Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Python <python@invalid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Sync two clocks
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 14:23:56 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <va7aks$blq6$18@dont-email.me>
References: <u18wy1Hl3tOo1DpOF6WVSF0s-08@jntp> <v9nant$1d2us$1@dont-email.me>
 <vPP1Z1BJfE1Dt7SYhCzEo7ZQWFI@jntp> <va0a4f$30p95$1@dont-email.me>
 <Q5uRIW04EcKQUaDhHF3BgLlhTEc@jntp> <va2604$3cvm9$2@dont-email.me>
 <va26au$3c12c$8@dont-email.me> <DBY62RW1eKeJ1CBElubh-FukMnE@jntp>
 <va5cd7$3vdmg$1@dont-email.me> <Y72zqwa3zr62xGgwL7R28Yjh6Tk@jntp>
 <va73qj$dbfp$1@dont-email.me> <cvuMWdMHD31qUEhszUKj5KxhdKY@jntp>
 <va78kn$e1c0$1@dont-email.me>
 <17ee0c5acb8af056$541740$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 14:23:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a80aacc4ae37788401d9379408ff4893";
	logging-data="382790"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8FcBVlaHZkMqEIyx2G2kD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yw8Hu/zOdXx8Kv1Me9Nav26TgnA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <17ee0c5acb8af056$541740$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 6183

Le 22/08/2024 à 14:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 22.08.2024 o 13:49, Mikko pisze:
>> On 2024-08-22 10:52:42 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>>
>>> Le 22/08/2024 à 12:27, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>> Den 21.08.2024 22:20, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>>> Le 21/08/2024 à 20:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>>> Den 20.08.2024 17:12, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>>>>> Le 20/08/2024 à 15:39, Python a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hachel now pretends that tB − tA = t'A − tB can be true or false
>>>>>>>> depending on the observer.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is what I have always said for at least 40 years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 off YOUR watch.
>>>>
>>>> Or is your deeper and more intelligent opinion that the time YOU
>>>> read off YOUR watch depend on the observer?
>>>> Can I have the opinion that you read something else off your watch
>>>> than you did?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is it possible to fail to understand this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have two stationary clocks in an inertial frame,
>>>>>>   and clock A shows tA = t1 when it emits light,
>>>>>>   and clock B shows tB = t1 + td when the light hits it,
>>>>>>   and clock A shows tA'= t1 + 2⋅td when it is hit by the reflected 
>>>>>> light,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then tA, tB, tA', t1 and td are all proper times which are frame
>>>>>> independent (invariants) and "the same for all".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   tB − tA = t'A − tB = td
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The transit time td is a frame independent invariant and
>>>>>> the same in both directions, which means that the clocks according
>>>>>> to Einstein's _definition_ are synchronous in the inertial frame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note this:
>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>> It is an indisputable FACT that according to Einstein's definition
>>>>>> the clocks are synchronous in the inertial frame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not possible to have different opinions about this.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it is possible to have a much deeper and more intelligent 
>>>>> opinion on the matter.
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean that your deeper and more intelligent opinion is
>>>> that it is NOT a fact that according to Einstein's definition
>>>> the clocks are synchronous in the inertial frame?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am surprised by the stupidity (I do not say this maliciously but 
>>>>> with sadness) of those who read me, and who, surprised, do not 
>>>>> understand anything at all of what I explain to them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See? You don't even try to address what I write, you flee,
>>>> whining about why nobody acknowledge your genius.
>>>>
>>>> You never EXPLAIN anything. You only CLAIM a lot of nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> But now you have the opportunity to EXPLAIN why the clocks
>>>> according to Einstein's definition are NOT synchronous in
>>>> the inertial frame.
>>>>
>>>> Can you do that?
>>>>
>>>> If we have two stationary clocks in an inertial frame,
>>>> and clock A shows tA = t1 when it emits light,
>>>> and clock B shows tB = t1 + td when the light hits it,
>>>> and clock A shows tA'= t1 + 2⋅td when it is hit by the reflected light,
>>>>
>>>> then tA, tB, tA', t1 and td are all proper times which are frame
>>>> independent (invariants) and "the same for all".
>>>>
>>>> tB − tA = t'A − tB = td
>>>>
>>>> The transit time td is a frame independent invariant and
>>>> the same in both directions, which means that the clocks according
>>>> to Einstein's _definition_ are synchronous in the inertial frame.
>>>>
>>>> --------------
>>>>
>>>> I bet you will flee the challenge yet again. Prove me wrong!
>>>
>>> I am not avoiding debate, and on the contrary, I have already 
>>> explained dozens of times what the notion of universal anisochrony is 
>>> and how things should be understood and taught.
>>> But each time, and I do not understand why, no one makes the effort 
>>> to integrate what I say.
>>
>> What you post here is not important. If you were a genius willing to
>> tell something important you would do it in better place, e.g. in a
>> book.
> 
> The problem with idiots like you is: you
> have no slightest clue what "good" means,
> but you still feel an invincible expert
> of what is good and what is better.

As a self-proclamed "one the best logician Humanity ever had" (you still
owe me a keyboard for that one!) don't you think that your genial
thoughts would deserve a book Maciej?