurement as is any distance measurement ? Really ?
On 2025-10-05 16:11:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Chaque fois que vous lancez ces insultes pu|-riles (qui me rappellent
Donald Trump), vous confirmez qu'elles s'appliquent bien mieux |a vous
qu'|a la personne |a laquelle vous vous adressez.
Quand allez-vous r|-v|-ler o|| et quand vous avez obtenu votre -2-adoctorat -+ (en physique-a: je n'ai aucun mal |a croire que vous avez un dipl||me de m|-decine sans rapport avec la question)-a? Rappelez-vous que le mot
anglais -2-aphysician-a-+ est un faux ami-a; il ne signifie pas -2-aphysicien
-+-a; Vous |-tes m|-decin mais vous n'|-tes pas un physicien.
On 2025-10-05 16:11:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Chaque fois que vous lancez ces insultes pu|-riles (qui me rappellent
Donald Trump), vous confirmez qu'elles s'appliquent bien mieux |a vous
qu'|a la personne |a laquelle vous vous adressez.
Quand allez-vous r|-v|-ler o|| et quand vous avez obtenu votre -2-adoctorat -+ (en physique-a: je n'ai aucun mal |a croire que vous avez un dipl||me de m|-decine sans rapport avec la question)-a? Rappelez-vous que le mot
anglais -2-aphysician-a-+ est un faux ami-a; il ne signifie pas -2-aphysicien
-+-a; Vous |-tes m|-decin mais vous n'|-tes pas un physicien.
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'.
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.)
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?
Den 05.10.2025 10:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
In SR the speed of light is isotropic c by definition.
Le 05/10/2025 |a 20:25, "Paul B. Andersen" a |-crit :
In SR the speed of light is isotropic c by definition.
C'est ce qui diff|-rentie Einstein d'Hachel.
Mais il devient alors |-vident que l'humanit|- enti|?re va chier dans son froc.
On 10/5/2025 4:35 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 08:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 12:39 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
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.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of yours?
Clock is a device providing-a [a less significant
part of] a timestamp. It's a stopwatch which is
providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
So it is a stopwatch after all. Efye
No, it is not.
You seriously think that any time measurement is an interval
Yes, it is.
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :..
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'|-tait qu'une horloge
en physique, ils ont toujours confondu |oa avec un chronom|?tre".
En terme tout aussi clair, les physiciens confondent anisochronie et relativit|- des chronotropies internes.
Le 05/10/2025 |a 02:26, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :...
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'|-tait qu'une horloge
en physique, ils ont toujours confondu |oa avec un chronom|?tre".
En terme tout aussi clair, les physiciens confondent anisochronie et
relativit|- 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?
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 15:18 schrieb Python:
...
They are the SAME thing. A coordinate system includes space AND time.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'. >>
No!
Especially the Euclidean system (which Einstein mentioned) is meant to
be 'timeless'.
Le 05/10/2025 |a 22:50, Python a |-crit :
Le 05/10/2025 |a 02:26, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :...
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'|-tait qu'une horloge
en physique, ils ont toujours confondu |oa avec un chronom|?tre".
En terme tout aussi clair, les physiciens confondent anisochronie et
relativit|- 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 th|-orie 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 |a fait justifi|-e.
Les physiciens, excuse moi de te le dire, confondent chronom|?tre (qui mesure
le temps qui passe, c'est |a dire la dur|-e) et heure l|-gale (c'est |a dire l'instant o|| a lieu un |-v|-nement).
[snip nonsense]--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Le 05/10/2025 |a 23:03, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
Physicists are not confused as you both are. The only thing we can actually measure about time is duration. An instant is nothing but a duration between a
given event and an conventional event taken as "time 0". You are talking shit.
Le 05/10/2025 |a 23:03, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
Physicists are not confused as you both are. The only thing we can actually measure about time is duration. An instant is nothing but a duration between a
given event and an conventional event taken as "time 0". You are talking shit.
Le 05/10/2025 |a 23:03, Richard Hachel-a a |-crit :
Le 05/10/2025 |a 22:50, Python a |-crit :
Le 05/10/2025 |a 02:26, Richard Hachel-a a |-crit :
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :...
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.
-aAbsolutely!
-aABSOLUTELY !!!
-aPhysics never understood what a clock is
-aand was always mistaking it with a
-astopwatch.
-aIn french : "Les physiciens n'ont jamais compris ce que c'|-tait
qu'une horloge en physique, ils ont toujours confondu |oa avec un
chronom|?tre".
-aEn terme tout aussi clair, les physiciens confondent anisochronie
et relativit|- 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 th|-orie de Maciej, je signale simplement que sa
phrase : " Physics never understood what a clock is
-a and was always mistaking it with a
-a stopwatch."
-aest tout |a fait justifi|-e.
Maciej said that clocks are not stopwatches and then that they are stopwatches.
Physicists are not confused as you both are. The only thing we can
actually measure about time is duration.
Le 05/10/2025 |a 19:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 4:35 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 08:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 12:39 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
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.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of yours?
Clock is a device providing-a [a less significant
part of] a timestamp. It's a stopwatch which is
providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
So it is a stopwatch after all. Efye
No, it is not.
Make up your mind :
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking it
with a stopwatch."
"It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
On 10/5/2025 10:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 19:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 4:35 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 08:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 12:39 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Clock is a device providing-a [a less significant
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
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.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of yours? >>>>>
part of] a timestamp. It's a stopwatch which is
providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
So it is a stopwatch after all. Efye
No, it is not.
Make up your mind :
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking it
with a stopwatch."
"It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
But time is what CLOCKS indicate.
Stopwatches are not very important devices,
samely as interval is not a very important data type.
Le 06/10/2025 |a 07:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 10:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 19:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 4:35 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 08:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 12:39 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Clock is a device providing-a [a less significant
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
Indeed.Physics never understood what a clock is
In physics 'time' must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument used for measuring 'time' is called a 'clock'. >>>>>>>>
and was always mistaking it with a
stopwatch.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of yours? >>>>>>
part of] a timestamp. It's a stopwatch which is
providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
So it is a stopwatch after all. Efye
No, it is not.
Make up your mind :
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking it
with a stopwatch."
"It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
But time is what CLOCKS indicate.
So what?
Stopwatches are not-a very important devices,
They are. You should learn a bit of engineering.
samely as interval is not a very important data type.
Said the (allegedly) "information engineer". PIFFLE.
On 10/6/2025 9:15 AM, Python wrote:
Le 06/10/2025 |a 07:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 10:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 19:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 4:35 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 08:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 12:39 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Clock is a device providing-a [a less significant
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
Indeed.Physics never understood what a clock is
In physics 'time' must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument used for measuring 'time' is called a 'clock'. >>>>>>>>>
and was always mistaking it with a
stopwatch.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of yours? >>>>>>>
part of] a timestamp. It's a stopwatch which is
providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
So it is a stopwatch after all. Efye
No, it is not.
Make up your mind :
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking it >>>> with a stopwatch."
"It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
But time is what CLOCKS indicate.
So what?
So your bunch of idiots is mistaking
clocks and stopwatches, having no clue
about what time is and what it is for.
Well, the chief idiot of yours had enough
wit to notice that there is something
important about "position of hands".
What it was he could never comprehend,
neither his worshippers can.
Stopwatches are not-a very important devices,
They are. You should learn a bit of engineering.
No they are not, at least - not if compared
to clocks. You should learn a bit of engineering.
samely as interval is not a very important data type.
Said the (allegedly) "information engineer". PIFFLE.
Scan the databases, poor stinker, compare the
number of occurences of "interval" with the
occurences of "timestamp" and "date" ... But
you're just a mindless doggie - you don't
compare, you just bark.
Le 06/10/2025 |a 12:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/6/2025 9:15 AM, Python wrote:
Le 06/10/2025 |a 07:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 10:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 19:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 4:35 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 08:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 12:39 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
Indeed.Physics never understood what a clock is
In physics 'time' must be measurable to have any meaning. >>>>>>>>>>> The instrument used for measuring 'time' is called a 'clock'. >>>>>>>>>>
and was always mistaking it with a
stopwatch.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of >>>>>>>>> yours?
Clock is a device providing-a [a less significant
part of] a timestamp. It's a stopwatch which is
providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
So it is a stopwatch after all. Efye
No, it is not.
Make up your mind :
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking
it with a stopwatch."
"It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
But time is what CLOCKS indicate.
So what?
So your bunch of idiots is mistaking
clocks and stopwatches, having no clue
about what time is and what it is for.
Make up your mind. You wrote that clocks are stopwatches once.
Well, the chief idiot of yours had enough
wit to notice that there is something
important about "position of hands".
What it was he could never comprehend,
neither his worshippers can.
? ? ?
Stopwatches are not-a very important devices,
They are. You should learn a bit of engineering.
No they are not, at least - not if compared
to clocks. You should learn a bit of engineering.
But you wrote that clocks are stopwatches after all.
samely as interval is not a very important data type.
Said the (allegedly) "information engineer". PIFFLE.
Scan the databases, poor stinker, compare the
number of occurences of "interval" with the
occurences of "timestamp" and "date" ... But
you're just a-a mindless doggie - you don't
compare, you just bark.
This is utterly asinine. Timestamps and datetime data types are
intervals
On 10/6/2025 12:35 PM, Python wrote:
Le 06/10/2025 |a 12:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/6/2025 9:15 AM, Python wrote:
Le 06/10/2025 |a 07:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 10:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 19:21, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 4:35 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 08:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/5/2025 12:39 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/10/2025 |a 23:13, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
Indeed.Physics never understood what a clock is
In physics 'time' must be measurable to have any meaning. >>>>>>>>>>>> The instrument used for measuring 'time' is called a 'clock'. >>>>>>>>>>>
and was always mistaking it with a
stopwatch.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of >>>>>>>>>> yours?
Clock is a device providing-a [a less significant
part of] a timestamp. It's a stopwatch which is
providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
So it is a stopwatch after all. Efye
No, it is not.
Make up your mind :
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking >>>>>> it with a stopwatch."
"It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
But time is what CLOCKS indicate.
So what?
So your bunch of idiots is mistaking
clocks and stopwatches, having no clue
about what time is and what it is for.
Make up your mind. You wrote that clocks are stopwatches once.
A lie. And a slander. As expected
from a piece of relativistic shit.
Well, the chief idiot of yours had enough
wit to notice that there is something
important about "position of hands".
What it was he could never comprehend,
neither his worshippers can.
? ? ?
Stopwatches are not-a very important devices,
They are. You should learn a bit of engineering.
No they are not, at least - not if compared
to clocks. You should learn a bit of engineering.
But you wrote that clocks are stopwatches after all.
A lie. And a slander. As expected
from a piece of relativistic shit.
[snip idiotic rant]--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Make up your mind. You wrote that clocks are stopwatches once.
A lie. And a slander. As expected
from a piece of relativistic shit.
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking it
with a stopwatch."
"It [a clock]'s a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
I'm quoting you Maciej.
But you wrote that clocks are stopwatches after all.
A lie. And a slander. As expected
from a piece of relativistic shit.
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking it
with a stopwatch."
"It [a clock]'s a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
I'm quoting you Maciej.
[snip idiotic rant]
On 10/6/2025 12:54 PM, Python wrote:
Make up your mind. You wrote that clocks are stopwatches once.
A lie. And a slander. As expected
from a piece of relativistic shit.
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking it
with a stopwatch."
"It [a clock]'s a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
I'm quoting you Maciej.
Almost. I wrote that it's a stopwatch [not
a clock] which is generating intervals,
and anyway nothing similar to "clocks are
stopwatches" here. So, you're lying and
slandering, as expected from a piece of
relativistic shit.
But you wrote that clocks are stopwatches after all.
A lie. And a slander. As expected
from a piece of relativistic shit.
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking it
with a stopwatch."
"It [a clock]'s a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
I'm quoting you Maciej.
Almost. I wrote that it's a stopwatch [not
a clock] which is generating intervals,
and anyway nothing similar to "clocks are
stopwatches" here. So, you're lying and
slandering, as expected from a piece of
relativistic shit.
[snip idiotic rant]
By "idiotic rant" you mean "timestamps
and datetimes are not intervals" I guess.
You know, I've made an experiment. I've
wrote on my pg console "select now()::interval".
Can you guess what the result was, poor stinker?
No answer? Another "snip idiotic rant"?
Of course.
[snip idiotic rant]
By "idiotic rant" you mean "timestamps
and datetimes are not intervals" I guess.
You know, I've made an experiment. I've
wrote on my pg console "select now()::interval".
Can you guess what the result was, poor stinker?
No answer? Another "snip idiotic rant"?
Of course.
Oh dear... You didn't notice that now() is equal to the interval between "00-00-0000 00:00:00" and current time?
On 10/5/2025 11:37 PM, Python wrote:
Python is lying and slandering
On 10/6/2025 2:47 PM, Python wrote:
[snip idiotic rant]
By "idiotic rant" you mean "timestamps
and datetimes are not intervals" I guess.
You know, I've made an experiment. I've
wrote on my pg console "select now()::interval".
Can you guess what the result was, poor stinker?
No answer? Another "snip idiotic rant"?
Of course.
Oh dear... You didn't notice that now() is equal to the interval between
"00-00-0000 00:00:00" and current time?
No, poor stinker. Neither (what a surprise)
did sql interpreter.
Such delusions are a domain of ignorant idiots
knowing nothing about computer science (or
anything else).
And, BTW, there is no "00-00-0000".
Le 06/10/2025 |a 14:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/6/2025 2:47 PM, Python wrote:
[snip idiotic rant]
By "idiotic rant" you mean "timestamps
and datetimes are not intervals" I guess.
You know, I've made an experiment. I've
wrote on my pg console "select now()::interval".
Can you guess what the result was, poor stinker?
No answer? Another "snip idiotic rant"?
Of course.
Oh dear... You didn't notice that now() is equal to the interval between >>> "00-00-0000 00:00:00" and current time?
No, poor stinker. Neither (what a surprise)
did sql interpreter.
Such delusions are a domain of ignorant idiots
knowing nothing about computer science (or
anything else).
SELECT
now() - TIMESTAMP '0001-01-01 00:00:00' AS elapsed;
elapsed
------------------------------
2024 years 9 mons 5 days 09:33:42.123456
Poor idiot: I've been using relational databases from 2024 and PostgreSQL from
1999.
You can find material from me on this very subject on the Internet.
You seem to be quite a novice on this subject, to say the least :-)
And, BTW, there is no "00-00-0000".
Nitpicking on an obvious typo, poor stinker?
Thanks for making discover that there is no 0000-00-00 00:00:00 timestamp in Postgres, BTW. But my point still stands and yours is idiotic.
Le 06/10/2025 a 07:00, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 10/5/2025 10:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 a 19:21, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 10/5/2025 4:35 PM, Python wrote:
Le 05/10/2025 a 08:03, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 10/5/2025 12:39 AM, Python wrote:
Le 04/10/2025 a 23:13, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :Clock is a device providinga [a less significant
On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:..
Indeed.Physics never understood what a clock is
In physics 'time' must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument used for measuring 'time' is called a 'clock'. >>>>>>>>
and was always mistaking it with a
stopwatch.
Really? How come? Could you say more about this statements of yours? >>>>>>
part of] a timestamp. It's a stopwatch which is
providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.
So it is a stopwatch after all. ?
No, it is not.
Make up your mind :
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking it
with a stopwatch."
"It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
But time is what CLOCKS indicate.
So what?
Stopwatches are not very important devices,
They are. You should learn a bit of engineering.
samely as interval is not a very important data type.
Said the (allegedly) "information engineer". PIFFLE.
Le 06/10/2025 |a 23:22, Python a |-crit :
Le 06/10/2025 |a 14:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
No, poor stinker. Neither (what a surprise) did sql interpreter.
Such delusions are a domain of ignorant idiots knowing nothing about
computer science (or anything else).
SELECT
now() - TIMESTAMP '0001-01-01 00:00:00' AS elapsed;
elapsed ------------------------------
2024 years 9 mons 5 days 09:33:42.123456
Poor idiot: I've been using relational databases from 2024 and
PostgreSQL from 1999.
Typo: Poor idiot: I've been using relational databases from 1994 and PostgreSQL since 1999.
Le 06/10/2025 a 14:37, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 10/6/2025 12:54 PM, Python wrote:
Make up your mind. You wrote that clocks are stopwatches once.
A lie. And a slander. As expected
from a piece of relativistic shit.
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking it
with a stopwatch."
"It [a clock]'s a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
I'm quoting you Maciej.
Almost. I wrote that it's a stopwatch [not
a clock] which is generating intervals,
and anyway nothing similar to "clocks are
stopwatches" here. So, you're lying and
slandering, as expected from a piece of
relativistic shit.
But you wrote that clocks are stopwatches after all.
A lie. And a slander. As expected
from a piece of relativistic shit.
"Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking it
with a stopwatch."
"It [a clock]'s a stopwatch which is providing an interval."
I'm quoting you Maciej.
Almost. I wrote that it's a stopwatch [not
a clock] which is generating intervals,
and anyway nothing similar to "clocks are
stopwatches" here. So, you're lying and
slandering, as expected from a piece of
relativistic shit.
[snip idiotic rant]
By "idiotic rant" you mean "timestamps
and datetimes are not intervals" I guess.
You know, I've made an experiment. I've
wrote on my pg console "select now()::interval".
Can you guess what the result was, poor stinker?
No answer? Another "snip idiotic rant"?
Of course.
Oh dear... You didn't notice that now() is equal to the interval between >"00-00-0000 00:00:00" and current time?
*facepalm*
I would really loved to see pieces of code you've ever written, if any :-)
Le 06/10/2025 |a 14:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/6/2025 2:47 PM, Python wrote:
[snip idiotic rant]
By "idiotic rant" you mean "timestamps
and datetimes are not intervals" I guess.
You know, I've made an experiment. I've
wrote on my pg console "select now()::interval".
Can you guess what the result was, poor stinker?
No answer? Another "snip idiotic rant"?
Of course.
Oh dear... You didn't notice that now() is equal to the interval
between "00-00-0000 00:00:00" and current time?
No, poor stinker. Neither (what a surprise)
did sql interpreter.
Such delusions are a domain of ignorant idiots
knowing nothing about computer science (or
anything else).
SELECT -a-a now() - TIMESTAMP '0001-01-01 00:00:00' AS elapsed;
And, BTW, there is no-a "00-00-0000".
Nitpicking on an obvious typo, poor stinker?
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-a 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: -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in-a -o1 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.
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 23:13 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
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-a 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: -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
It is an indisputable fact that Einstein in-a -o1 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
Le 05/10/2025 |a 10:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :lol
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.
-2 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 :
-2 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 :
-2 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!!!
Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 23:04 schrieb Python:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 10:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :lol
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 15:18 schrieb Python:
...
Einstein's paper left no room for interpretation. You introducedMy 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. >>>>>>
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.
-2 Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good -+
Newtonian mechanics involved both space AND time.
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 :
-2 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 :
-2 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
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!).
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.
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
How is "select now()::interval", poor
stinker?
Or have you tried "select (now()=now()
-'0001-01-01 00:00'::timestamp)", maybe?
Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 23:04 schrieb Python:
Le 05/10/2025 |a 10:42, Thomas Heger a |-crit :lol
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 15:18 schrieb Python:
...
Einstein's paper left no room for interpretation. You introducedMy 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. >>>>>>
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.
-2 Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good -+
Newtonian mechanics involved both space AND time.
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 :
-2 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 :
-2 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-a '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
Minkowski spacetime is 3D Euclidean space plus a time dimension.
The metric of Euclidean space is:-a ds-# = dx-# + dy-# + dz-#
The metric of Minkowski spacetime is: ds-# = reAt-# + dx-# + dy-# + dz-#
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
How is "select now()::interval", poor
stinker?
Or have you tried "select (now()=now()
-'0001-01-01 00:00'::timestamp)", maybe?
If you've never got that any timestamp (SQL or any other framework) is
an interval between a conventional origin and a given instant,
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
How is "select now()::interval", poor
stinker?
Or have you tried "select (now()=now()
-'0001-01-01 00:00'::timestamp)", maybe?
If you've never got that any timestamp (SQL or any other framework) is
an interval between a conventional origin and a given instant,
"select (now()=(now() -'0001-01-01 00:00'::timestamp))"
doesn't give "true", sorry, poor stinker, you're
spreading some complete nonsense, just as expected
from a relativistic idiot in general and from you
especially.
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
"select (now()=(now() -'0001-01-01 00:00'::timestamp))"
doesn't give "true", sorry, poor stinker, you're
spreading some complete nonsense, just as expected
from a relativistic idiot in general and from you
especially.
If you've never got that any timestamp (SQL or any other framework) is
an interval between a conventional origin and a given instant,
semantically, there is no hope for you in any part of information engineering. Not a big surprise though.
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnrCOt perfectly flat. According to EinsteinrCOs general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy. That means the Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation rCo very good locally (in
small regions where curvature is tiny), but not universally true.
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnrCOt perfectly flat. According to EinsteinrCOs general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy. That means the Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation rCo very good locally (in
small regions where curvature is tiny), but not universally true.
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
"select (now()=(now() -'0001-01-01 00:00'::timestamp))"
doesn't give "true", sorry, poor stinker, you're
spreading some complete nonsense, just as expected
from a relativistic idiot in general and from you
especially.
If you've never got that any timestamp (SQL or any other framework) is
an interval between a conventional origin and a given instant,
A simple SQL question is refuting your idiocy...
On 10/8/2025 10:58 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnrCOt perfectly flat. According to EinsteinrCOs >> general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy. That means the
Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation rCo very good locally (in
small regions where curvature is tiny), but not universally true.
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
And another:
So, according to Einstein's general relativity, we should say that pythagorean theorem is false?
ChatGPT powiedzia+e:
Excellent question rCo and a subtle one!
The short answer is:
The Pythagorean theorem is not universally true in general relativity,
but it is locally true in special cases.
I wonder who is stupoider - the idiot
announcing basic math false or the
idiots buying it just because an
idiot announced.
Le 08/10/2025 |a 10:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnrCOt perfectly flat. According to EinsteinrCOs >> general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy. That means the
Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation rCo very good locally (in
small regions where curvature is tiny), but not universally true.
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
Henri Poincar|- :
rCLGeometrical axioms are therefore neither a priori aesthetic judgments
nor experimental facts.
They are conventions; our choice among all the possible conventions is guided by experimental facts
"select (now()=(now() -'0001-01-01 00:00'::timestamp))"
doesn't give "true", sorry, poor stinker, you're
spreading some complete nonsense, just as expected
from a relativistic idiot in general and from you
especially.
If you've never got that any timestamp (SQL or any other framework)
is an interval between a conventional origin and a given instant,
A simple SQL question is refuting your idiocy...
SQL "question"? LOL!!!
Le 08/10/2025 |a 11:11, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 10:58 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnrCOt perfectly flat. According to EinsteinrCOs >>> general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy. That means
the Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation rCo very good locally
(in small regions where curvature is tiny), but not universally true.
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
And another:
So, according to Einstein's general relativity, we should say that
pythagorean theorem is false?
ChatGPT powiedzia+e:
Excellent question rCo and a subtle one!
The short answer is:
The Pythagorean theorem is not universally true in general relativity,
but it is locally true in special cases.
I wonder who is stupoider - the idiot
announcing basic math false or the
idiots buying it just because an
idiot announced.
The stupidest is the one who cannot grasp that a mathematical property
can be true in a framework and false in another one.
"announcing basic math false".
On 10/8/2025 11:34 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 10:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnrCOt perfectly flat. According to EinsteinrCOs >>> general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy. That means the
Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation rCo very good locally (in
small regions where curvature is tiny), but not universally true.
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
Henri Poincar|- :
What a pity your idiot guru and his worshippers
have ignored what he was trying to explain....
rCLGeometrical axioms are therefore neither a priori aesthetic judgments
nor experimental facts.
They are conventions; our choice among all the possible conventions is
guided by experimental facts
OUR choice is; YOUR choice is driven
by a madness of a mumbling idiot.
"select (now()=(now() -'0001-01-01 00:00'::timestamp))"
doesn't give "true", sorry, poor stinker, you're
spreading some complete nonsense, just as expected
from a relativistic idiot in general and from you
especially.
If you've never got that any timestamp (SQL or any other framework)
is an interval between a conventional origin and a given instant,
A simple SQL question is refuting your idiocy...
SQL "question"? LOL!!!
LOL, sure,
but it's still refuting your idiocy.
On 10/8/2025 11:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 11:11, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 10:58 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnrCOt perfectly flat. According to EinsteinrCOs >>>> general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy. That means
the Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation rCo very good locally >>>> (in small regions where curvature is tiny), but not universally true.
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
And another:
So, according to Einstein's general relativity, we should say that
pythagorean theorem is false?
ChatGPT powiedzia+e:
Excellent question rCo and a subtle one!
The short answer is:
The Pythagorean theorem is not universally true in general relativity,
but it is locally true in special cases.
I wonder who is stupoider - the idiot
announcing basic math false or the
idiots buying it just because an
idiot announced.
The stupidest is the one who cannot grasp that a mathematical property
can be true in a framework and false in another one.
Many of your fellow idiots fit here, sure...
And that it is not
"announcing basic math false".
If you're not lying that your framework
is the one and only because EXPERIMENTS!!!!
Are CONFIRMING!!!!!!! - it isn't, but it's
definitely not the case of The Shit of
Einstein.
Le 08/10/2025 |a 11:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 11:34 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 10:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnrCOt perfectly flat. According to
EinsteinrCOs general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy.
That means the Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation rCo very
good locally (in small regions where curvature is tiny), but not
universally true.
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
Henri Poincar|- :
What a pity your idiot guru and his worshippers
have ignored what he was trying to explain....
What a pity you've snipped the key part :
"In other words, the axioms of geometry (I am not speaking here of those
of arithmetic) are merely disguised definitions."
rCLGeometrical axioms are therefore neither a priori aesthetic
judgments nor experimental facts.
They are conventions; our choice among all the possible conventions
is guided by experimental facts
OUR choice is; YOUR choice is driven
by a madness of a mumbling idiot.
Driven by math consistency and experimental facts.
"select (now()=(now() -'0001-01-01 00:00'::timestamp))"
doesn't give "true", sorry, poor stinker, you're
spreading some complete nonsense, just as expected
from a relativistic idiot in general and from you
especially.
If you've never got that any timestamp (SQL or any other framework) >>>>> is an interval between a conventional origin and a given instant,
A simple SQL question is refuting your idiocy...
SQL "question"? LOL!!!
LOL, sure,
Yes that you are a pretender is exposed, as usual.
"any timestamp (SQL or any other framework)but it's still refuting your idiocy.
Not quite.
Le 08/10/2025 |a 11:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 11:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 11:11, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 10:58 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnrCOt perfectly flat. According to
EinsteinrCOs general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy. >>>>> That means the Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation rCo very >>>>> good locally (in small regions where curvature is tiny), but not
universally true.
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
And another:
So, according to Einstein's general relativity, we should say that
pythagorean theorem is false?
ChatGPT powiedzia+e:
Excellent question rCo and a subtle one!
The short answer is:
The Pythagorean theorem is not universally true in general
relativity, but it is locally true in special cases.
I wonder who is stupoider - the idiot
announcing basic math false or the
idiots buying it just because an
idiot announced.
The stupidest is the one who cannot grasp that a mathematical
property can be true in a framework and false in another one.
Many of your fellow idiots fit here, sure...
You are an idiot, you're doing exactly that
And that it is not
"announcing basic math false".
If you're not lying that your framework
is the one and only because EXPERIMENTS!!!!
Are CONFIRMING!!!!!!! - it isn't, but it's
definitely not the case of The Shit of
Einstein.
This is non-sequitur when it comes to the question that introducing new definitions is not "announcing basic math false".
"In other words, the axioms of geometry (I am not speaking here of those
of arithmetic) are merely disguised definitions." (Poincar|-)
On 10/8/2025 12:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 11:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 11:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 11:11, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 10:58 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnrCOt perfectly flat. According to
EinsteinrCOs general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy. >>>>>> That means the Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation rCo very >>>>>> good locally (in small regions where curvature is tiny), but not
universally true.
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
And another:
So, according to Einstein's general relativity, we should say that
pythagorean theorem is false?
ChatGPT powiedzia+e:
Excellent question rCo and a subtle one!
The short answer is:
The Pythagorean theorem is not universally true in general
relativity, but it is locally true in special cases.
I wonder who is stupoider - the idiot
announcing basic math false or the
idiots buying it just because an
idiot announced.
The stupidest is the one who cannot grasp that a mathematical
property can be true in a framework and false in another one.
Many of your fellow idiots fit here, sure...
You are an idiot, you're doing exactly that
No i am not, you're a piece of lying shit.
What was, of course, well known before.
, and you are not my "fellow".
And that it is not
"announcing basic math false".
If you're not lying that your framework
is the one and only because EXPERIMENTS!!!!
Are CONFIRMING!!!!!!! - it isn't, but it's
definitely not the case of The Shit of
Einstein.
This is non-sequitur when it comes to the question that introducing new
definitions is not "announcing basic math false".
Sometimes it is not, sometimes it is -
like in the case of your idiot guru.
"In other words, the axioms of geometry (I am not speaking here of those
of arithmetic) are merely disguised definitions." (Poincar|-)
A pity that your idiot guru and his
idiot worshippers have totally ignored
what HP was trying to explain; but, yes,
your moronic "discoveries" are of the
kind - "let's redefine a shark and
"discover" it eats grass"
On 10/8/2025 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 11:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 11:34 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 10:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnrCOt perfectly flat. According to
EinsteinrCOs general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy. >>>>> That means the Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation rCo very >>>>> good locally (in small regions where curvature is tiny), but not
universally true.
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
Henri Poincar|- :
What a pity your idiot guru and his worshippers
have ignored what he was trying to explain....
What a pity you've snipped the key part :
"In other words, the axioms of geometry (I am not speaking here of those
of arithmetic) are merely disguised definitions."
It's actually the opposite, definitions are
merely a special form of axioms, doesn't matter,
however, neither your idiot guru nor any
of your fellow idiots understands that
your moronic theory is just the way you're
talking and exactly nothing more.
rCLGeometrical axioms are therefore neither a priori aesthetic
judgments nor experimental facts.
They are conventions; our choice among all the possible conventions
is guided by experimental facts
OUR choice is; YOUR choice is driven
by a madness of a mumbling idiot.
Driven by math consistency and experimental facts.
No, by a madness of a mumbling
inconsistently idiot.
"select (now()=(now() -'0001-01-01 00:00'::timestamp))"
doesn't give "true", sorry, poor stinker, you're
spreading some complete nonsense, just as expected
from a relativistic idiot in general and from you
especially.
If you've never got that any timestamp (SQL or any other framework) >>>>>> is an interval between a conventional origin and a given instant,
A simple SQL question is refuting your idiocy...
SQL "question"? LOL!!!
LOL, sure,
Yes that you are a pretender is exposed, as usual.
"any timestamp (SQL or any other framework)
but it's still refuting your idiocy.
Not quite.
is an interval between a conventional origin and a given instant, "
your "given instant" is 0001-01-01 (you've written 0000-00-00,
but a triple typo in 10 characters can happen to anyone,
can't it?).
now:
select (now()=(now()-'0001-01-01'::timestamp);
What is your result, poor stinker?
Le 08/10/2025 |a 13:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 11:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 11:34 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 10:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 |a 06:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 17:39, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 |a 15:32, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnrCOt perfectly flat. According to
EinsteinrCOs general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy. >>>>>> That means the Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation rCo very >>>>>> good locally (in small regions where curvature is tiny), but not
universally true.
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
Henri Poincar|- :
What a pity your idiot guru and his worshippers
have ignored what he was trying to explain....
What a pity you've snipped the key part :
"In other words, the axioms of geometry (I am not speaking here of
those of arithmetic) are merely disguised definitions."
It's actually the opposite, definitions are
merely a special form of axioms, doesn't matter,
however, neither your idiot guru nor any
of your fellow idiots understands that
your moronic theory is just the way you're
talking and exactly nothing more.
rCLGeometrical axioms are therefore neither a priori aesthetic
judgments nor experimental facts.
They are conventions; our choice among all the possible conventions >>>>> is guided by experimental facts
OUR choice is; YOUR choice is driven
by a madness of a mumbling idiot.
Driven by math consistency and experimental facts.
No, by a madness of a mumbling
inconsistently idiot.
"any timestamp (SQL or any other framework)
"select (now()=(now() -'0001-01-01 00:00'::timestamp))"
doesn't give "true", sorry, poor stinker, you're
spreading some complete nonsense, just as expected
from a relativistic idiot in general and from you
especially.
If you've never got that any timestamp (SQL or any other
framework) is an interval between a conventional origin and a
given instant,
A simple SQL question is refuting your idiocy...
SQL "question"? LOL!!!
LOL, sure,
Yes that you are a pretender is exposed, as usual.
but it's still refuting your idiocy.
Not quite.
is an interval between a conventional origin and a given instant, "
your "given instant" is 0001-01-01 (you've written 0000-00-00,
but a triple typo in 10 characters can happen to anyone,
can't it?).
now:
select (now()=(now()-'0001-01-01'::timestamp);
What is your result, poor stinker?
This is boring, amongst fallacies, lies, slanders, confusion you're not
even trying to make sense... You suffer of dementia Maciej.
Le 08/10/2025 a 11:58, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 10/8/2025 11:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 a 11:11, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 10/8/2025 10:58 AM, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 10/8/2025 9:43 AM, Python wrote:
Le 08/10/2025 a 06:35, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 10/7/2025 11:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 a 17:39, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 10/7/2025 3:45 PM, Python wrote:
Le 07/10/2025 a 15:32, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
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"?
It doesn't, a delusion again. There are
many more, including some of your
fellow idiots.
References?
no answer?
chat GPT:
Space in the real world isnAt perfectly flat. According to EinsteinAs >>>>> general relativity, space is curved by mass and energy. That means
the Pythagorean theorem is only an approximation u very good locally >>>>> (in small regions where curvature is tiny), but not universally true. >>>>>
Yes, those are the idiot's teachings; basic math can't be
universally true because he had Postulates!!
And another:
So, according to Einstein's general relativity, we should say that
pythagorean theorem is false?
ChatGPT powiedzia?:
Excellent question u and a subtle one!
The short answer is:
The Pythagorean theorem is not universally true in general relativity, >>>> but it is locally true in special cases.
I wonder who is stupoider - the idiot
announcing basic math false or the
idiots buying it just because an
idiot announced.
The stupidest is the one who cannot grasp that a mathematical property
can be true in a framework and false in another one.
Many of your fellow idiots fit here, sure...
You are an idiot, you're doing exactly that, and you are not my "fellow".
And that it is not
"announcing basic math false".
If you're not lying that your framework
is the one and only because EXPERIMENTS!!!!
Are CONFIRMING!!!!!!! - it isn't, but it's
definitely not the case of The Shit of
Einstein.
This is non-sequitur when it comes to the question that introducing new >definitions is not "announcing basic math false".
"In other words, the axioms of geometry (I am not speaking here of those
of arithmetic) are merely disguised definitions." (Poincaro)