| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:01:36 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,681 |
Den 15.09.2025 08:38, skrev Thomas Heger:
It starts with the lack of a proper definition of t_A and t_B.
If disconnected local times are meant with 'A-time' and 'B-time' and
t_A was measured in 'A-time' and t_B by means of 'B-time', than
t_B-t_A would be an illegal operation to begin with.
Therefore t_A and t_B must be based on 'A-time' only. And that in turn
would make 'B-time' irrelevant.
That isn't bad at all, because the clock in B shall be synchronized
with the clock in A, anyhow.
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.
Got it?
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
It is not possible to compare the time of events at A and
the time of event at B without further assumptions.
Got it?
So we have to make further assumptions:
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."
The _definition_ of simultaneity is that light uses the same
time to go from A to B and to go from from B to A.
Got it?
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, tB and t'A-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.
Got it?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| " In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
|-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB."
For this equation to be true must
-atB = (tA + trC#A)/2 = tA + (t'A - tA)/2
Note that Einstein says nothing about how to make
asynchronous clocks synchronous. He only says that
if-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB (or TB = tA + (t'A - tA)/2)
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.
--------
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 this 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 w 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.
But the clocks A and B are moving in the ECI-frame,-a and
we can't stop the spinning of the Earth to sync the clocks.
On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
[...]
One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from B
that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the
observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of light.
But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer because of all
the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons are a straight
line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the same time? I think
not?
However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the same.
On 9/15/2025 1:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
[...]
One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from B
that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the
observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of
light. But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer because
of all the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons are a
straight line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the same
time? I think not?
However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the
same.
ItrCOs funny... Well, imagine two photons emitted from the same source,
On 9/15/2025 10:29 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/15/2025 1:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
[...]
One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from B
that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the
observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of
light. But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer
because of all the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons
are a straight line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the
same time? I think not?
However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the
same.
ItrCOs funny... Well, imagine two photons emitted from the same source,
Well, imagine ONE foton from famous quantum
experiment - a photon interferring with
itself.
It takes 2 different paths in the same time,
does it have c speed on both? Quite impossible
since they're different and the time is the same.
Or isn't it the same?
On 9/15/2025 1:49 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 9/15/2025 10:29 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/15/2025 1:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
[...]
One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from
B that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the
observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of
light. But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer
because of all the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons
are a straight line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the
same time? I think not?
However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the
same.
ItrCOs funny... Well, imagine two photons emitted from the same source,
Well, imagine ONE foton from famous quantum
experiment - a photon interferring with
itself.
It takes 2 different paths in the same time,
does it have c speed on both? Quite impossible
since they're different and the time is the same.
Or isn't it the same?
Its odd to me. If we constantly observe a photon, it seems to take one
rail in the continuous field, infinite rails for the photon to travel
on. But, if we look away, it seems to take all rails at once. Its also strange thinking about being able to see a laser beam when we are not
the target, but we can see the photons. Means its not perfect?
| We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and
| where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as
| the Sun has been 8 minutes ago.
| That is a HUGE difference.
|
| The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while
| the universe isn't.
|
| Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do
| not belong to the same time.
We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was
a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real
main sequence star now.
It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years
ago is not real now.
What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are?
Mirages?
We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other.
Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with
millions of light-years.
well, now we have a 'little' problem:
if we have millions of years as delay, then we can't call our impression
of the stars 'real'.
It is like a postcard from the last century, which is delivered today.
sure, the picture and the content were once real.
But the sender might already be dead.
And for million years the two stars have transferred energy
(light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million
of years.
The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate
in cosmology.
Since everything moves within our galaxy and within the rest of the
universe, an error in measurement of the distance would be equal to an
error in the positions.
We could see a star moving to, say, the left in the foreground and a
star moving to the right in the background at the same time at a
relatively close position.
And because it's so hard to determine the true distance, we could
actually be in error, which star is in the background and which one is
actually nearer to us.
So we could find a relation between two seemingly close stars, which
were never that close.
The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years
from each other.
That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way.
That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars.
"belong to separate times."
They are both living at the same time.
I meant:
if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand
light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events
belong to a different time than foreground events.
The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years.
Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not
belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays.
Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know,
which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to
the foreground.
We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to
estimate the distances.
But those theories are most likely wrong.TH
You really are decades behind the times.
(and it is most of your opinions that are just plain wrong)
FYI, in the meantime we have seen the Hipparcos and GAIA missions,
and we have direct distance measurements (by parallax)
of more than a billion stars, accurate to a few percent,
all the way out to the galactic centre.
Those stars have been measured repeatedly over the 10 years of the GAIA mission, so we also know their proper motions accurately. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)>
We do know the delays you worry about,
and we do know which stars are near,
and which are far away.
We also know which stars are really double,
and which are aligned by coincidence.
We have an accurate 3D map of the galaxy,
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 13:37 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
...
| We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and
| where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as
| the Sun has been 8 minutes ago.
| That is a HUGE difference.
|
| The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while
| the universe isn't.
|
| Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do
| not belong to the same time.
We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was
a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real
main sequence star now.
It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years
ago is not real now.
What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are?
Mirages?
We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other.
Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with
millions of light-years.
well, now we have a 'little' problem:
if we have millions of years as delay, then we can't call our impression >> of the stars 'real'.
It is like a postcard from the last century, which is delivered today.
sure, the picture and the content were once real.
But the sender might already be dead.
And for million years the two stars have transferred energy
(light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million
of years.
The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate
in cosmology.
Since everything moves within our galaxy and within the rest of the
universe, an error in measurement of the distance would be equal to an
error in the positions.
We could see a star moving to, say, the left in the foreground and a
star moving to the right in the background at the same time at a
relatively close position.
And because it's so hard to determine the true distance, we could
actually be in error, which star is in the background and which one is
actually nearer to us.
So we could find a relation between two seemingly close stars, which
were never that close.
The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years
from each other.
That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way. >>
That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars.
"belong to separate times."
They are both living at the same time.
I meant:
if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand
light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events
belong to a different time than foreground events.
The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years.
Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not >> belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays.
Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know,
which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to
the foreground.
We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to
estimate the distances.
But those theories are most likely wrong.TH
You really are decades behind the times.
(and it is most of your opinions that are just plain wrong)
FYI, in the meantime we have seen the Hipparcos and GAIA missions,
and we have direct distance measurements (by parallax)
of more than a billion stars, accurate to a few percent,
all the way out to the galactic centre.
Those stars have been measured repeatedly over the 10 years of the GAIA mission, so we also know their proper motions accurately. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)>
If you see a star in say 1 million light years distance and some stars
in two million light years distance, than they belong to different times.
The difference is actually huge, because we're talking about one million years, within which the stars had moved.
But you cannot even estimate the direction, into which they move (up,
down, left or right) because only the 'z-axis-movement' is measurable
(with red- or blueshift).
To measure the direction perpendicular to the direction of sight, you
would need to measure at least two positions of that star. But that
would take way too long for a single human beeing to become measurable.
So stars move and we don't even know towards were they move and not how
fast.
This would be quite unfortunate, if you want to estimate their current distance in respect to each others, because they had 1 million years to
move and we don't know the direction.
Precision wouldn't help that much, because even the sharpest of all telescopes cannot make the movement of distant stars faster. And for geometrical reasons the angles to measure are very small, if the star is millions of light years away.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 13:37 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
...
| We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and
| where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as
| the Sun has been 8 minutes ago.
| That is a HUGE difference.
|
| The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while
| the universe isn't.
|
| Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do
| not belong to the same time.
We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was
a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real
main sequence star now.
It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years
ago is not real now.
What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are?
Mirages?
We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other.
Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with
millions of light-years.
well, now we have a 'little' problem:
if we have millions of years as delay, then we can't call our impression >> >> of the stars 'real'.
It is like a postcard from the last century, which is delivered today.
sure, the picture and the content were once real.
But the sender might already be dead.
And for million years the two stars have transferred energy
(light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million
of years.
The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate >> >> in cosmology.
Since everything moves within our galaxy and within the rest of the
universe, an error in measurement of the distance would be equal to an
error in the positions.
We could see a star moving to, say, the left in the foreground and a
star moving to the right in the background at the same time at a
relatively close position.
And because it's so hard to determine the true distance, we could
actually be in error, which star is in the background and which one is
actually nearer to us.
So we could find a relation between two seemingly close stars, which
were never that close.
The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years
from each other.
That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way. >> >>
That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars.
"belong to separate times."
They are both living at the same time.
I meant:
if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand >> >> light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events >> >> belong to a different time than foreground events.
The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years.
Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not >> >> belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays.
Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know,
which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to
the foreground.
We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to
estimate the distances.
But those theories are most likely wrong.TH
You really are decades behind the times.
(and it is most of your opinions that are just plain wrong)
FYI, in the meantime we have seen the Hipparcos and GAIA missions,
and we have direct distance measurements (by parallax)
of more than a billion stars, accurate to a few percent,
all the way out to the galactic centre.
Those stars have been measured repeatedly over the 10 years of the GAIA
mission, so we also know their proper motions accurately.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)>
If you see a star in say 1 million light years distance and some stars
in two million light years distance, than they belong to different times.
The difference is actually huge, because we're talking about one million
years, within which the stars had moved.
FYI, the galaxy is 'only' 100 000 lightyears across.
But you cannot even estimate the direction, into which they move (up,
down, left or right) because only the 'z-axis-movement' is measurable
(with red- or blueshift).
See, you are ages behind the times,
and completely out of touch with reality as it is today.
To measure the direction perpendicular to the direction of sight, you
would need to measure at least two positions of that star. But that
would take way too long for a single human beeing to become measurable.
See, you are ages behind the times,
and completely out of touch with reality as it is today.
So stars move and we don't even know towards were they move and not how
fast.
See, you are ages behind the times,
and completely out of touch with reality as it is today.
This would be quite unfortunate, if you want to estimate their current
distance in respect to each others, because they had 1 million years to
move and we don't know the direction.
Precision wouldn't help that much, because even the sharpest of all
telescopes cannot make the movement of distant stars faster. And for
geometrical reasons the angles to measure are very small, if the star is
millions of light years away.
See, you are ages behind the times,
and completely out of touch with reality as it is today.
Why don't you learn something about reality
before you start making stupid comments on it?
Jan
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 13:55:41 -0700, Jim Pennino
<jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
i meant, what is the age of our sun..
4.567 +/- 0.003 billion years.
compare it with the age of the earth (or our earth)
4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years.
is it a photo finish? who won by a nose?
I wouldn't call a difference of 27,000,000 years "by a nose".
penninojim@yahoo.com
If you understand Relativity...by a nose would mean by a slim margin measurement of...Time.
If you understand Relativity you know it is irrelevant to this
discussion.
<snip remaining idiocy>
If you understand..."by a nose" it means:
'by a nose'
By an extremely short or slim margin (of distance, time, or another
measure).
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/by+a+nose
And that has what to do with relativity?
So you concider 27,000,000 years a short amount of time?
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
27,000,000 years is a fake number. It's a fake photo finish.
compare it with the age of the earth (or our earth)
is it a photo finish? who won by a nose?
i want to see the photo finish.
Now, God moved upon the face of the
waters of the earth and ...
then he 'prompt'; , Let there be light: and there was light.
The 'science community' is trying to move the order of events
"waters of the earth"
"Let there be Light"
to
"Let there be Light
"waters of the earth".
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
I mean, I understand the goal of the 'scientific community' is to
assasinate God so thst the Science guys want to rewrite creation...
but it ain't going to work.
There is no cure for 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
27,000,000 years is a fake number. And they know it.
It's Hollywood accounting.
It's cooking the books.
Ask the Math department. They get hired by people who want ot cook books all the time.
It is the sci.math department that comes up with tweaking 27,000,000 years to keep the horse up front.
You have a totem pole. The Jewish people are on top of that totem pole, and the rest of yous who are not Jewish are
under the top of the totem pole, isn't that correct??? The Jewish people are on top of that totem pole, isn't that correct?
Yous are not even allowed to answer that question, let alone ...ask it.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
On Sun, 14 Sep 2025 20:24:50 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" ><chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/14/2025 12:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2025 00:40:25 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/11/2025 10:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:18:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 4:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or
something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too
highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up
with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came >>>>>>>>>>> first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars. >>>>>>>>>>>
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light. >>>>>>>>>
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language?? >>>>>>>>> Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon >>>>>>>> the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the >>>>>>>> waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
[...]
Humm. Not sure how to respond to that line of thought. I still think >>>>>>> stars came first? Humm.
Is that just a 'feeling' you have, or is it based on Science that
stars came first?
Stellar nurseries came first.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you..
What came first, Night or Day?
Both! Depends on the rotating planet?
It takes Night and Day to make a Day.
I mean, I don't understand your logic with rotating planet.
It's night on both sides, and then There Is Light..eventually on
either side.
Its night for some people on the planet and day for others. Depends on
the rotation... :^)
What was your science teacher's name in school, Stevie Wonder????
When you get home, don't you turn on the lights??
and then There Is Light.
Do you sleep with the light on?
Do you like to watch Black and White movies?
On 9/15/2025 9:25 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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 w 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.
But the clocks A and B are moving in the ECI-frame, and
we can't stop the spinning of the Earth to sync the clocks.
The following calculations are made in the ECI frame.
v = 465.1 m/s v/c = 1.55e-6
We assume that at t = 0 the clocks are synonymous and show 0.
That is at t = 0, tA = 0 and TB = 0.
If we send a light pulse from clock A to clock B, clock B
will move away from clock A at the speed v.
We can calculate the time the light pulse will use to hit B:
ct = L + vt => t = L/(c-v) = (L/c)ria(1 + 1.55e-6)
That means that if clock A showed t1 when the light pulse
was emitted, then, to be synchronous with clock A, clock B
must show t1 + (L/c)ria(1 + 1.55e-6) when the pulse hits it.
TAI clocks are routinely synced after the basic principle shown above.
(The details are different of course. Satellites, optic fibre, radio)
What a pity that the nonsense of your idiot guru
is practically unusable...
"Chris M. Thomasson" wife looks at him and sez, "ARE YOU FUCKING NUTS?
TURN THE FUCKING LIGHTS OFF!!!!"