| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<va801s$hfcs$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Sync two clocks Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 20:30:14 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 127 Message-ID: <va801s$hfcs$2@dont-email.me> References: <u18wy1Hl3tOo1DpOF6WVSF0s-08@jntp> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 20:29:17 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ed5c1eff31ea168d4085a84dbff50bc3"; logging-data="572828"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18q5p2OTEq6UuEPZ5F3WH5o" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:msulvG3BnFYEz6Q4z9UIBmqcNnI= Content-Language: nb-NO In-Reply-To: <cvuMWdMHD31qUEhszUKj5KxhdKY@jntp> Bytes: 6220 Den 22.08.2024 12:52, skrev Richard Hachel: > 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. Wasn't I right? Or was I right? Chicken! :-D > > 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. I think it is out of conformity. I do not think it > is out of laziness or lack of intelligence, because there are posters > like you who are courageous (you have to be courageous to write pdfs > rather than watch television) and who are intelligent, even curious. > The reason therefore comes from conformity and the fear of shaking up > ideas, even if the ideas are ugly and false (ridiculous integration of > improper times in your pdf, bad equations for instantaneous observable > speeds and proper times of accelerated objects, delirium about rotating > disks). > Yet EVERYTHING I say should be clear and obvious to someone who would > detach himself from what the Germans (Einstein and Minkowski) said to > get closer to the French spirit (Poincaré, Hachel). You just have to > understand, and everything becomes clearer, more beautiful, truer and > more obvious to teach. > > > R.H. -- Paul https://paulba.no/