| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:01:42 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,681 |
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock has >its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own frame of >reference.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and B.
It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes the >signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and tB
would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the >distances MA and MB are equal."
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are not >simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. For A, event tB occurs in the >future of tA. And conversely, for B, event tA occurs in the future of tB.
In short, the concept of a universal, absolute present, the foundation of >Newtonian physics, does not exist.
This is the concept of universal anisochronism, and this is the
fundamental principle of the theory of relativity.
R.H.
On Sun, 28 Sep 25 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr>
wrote:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different >>positions within an inertial frame of reference?
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered >>independent entities.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock has >>its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own frame of >>reference.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and B. >>It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes the >>signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and tB >>would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the >>distances MA and MB are equal."
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are not >>simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. For A, event tB occurs in the >>future of tA. And conversely, for B, event tA occurs in the future of tB. >>In short, the concept of a universal, absolute present, the foundation of >>Newtonian physics, does not exist.
This is the concept of universal anisochronism, and this is the >>fundamental principle of the theory of relativity.
R.H.
You might not be aware of this..
but "universal anisochronism" actually means a
universal cuckoo clock...
and this is the fundamental principle of Einstein's theory of
relativity. It is in fact...the FOUNDATION of Einstein's theory of >relativity.
but what do the French know
Le 28/09/2025 a 14:56, Harold Babosov a ocrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
try again
Je refuse.
R.H.
On Sun, 28 Sep 25 13:12:55 +0000, Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr>
wrote:
Le 28/09/2025 |a 14:56, Harold Babosov a |-crit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
try again
Je refuse.
R.H.
Put a knife in your girlfriends hand and tell her..."Je refuse.!"
send us the bloody video...
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock
has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own
frame of reference.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and
B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes
the signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and
tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred,
but it knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since
the distances MA and MB are equal."
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are
not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different positions within an inertial frame of reference?
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered independent entities.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock has its
own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own frame of reference.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and B. It is
clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes the signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it knows "that they were,
by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and MB are equal." However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. For A, event tB occurs in the future of
tA. And conversely, for B, event tA occurs in the future of tB.
In short, the concept of a universal, absolute present, the foundation of Newtonian physics, does not exist.
This is the concept of universal anisochronism, and this is the fundamental principle of the theory of relativity.
Le 28/09/2025 |a 13:19, Richard Hachel-a a |-crit :
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
We have to start with what synchronization means
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and there is
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock
has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own
frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and
B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes
the signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and
tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred,
but it knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since
the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the same speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are
not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
Le 29/09/2025 a 11:43, Mikko a ocrit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and there is
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock
has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own
frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and
B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes
the signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and
tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred,
but it knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since >>> the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are
not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of the
theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, but with very >little understanding of what we're actually talking about.
The fundamental principle is universal anisochronism.
That is to say, two clocks placed in the same room, one on this table, the >other on this mantelpiece, three meters apart, will NEVER agree on the >concept of simultaneity.
Yet this is very simple to understand, and it amazes me that it has been >necessary to repeat this for 40 years (it's simply incredible, even >miraculous, in the history of humankind).
The two clocks, three meters apart, are not part of what we could call a >perfect plane of the present moment. This idea is a Newtonian fantasy,
which does not exist in nature.
"We cannot be certain that events occurring in different locations can be >absolutely simultaneous."
If the two clocks are precise enough (to the nanosecond), an event that >occurs at 17 ns on clock A will NOT occur at 17 ns on clock B (even if
they were synchronized at the center of the room and then very slowly
moved apart). Space causes them to become mutually asynchronous.
When event A occurs, it exists instantaneously for A.
But for B, it will only occur in the future.
It's that simple.
R.H.
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and there is
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock
has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own
frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and
B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes
the signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and
tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred,
but it knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since >>> the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are
not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of the theory of
relativity, without which we can still say things, but with very little understanding of what we're actually talking about.
The fundamental principle is universal anisochronism.
That is to say, two clocks placed in the same room, one on this table, the other
on this mantelpiece, three meters apart, will NEVER agree on the concept of simultaneity.
Yet this is very simple to understand, and it amazes me that it has been necessary to repeat this for 40 years (it's simply incredible, even miraculous, in
the history of humankind).
The two clocks, three meters apart, are not part of what we could call a perfect
plane of the present moment. This idea is a Newtonian fantasy, which does not
exist in nature.
"We cannot be certain that events occurring in different locations can be absolutely simultaneous."
If the two clocks are precise enough (to the nanosecond), an event that occurs
at 17 ns on clock A will NOT occur at 17 ns on clock B (even if they were synchronized at the center of the room and then very slowly moved apart). Space
causes them to become mutually asynchronous.
When event A occurs, it exists instantaneously for A.
But for B, it will only occur in the future.
It's that simple.
Le 29/09/2025 |a 16:18, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
Simple, but wrong.
Le 29/09/2025 |a 17:52, Python a |-crit :
Le 29/09/2025 |a 16:18, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
Simple, but wrong.
Trop court et pas assez personnel.
On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 10:23:55 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 25 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr>
wrote:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different >>>positions within an inertial frame of reference?
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered >>>independent entities.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock has >>>its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own frame of >>>reference.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and B. >>>It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes the >>>signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and tB >>>would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the >>>distances MA and MB are equal."
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are not >>>simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. For A, event tB occurs in the >>>future of tA. And conversely, for B, event tA occurs in the future of tB. >>>In short, the concept of a universal, absolute present, the foundation of >>>Newtonian physics, does not exist.
This is the concept of universal anisochronism, and this is the >>>fundamental principle of the theory of relativity.
R.H.
You might not be aware of this..
but "universal anisochronism" actually means a
universal cuckoo clock...
and this is the fundamental principle of Einstein's theory of
relativity. It is in fact...the FOUNDATION of Einstein's theory of >>relativity.
but what do the French know
What Richard Hache is suggesting is that all cuckoo clocks need to be >synchronizied...but how do you get all the cuckoo birds to say
"cuckoo" at the same time????
On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 10:32:58 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 10:23:55 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 25 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr>
wrote:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different >>>>positions within an inertial frame of reference?
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered >>>>independent entities.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock has >>>>its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own frame of >>>>reference.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and B. >>>>It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes the >>>>signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and tB >>>>would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the >>>>distances MA and MB are equal."
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are not >>>>simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. For A, event tB occurs in the >>>>future of tA. And conversely, for B, event tA occurs in the future of tB. >>>>In short, the concept of a universal, absolute present, the foundation of >>>>Newtonian physics, does not exist.
This is the concept of universal anisochronism, and this is the >>>>fundamental principle of the theory of relativity.
R.H.
You might not be aware of this..
but "universal anisochronism" actually means a
universal cuckoo clock...
and this is the fundamental principle of Einstein's theory of
relativity. It is in fact...the FOUNDATION of Einstein's theory of >>>relativity.
but what do the French know
What Richard Hache is suggesting is that all cuckoo clocks need to be >>synchronizied...but how do you get all the cuckoo birds to say
"cuckoo" at the same time????
futhermore on Einstien's cuckoo clock...
Einstein in his1905 relativity paper where he wrote, 'Thence we
conclude that a cuckoo clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a
very small amount, than a precisely similar cuckoo clock situated at
one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.'
cuckoo cuckooooooo
dats relativity!
I know, dey don't teah dis stuff in skool...
don't try that test at the equator with a atomic clock...it
wouldn't work.
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and there is
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock
has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own
frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and
B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes
the signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and
tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred,
but it knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since >>> the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are
not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of the
theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, but with
very little understanding of what we're actually talking about.
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and there is >>> no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock >>>> has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own
frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and >>>> B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes >>>> the signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and >>>> tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, >>>> but it knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since >>>> the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are
not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of the
theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, but with
very little understanding of what we're actually talking about.
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after that
the special relativity isn't much harder.
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and
there is
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each
clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its
own frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A
and B.-a It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it
assumes the signal was received by the two other points, the two
events tA and tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when"
they occurred, but it knows "that they were, by definition,
simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are
not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of the
theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, but with
very little understanding of what we're actually talking about.
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after that
the special relativity isn't much harder.
On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and
there is
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place, >>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each
clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its >>>>> own frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame >>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are synchronous. >>>>
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A
and B.-a It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it >>>>> assumes the signal was received by the two other points, the two
events tA and tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" >>>>> they occurred, but it knows "that they were, by definition,
simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the same >>>> speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are >>>>> not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of the
theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, but with
very little understanding of what we're actually talking about.
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after that
the special relativity isn't much harder.
And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
Le 30/09/2025 |a 15:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different >>>>>> positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and
there is
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place, >>>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real >>>>> world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each
clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to
its own frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame >>>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then >>>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are
synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A >>>>>> and B.-a It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it >>>>>> assumes the signal was received by the two other points, the two
events tA and tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know
"when" they occurred, but it knows "that they were, by definition, >>>>>> simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the
same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events
are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of
the theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, but
with very little understanding of what we're actually talking about.
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after that >>> the special relativity isn't much harder.
And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening.
On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 15:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :slander
On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different >>>>>>> positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and
there is
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered >>>>>>> independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place, >>>>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real >>>>>> world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each >>>>>>> clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to >>>>>>> its own frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame >>>>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then >>>>>> you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are
synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A >>>>>>> and B.-a It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it >>>>>>> assumes the signal was received by the two other points, the two >>>>>>> events tA and tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know
"when" they occurred, but it knows "that they were, by definition, >>>>>>> simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the >>>>>> same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events >>>>>>> are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of
the theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, but >>>>> with very little understanding of what we're actually talking about.
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after that >>>> the special relativity isn't much harder.
And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening.
noun [ C or U ]
uk /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 15:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :slander
On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in
different positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and >>>>>>> there is
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered >>>>>>>> independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same >>>>>>> place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the >>>>>>> real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each >>>>>>>> clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to >>>>>>>> its own frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only >>>>>>> frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate >>>>>>> then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are
synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points >>>>>>>> A and B.-a It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at
which it assumes the signal was received by the two other
points, the two events tA and tB would have been simultaneous. M >>>>>>>> doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it knows "that they were, >>>>>>>> by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and >>>>>>>> MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have
the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events >>>>>>>> are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of >>>>>> the theory of relativity, without which we can still say things,
but with very little understanding of what we're actually talking >>>>>> about.
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after >>>>> that
the special relativity isn't much harder.
And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening.
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
or the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice evening.
On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 15:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :slander
On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in
different positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and >>>>>>>> there is
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered >>>>>>>>> independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same >>>>>>>> place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the >>>>>>>> real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each >>>>>>>>> clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to >>>>>>>>> its own frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only >>>>>>>> frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate >>>>>>>> then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are
synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points >>>>>>>>> A and B.-a It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at >>>>>>>>> which it assumes the signal was received by the two other
points, the two events tA and tB would have been simultaneous. M >>>>>>>>> doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it knows "that they were, >>>>>>>>> by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and >>>>>>>>> MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have >>>>>>>> the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events >>>>>>>>> are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of >>>>>>> the theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, >>>>>>> but with very little understanding of what we're actually talking >>>>>>> about.
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after >>>>>> that
the special relativity isn't much harder.
And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening.
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
or the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice evening.
As I said:
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
or the making of such a statement
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:31, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 15:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :slander
On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in
different positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame >>>>>>>>> and there is
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are
considered independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same >>>>>>>>> place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In >>>>>>>>> the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since >>>>>>>>>> each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, >>>>>>>>>> specific to its own frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, >>>>>>>>> only frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time
coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are
synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to
points A and B.-a It is clear that for M, regardless of the >>>>>>>>>> time at which it assumes the signal was received by the two >>>>>>>>>> other points, the two events tA and tB would have been
simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>>>>>>> knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, >>>>>>>>>> since the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have >>>>>>>>> the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two >>>>>>>>>> events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle >>>>>>>> of the theory of relativity, without which we can still say
things, but with very little understanding of what we're
actually talking about.
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and
after that
the special relativity isn't much harder.
And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>>>>
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
reputation, or the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice evening.
As I said:
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
or the making of such a statement
There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej.
On 9/30/2025 4:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:31, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 15:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :slander
On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame >>>>>>>>>> and there is
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>>>>>
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are
considered independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same >>>>>>>>>> place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In >>>>>>>>>> the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since >>>>>>>>>>> each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, >>>>>>>>>>> specific to its own frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, >>>>>>>>>> only frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time
coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>>>>> synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to >>>>>>>>>>> points A and B.-a It is clear that for M, regardless of the >>>>>>>>>>> time at which it assumes the signal was received by the two >>>>>>>>>>> other points, the two events tA and tB would have been
simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>>>>>>>> knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, >>>>>>>>>>> since the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have >>>>>>>>>> the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two >>>>>>>>>>> events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>>>>>They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle >>>>>>>>> of the theory of relativity, without which we can still say >>>>>>>>> things, but with very little understanding of what we're
actually talking about.
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and >>>>>>>> after that
the special relativity isn't much harder.
And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>>>>>
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
reputation, or the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>>>
As I said:
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
or the making of such a statement
There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej.
Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many
others are confirming that it, just like they're
confirming other wild assertions of relativistic
idiots. Right?
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:31, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 15:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :slander
On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame >>>>>>>>>>> and there is
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>>>>>>
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are >>>>>>>>>>>> considered independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the >>>>>>>>>>> same place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In >>>>>>>>>>> the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since >>>>>>>>>>>> each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, >>>>>>>>>>>> specific to its own frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, >>>>>>>>>>> only frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time
coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>>>>>> synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to >>>>>>>>>>>> points A and B.-a It is clear that for M, regardless of the >>>>>>>>>>>> time at which it assumes the signal was received by the two >>>>>>>>>>>> other points, the two events tA and tB would have been >>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>>>>>>>>> knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, >>>>>>>>>>>> since the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B >>>>>>>>>>> have the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two >>>>>>>>>>>> events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>>>>>>They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle >>>>>>>>>> of the theory of relativity, without which we can still say >>>>>>>>>> things, but with very little understanding of what we're
actually talking about.
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and >>>>>>>>> after that
the special relativity isn't much harder.
And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>>>>>>
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
reputation, or the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice
evening.
As I said:
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
or the making of such a statement
There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej.
Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many
others are confirming that it, just like they're
confirming other wild assertions of relativistic
idiots. Right?
Nurses : orange alert ! orange alert ! orange alert !
On 9/30/2025 4:52 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:31, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 15:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :slander
On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle >>>>>>>>>>> of the theory of relativity, without which we can still say >>>>>>>>>>> things, but with very little understanding of what we're >>>>>>>>>>> actually talking about.
The problem of synchronization.Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame >>>>>>>>>>>> and there is
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>>>>>>>
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are >>>>>>>>>>>>> considered independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the >>>>>>>>>>>> same place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In >>>>>>>>>>>> the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since >>>>>>>>>>>>> each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, >>>>>>>>>>>>> specific to its own frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, >>>>>>>>>>>> only frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time >>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>>>>>>> synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to >>>>>>>>>>>>> points A and B.-a It is clear that for M, regardless of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> time at which it assumes the signal was received by the two >>>>>>>>>>>>> other points, the two events tA and tB would have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>>>>>>>>>> knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, >>>>>>>>>>>>> since the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B >>>>>>>>>>>> have the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two >>>>>>>>>>>>> events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>>>>>>>They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>>>>>>>>>
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and >>>>>>>>>> after that
the special relativity isn't much harder.
And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice evening. >>>>>>>>
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
reputation, or the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice
evening.
As I said:
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, >>>>> or the making of such a statement
There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej.
Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many
others are confirming that it, just like they're
confirming other wild assertions of relativistic
idiots. Right?
Nurses : orange alert ! orange alert ! orange alert !
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
reputation, or the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
Le 30/09/2025 |a 17:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:52 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:31, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 15:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :slander
On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:What we really need to understand is the fundamental
The problem of synchronization.Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that >>>>>>>>>>>>> frame and there is
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since >>>>>>>>>>>>>> each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific to its own frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, >>>>>>>>>>>>> only frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time >>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> points A and B.-a It is clear that for M, regardless of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time at which it assumes the signal was received by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> two other points, the two events tA and tB would have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B >>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two >>>>>>>>>>>>>> events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>>>>>>>>They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>
principle of the theory of relativity, without which we can >>>>>>>>>>>> still say things, but with very little understanding of what >>>>>>>>>>>> we're actually talking about.
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and >>>>>>>>>>> after that
the special relativity isn't much harder.
And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice >>>>>>>>> evening.
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
reputation, or the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice
evening.
As I said:
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, >>>>>> or the making of such a statement
There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej.
Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many
others are confirming that it, just like they're
confirming other wild assertions of relativistic
idiots. Right?
Nurses : orange alert ! orange alert ! orange alert !
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
reputation, or the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
Nurses: back to green, patient is stabilized.
On 9/30/2025 5:18 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 17:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:52 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:50, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:31, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:22 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 16:10, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/30/2025 4:00 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 15:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :slander
On 9/30/2025 3:02 PM, Mikko wrote:Minimal dementia from Maciej today. Nurses will have a nice >>>>>>>>>> evening.
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>What we really need to understand is the fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>> principle of the theory of relativity, without which we can >>>>>>>>>>>>> still say things, but with very little understanding of what >>>>>>>>>>>>> we're actually talking about.
The problem of synchronization.Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame and there is
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different positions within an inertial frame of reference? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same place,
and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each clock has its own concept of universal simultaneity, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific to its own frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only frame
specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronous.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points A and B.-a It is clear that for M, regardless of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time at which it assumes the signal was received by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two other points, the two events tA and tB would have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same
speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and >>>>>>>>>>>> after that
the special relativity isn't much harder.
And still the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent. >>>>>>>>>>
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
reputation, or the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
As I said: minimal, nominal, dementia. Nurses will have a nice >>>>>>>> evening.
As I said:
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, >>>>>>> or the making of such a statement
There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej.
Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many
others are confirming that it, just like they're
confirming other wild assertions of relativistic
idiots. Right?
Nurses : orange alert ! orange alert ! orange alert !
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
reputation, or the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
Nurses: back to green, patient is stabilized.
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
reputation, or the making of such a statement
and an obvious choice of weapon for a cornered
relativistic doggie.
There is no way to damage your reputation Maciej.
Let me guess - famous M&M experiment and many others are confirming that
it, just like they're confirming other wild assertions of relativistic idiots. Right?
Le 30/09/2025 |a 15:02, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-29 14:18:17 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/09/2025 |a 11:43, Mikko a |-crit :
On 2025-09-28 11:19:34 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
Yes, if the clocks are stationary with respect to that frame and there is >>>> no significant gravity.
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In a Newtonian world you can synchornize two clocks in the same place, >>>> and they stay syncronized when moved to different places. In the real
world moving them will desynchronize them.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock >>>>> has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own
frame of reference.
By the usual concept of simultaneity is not clock specific, only frame >>>> specific. If you have a coordinate system with a time coordinate then
you can define that clocks showing the coordinate time are synchronous. >>>>
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and >>>>> B. It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes >>>>> the signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and >>>>> tB would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, >>>>> but it knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since >>>>> the distances MA and MB are equal."
That requires that the speed of the signals to A and to B have the same >>>> speed.
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are >>>>> not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B.
They are if simultaneity is defined with those signals.
What we really need to understand is the fundamental principle of the
theory of relativity, without which we can still say things, but with
very little understanding of what we're actually talking about.
Fortunately the Minkowski geometry is easy to understand, and after that
the special relativity isn't much harder.
La g|-om|-trie de Minkowski est fausse.
Son bloc espace-temps est ridicule et d'aucun int|-r|-t.
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock
has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own frame
of reference.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and B.
It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes the signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and tB
would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but
it knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the distances MA and MB are equal."
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are not simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. For A, event tB occurs in the future of tA. And conversely, for B, event tA occurs in the future of tB.
In short, the concept of a universal, absolute present, the foundation
of Newtonian physics, does not exist.
This is the concept of universal anisochronism, and this is the
fundamental principle of the theory of relativity.
R.H.
Am Sonntag000028, 28.09.2025 um 13:19 schrieb Richard Hachel:
The problem of synchronization.
Is it possible to synchronize multiple clocks located in different
positions within an inertial frame of reference?
In Newtonian physics, yes, because space and time are considered
independent entities.
In relativistic physics, this is no longer possible, since each clock
has its own concept of universal simultaneity, specific to its own frame
of reference.
Let's send a signal from point M, the midpoint of AB, to points A and B.
It is clear that for M, regardless of the time at which it assumes the
signal was received by the two other points, the two events tA and tB
would have been simultaneous. M doesn't know "when" they occurred, but
it knows "that they were, by definition, simultaneous FOR IT, since the
distances MA and MB are equal."
However, in relativistic physics, for observer A, the two events are not
simultaneous, nor are they for observer B. For A, event tB occurs in the
future of tA. And conversely, for B, event tA occurs in the future of tB.
In short, the concept of a universal, absolute present, the foundation
of Newtonian physics, does not exist.
This is the concept of universal anisochronism, and this is the
fundamental principle of the theory of relativity.
R.H.
You need to distinguish between simultaneity and apparent simultaneity.
This is necessary, because light (or any other signal with e.g. radio
waves) has finite velocity and that will cause some degree of delay.
But that delay is caused by the finite speed of light and not because
the remote clock is late.
This would force us to correct the received signal by that delay,
because otherwise we would ascribe to the remote clock, what the remote clock does not say.
This could be done if we separate simultaneity from the impression and
add the delay 'by hand'.
TH
Einstein in his1905 relativity paper where he wrote, 'Thence we
conclude that a cuckoo clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a
very small amount, than a precisely similar cuckoo clock situated at
one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.'
don't try that test at the equator with a atomic clock...it
wouldn't work.