| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<17ec348edb824643$368248$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:15:45 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Sync two clocks Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <u18wy1Hl3tOo1DpOF6WVSF0s-08@jntp> <v9nant$1d2us$1@dont-email.me> <17ec3040cf2f4e8f$429420$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <v9nbq8$1d2us$2@dont-email.me> <17ec3405e4af90ba$368247$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <v9nfg1$1d2us$4@dont-email.me> Content-Language: pl From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> In-Reply-To: <v9nfg1$1d2us$4@dont-email.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 96 Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder2.feed.ams11.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 12:15:45 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 4000 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17ec348edb824643$368248$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 4364 W dniu 16.08.2024 o 14:08, Python pisze: > Le 16/08/2024 à 14:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >> W dniu 16.08.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze: >>> Le 16/08/2024 à 12:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>> W dniu 16.08.2024 o 12:47, Python pisze: >>>>> Le 15/08/2024 à 21:38, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag >>>>>> behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal >>>>>> phenomenon that will affect all the watches in the universe. >>>>>> >>>>>>> How naive is it possible to be? >>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't sync two clocks to each other, you sync one clock >>>>>> to another clock. >>>>>> >>>>>> You still don't understand. >>>>> >>>>> You completely messed up your quotes above. Anyway... >>>>> >>>>> You're probably a bit intellectually challenged to understand a >>>>> procedure that is fairly simple, just as you were in 2007 when you >>>>> miserably demonstrated it back then: >>>>> >>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ >>>>> >>>>> If the meaning of t_A, t_B, and t'_A are still unknown to you, you can >>>>> refer to Einstein 1905 article. >>>>> >>>>> t_A is the time shown by clock A when a light signal is emitted; >>>>> >>>>> t_B is the time shown by clock B when the signal is received and >>>>> re-emitted; >>>>> >>>>> t'_A is the time shown by clock A when the returned signal is >>>>> received. >>>>> >>>>> Given that your stubbornness in not wanting to understand what you >>>>> don't >>>>> get at the first reading is even stronger than your stupidity >>>>> (which is >>>>> saying something!), I doubt you'll even try to comprehend. However, >>>>> here >>>>> are a few intermediate exercises to help you understand what most >>>>> people >>>>> grasp on the first try: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Using the hypothesis (confirmed by experiment) that: >>>> >>>> A lie,[snip whining] - >>>> the hypothesis was no way confirmed. >>> >>> A Review of One-Way and Two-Way Experiments to Test the Isotropy of >>> the Speed of Light >>> >>> Md. Farid Ahmed, Brendan M. Quine, Stoyan Sargoytchev, A. D. Stauffer >>> >>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1318 >> >> I could as well write those experiments >> are testing and confirming the advantage >> of communism over rotten capitalism. But >> they don't. >> >> >>> >>>> But it was a self-denying absurd instead. >>> >>> Because you say so? >> >> Because that's a VERY simple consequence >> of a definition, in the time you're talking >> about - in the time when your idiot guru >> lived and mumbled - valid also for his >> moronic church. >> >> >> Unfortunately there is nothing absurd into light >>> speed two-way experiments to confirm it to be invariant. >> >> Oh, yes, it is. You're an idiot, so >> you're unable to notice. > > So all you have is incoherent babbling and insults, as usual. And a proof of inconsistency of incoherent babbling of your idiot guru. As usual. And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid would be, and he has written it clearly enough for anyone able to read (even if not clearly enough for you, poor stinker).