| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<7j93lJWOkR2d_o_H5-QFS2WSAxw@jntp> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp Message-ID: <7j93lJWOkR2d_o_H5-QFS2WSAxw@jntp> JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net JNTP-DataType: Article Subject: Re: Sync two clocks References: <u18wy1Hl3tOo1DpOF6WVSF0s-08@jntp> <Q5uRIW04EcKQUaDhHF3BgLlhTEc@jntp> <va2604$3cvm9$2@dont-email.me> <va26au$3c12c$8@dont-email.me> <DBY62RW1eKeJ1CBElubh-FukMnE@jntp> <va5cd7$3vdmg$1@dont-email.me> <liqlo1Fr49eU1@mid.individual.net> <va9iq3$rsla$1@dont-email.me> <mi8jivrFcigra2axpPaQXJiogwg@jntp> <vacbei$1bpol$1@dont-email.me> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity JNTP-HashClient: tWXdURj5zNY568nuucVbhn6BNP8 JNTP-ThreadID: KqCy9G15x7A9xZN_JLsoNRe49xU JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=7j93lJWOkR2d_o_H5-QFS2WSAxw@jntp User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net Date: Sat, 24 Aug 24 11:47:59 +0000 Organization: Nemoweb JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-08-24T11:47:59Z/8998678"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com" JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1 JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96 From: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> Bytes: 4526 Lines: 71 Le 24/08/2024 à 12:08, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 23.08.2024 13:30, skrev Richard Hachel: >> Le 23/08/2024 à 10:55, Mikko a écrit : >>> On 2024-08-23 05:41:50 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >>> >>>> Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 20:42 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>>>> >>>>> Richard, read your watch NOW. Write down the time nn:nn:nn. >>>>> The time nn:nn:nn is a proper time (read off a clock), it is >>>>> invariant, not depending on frame of reference. >>>>> >>>>> Nobody can have another opinion of what time YOU read of YOUR watch. >>>> >>>> This is not, what 'invariant' means in the context of relativity. >>> >>> Yes, it is. >>> >>>> Meant is, that time would not change, if you switch from one frame of >>>> reference to another. >>> >>> No, it means that whatever is called "invariant" is the same for all >>> frames. In the current case, the number wirtten on the paper is invariant. >>> >>> Mikko >> >> Here is yet another proof of what I am saying, and of the need to >> re-explain things correctly. > > Do you mean that the fact that Tomas Heger doesn't know what > "invariant" means, is a proof of the need to re-explain > my statement correctly? > > My statement was: > " Richard, read your watch NOW. Write down the time nn:nn:nn. > The time nn:nn:nn is a proper time (read off a clock), it is > invariant, not depending on frame of reference. > Nobody can have another opinion of what time YOU read of YOUR watch." > > Both "proper time" and "invariant" are explained in the text. > > Exactly what do you not understand? > What is needed to be re-explained correctly? What you say is quite obvious, and that is not the problem. We all say, even the buffoon Python, that when the event e1 occurs (A beeps), A starts his watch. At A, we note tA(e1)=0 e2 is the capture of the beep by B... e3 is the event that characterizes the return of the signal to A. We note tA(e3)=2 We know that AB=3.10^8m/s This leads to tA(e3)-tA(e1)=2AB/c Everyone agrees on this, and everyone always has, even the fiercest Newtonians, or the fiercest relativists. Fighting over this is particularly stupid. We continue: Everyone also agrees, and I too, that tA(e1)=0 is an invariant for all observers in the universe, whatever their position, whatever their speed, whatever their acceleration. As everyone agrees that if A takes a picture of his dog Rintintin, at this precise moment, then broadcasts it to the entire universe, the entire universe will receive a picture of his dog, and not a picture of a rhinoceros in Africa. The opposite would be absurd. That's what I say, and I see with sadness (don't laugh friends), that my intelligence seems to surpass the entire scientific community, and that for having taken, what I say is distorted. That's particularly stupid, and perfectly contradictory with the claim of being a good fan of the theory of relativity. R.H.