Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 07:12:53 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
Subject: A definition of "when"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 21
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.hasname.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 05:12:52 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 1002
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17f68d36949ceb0f$1311840$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 1431

W dniu 10.09.2024 o 23:25, Python pisze:

 >
 > Define "when" please. We can. You haven't.

You say you can. I say you're lying, as
expected from a poor relativistic stinker.

Let's check. Will we?
Let S - a satalite of GPS. One, chosen.
B - a GPS ground base. One, chosen.
ES, EB - sets of events  in S,B
e1 - an event from ES, e2 - an event from EB.

Propose a method of determining whether
e1 and e2 are simultaneous - according to
an observer from B. A method, of course,
fitting The Shit you worship.

Will I have to apologize for "you're lying",
poor stinker?