Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <ms2JxjRmXcJKWhezuYkYhFddE-M@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Relativistic synchronisation method
References: <4-GlI_h7vkz4Ndsd_KixgDLS7Gg@jntp> <vjrvi5$1or3g$1@dont-email.me> <q2T1xxfs2anW3avnE-Mbv6h_TtQ@jntp>
 <vk6it0$2j18$1@dont-email.me> <y6NFsdinreqq-hxcRLvq7hZ4gpc@jntp> <vk92ht$kijv$1@dont-email.me>
 <HQFxpJvcwIpLhNIeMKqLNQ292YE@jntp> <vk9qtr$p308$1@dont-email.me> <6s8YJGP42H0C-4FoL8dk0ahw7GU@jntp>
 <vkrfq7$vgn7$1@dont-email.me>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: tnTee7WitCbKRW3zOr3bGIGTcL4
JNTP-ThreadID: YYnLTqUhhEGH779uk7wevDN2vH4
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ms2JxjRmXcJKWhezuYkYhFddE-M@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 24 18:04:52 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-12-29T18:04:52Z/9157056"; posting-account="4@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@liscati.fr.invalid>
Bytes: 2645
Lines: 37

Le 29/12/2024 à 13:37, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> 
> Right.
> There is no such thing as "absolute synchronisation".
> It is meaningless because it is no "absolute time".
> 
> Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
> in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
> frame of reference (ECI-frame).

Nooo!

Damn, that's not true!!!

You still haven't understood what I'm saying.

It's incredible.

I've been begging you for months to differentiate between anisochronia and 
chronotropia.

A seven-year-old kid understands the difference.

You are incapable of doing so (we can see it in the stupidity of your 
answers).

You are holding yourself responsible for all this ambient madness in the 
theological and moral sense of the term: "But having been able to have the 
truth before their eyes and understand it without ANY problem as an 
obvious truth, they did not want to..., etc...."

We arrive at the same point.

There must be a DESIRE in you not to understand.

It's not possible otherwise.

R.H.