When a real person in the real world
says "time" - he/she doesn't refer
to your mystical crap at all. The
word usually means one of zone times
or UTC; TAI is referred rarely, but it
is still important. NONE of them is
observer dependent.
That's why The Shit is opposed so
fiercely by "laymen". Whet they
refer as "time" simply doesn't
have those absurd properties invented
by your idiot guru for pseudotime he
liked.
[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".
Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".
Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:04, Python pisze:
Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".
Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?
Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
not laymen.
Yes, I can.
[snip boring bullshit]
Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :None of the mentioned above is "solar time".
When a real person in the real world
says "time" - he/she doesn't refer
to your mystical crap at all. The
word usually means one of zone times
or UTC; TAI is referred rarely, but it
is still important. NONE of them is
observer dependent.
That's why The Shit is opposed so
fiercely by "laymen". Whet they
refer as "time" simply doesn't
have those absurd properties invented
by your idiot guru for pseudotime he
liked.
I don't understand what you're saying.
Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and which
would give a universal time.
This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.
Le 06/08/2024 à 12:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:04, Python pisze:
Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".
Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?
Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
not laymen.
What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?
Yes, I can.
So do it.
[snip boring bullshit]
Le 06/08/2024 à 12:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
... We can set clocks to whatever we want.
Oh. This is a "everything does" day
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:28, Python pisze:
Le 06/08/2024 à 12:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:04, Python pisze:
Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".
Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?
Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
not laymen.
What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?
Quotation marks, poor stinker.
Yes, I can.
So do it.
Command some glowing worms instead me
poor stinker.
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:28, Python pisze:
Le 06/08/2024 à 12:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:04, Python pisze:
Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".
Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?
Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
not laymen.
What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?
Quotation marks,
poor stinker.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 15:05:43 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 06/08/2024 à 12:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:28, Python pisze:
What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?
Quotation marks,
So are you one of the best logicians Humanity ever had or "one
of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?
:-D :-D :-D :-P
poor stinker.
Nice signature Wozniak.
Hey, Py, why waste your "time" on Wozzie? He's a clueless zero.
And he's wrong about everything, including time. After all, he's
a disinformation engineer who copies his irrelevant disinformation
into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the brains
to be original.
Le 06/08/2024 à 12:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:28, Python pisze:
Le 06/08/2024 à 12:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:04, Python pisze:
Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
[usual boring nonsense]
That's why [SR] is opposed so fiercely by "laymen".
Really? Can you name a few of these laymen?
Really, poor stinker, except that "laymen",
not laymen.
What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?
Quotation marks,
So are you one of the best logicians Humanity ever had or "one
of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?
Le 06/08/2024 à 12:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 12:28, Python pisze:
What's the difference between a ""layman"" and a "layman"?
Quotation marks,
So are you one of the best logicians Humanity ever had or "one
of the best logicians Humanity ever had"?
:-D :-D :-D :-P
poor stinker.
Nice signature Wozniak.
Nice signature Wozniak.
Hey, Py, why waste your "time" on Wozzie? He's a clueless zero.
And he's wrong about everything, including time. After all, he's
a disinformation engineer who copies his irrelevant disinformation
into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the brains
to be original.
See, poor trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
insulting, together with your fellow idiots.
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:
Hey, Py, why waste your "time" on Wozzie? He's a clueless zero.
And he's wrong about everything, including time. After all, he's
a disinformation engineer who copies his irrelevant disinformation
into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the brains
to be original.
See, poor trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
insulting, together with your fellow idiots.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 15:48:57 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:
Hey, Py, why waste your "time" on Wozzie? He's a clueless zero.
And he's wrong about everything, including time. After all, he's
a disinformation engineer who copies his irrelevant disinformation
into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the brains
to be original.
See, poor trash - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
insulting, together with your fellow idiots.
See? Wozzie proves what I said: he copies his irrelevant (and false)
nonsense into his posts again and again because he doesn't have the
brains to be original.
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 11:15, Richard Hachel pisze:
Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :None of the mentioned above is "solar time".
When a real person in the real world
says "time" - he/she doesn't refer
to your mystical crap at all. The
word usually means one of zone times
or UTC; TAI is referred rarely, but it
is still important. NONE of them is
observer dependent.
That's why The Shit is opposed so
fiercely by "laymen". Whet they
refer as "time" simply doesn't
have those absurd properties invented
by your idiot guru for pseudotime he
liked.
I don't understand what you're saying.
Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we
can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and
which would give a universal time.
This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
Time was never local and it's not
going to become local just because some
idiots want it to. We can set clocks to
whatever we want. And we don't want to set
them to your local idiocy. Face it.
Am Dienstag000006, 06.08.2024 um 12:21 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 11:15, Richard Hachel pisze:Time is a local phenomenon,
Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :None of the mentioned above is "solar time".
When a real person in the real world
says "time" - he/she doesn't refer
to your mystical crap at all. The
word usually means one of zone times
or UTC; TAI is referred rarely, but it
is still important. NONE of them is
observer dependent.
That's why The Shit is opposed so
fiercely by "laymen". Whet they
refer as "time" simply doesn't
have those absurd properties invented
by your idiot guru for pseudotime he
liked.
I don't understand what you're saying.
Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we
can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and
which would give a universal time.
This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
Time was never local and it's not
going to become local just because some
idiots want it to. We can set clocks to
whatever we want. And we don't want to set
them to your local idiocy. Face it.
R.H.
You claim that clocks in Norway and France are not synchronous
even if both show the time UTC + 2h because of the universal
anisochrony.
The question is about your anisochrony, so please read this and
answer the questions.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
Is this a real time, or is it impossible to know the real time
because of the universal anisochrony?
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?
The question is simple:
Is it possible to calculate the real duration of the journey
by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo at the departure
and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?
Yes or no, please.
I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world, and not from your fantasy world.
Paul
Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
on the globe, and on a solar clock, it's not the same time in Paris and
in Amsterdam.
But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and which
would give a universal time.
This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.
If I take even Romeo and Juliet, sitting on two different benches, in
the same schoolyard. They look at each other, they make little signs to
each other. Suddenly Romeo sends a little beep on Juliet's cell phone.
Human thought is formatted in such a way that the moment when Romeo
beeps is the same for both speakers, that is to say that this moment is
in a sort of "universal present", a "plan of universal present time".
This vision of the world is completely false.
But the prejudice is so ingrained that anyone who says otherwise will be massacred by the tribe of monkeys that constitute humanity, and who are incapable of peeing without disgorging the toilet bowl.
R.H.
I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world
Le 08/08/2024 à 20:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 19:16, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world
Your fellow idiot Mikko would tell you, poor halfbrain:
selling fantasy as reality is wqrong. And it is.
Maciej, you are right, selling fantasy or abstraction for reality is not good.
But insulting for free is not good either.
Paul B Andersen is a very good poster
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 19:16, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world
Your fellow idiot Mikko would tell you, poor halfbrain:
selling fantasy as reality is wqrong. And it is.
Le 08/08/2024 19:16, "Paul.B.Andersen" a crit :
R.H.
You claim that clocks in Norway and France are not synchronous
even if both show the time UTC + 2h because of the universal
anisochrony.
The question is about your anisochrony, so please read this and
answer the questions.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
Is this a real time, or is it impossible to know the real time
because of the universal anisochrony?
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?
The question is simple:
Is it possible to calculate the real duration of the journey
by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo at the departure
and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?
Yes or no, please.
I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world, and not from your fantasy world.
Paul
No, it is not difficult to answer your question, it is simply not very practical.
Discussing relativistic times with planes whose speeds are very Newtonian
is quite difficult.
Paris to Oslo and vice versa?
Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel between Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed from
We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.
L= 13.2.10^5m
c=3.10^8m/s
(1/c)=3.333ns/m
There exists, between Paris and Oslo (the notion of universal present time being finally understood as ridiculous and abstract in any inertial frame
of reference) a reciprocal delay of information, of real present of
universe, of ?To=4.44ms during a synchronization that nevertheless
appears perfectly established.
Does your peculiar physics predict a measured speed of c
for the highly relativistic neutrinos,
and if not, what else?
Jan
Le 08/08/2024 21:18, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a crit :
Does your peculiar physics predict a measured speed of c
for the highly relativistic neutrinos,
and if not, what else?
Your lack of knowledge in Hachelian physics is once again apparent.
Do you honestly believe that I am going to answer you with anything other than what I have already said?
So say it again. Does Hachelian physics predict an observed speed of c
for relativistic neutrinos traveling the 732 km from CERN to Gran Sasso? (with the clocks at CERN and Gran Sasso synchronised by GPS)
Yes or no will do,
Jan
Le 08/08/2024 22:36, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a crit :
So say it again. Does Hachelian physics predict an observed speed of c
for relativistic neutrinos traveling the 732 km from CERN to Gran Sasso? (with the clocks at CERN and Gran Sasso synchronised by GPS)
Yes or no will do,
Jan
All good relativistic physics must predict an OBSERVABLE speed of the neutrino perfectly equal to c.
If a physics does not do it, it is not good.
On the other hand, all physicists must experimentally note that the
neutrino has this speed, and that no other particle or law of nature can exceed it.
The cause is the universal anisochrony against which we cannot, because we are in a concrete physics where we cannot do everything we want, resist or contradict.
All good relativistic physics must predict an OBSERVABLE speed of the
neutrino perfectly equal to c.
If a physics does not do it, it is not good.
On the other hand, all physicists must experimentally note that the
neutrino has this speed, and that no other particle or law of nature can
exceed it.
The cause is the universal anisochrony against which we cannot, because we >> are in a concrete physics where we cannot do everything we want, resist or >> contradict.
OK, thats clear.
So Hachelian physics has nothing to add to special relativity,
in the way of observable fact.
All it adds are words,
Jan
W dniu 08.08.2024 o 08:46, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am Dienstag000006, 06.08.2024 um 12:21 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 06.08.2024 o 11:15, Richard Hachel pisze:Time is a local phenomenon,
Le 06/08/2024 à 10:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :None of the mentioned above is "solar time".
When a real person in the real world
says "time" - he/she doesn't refer
to your mystical crap at all. The
word usually means one of zone times
or UTC; TAI is referred rarely, but it
is still important. NONE of them is
observer dependent.
That's why The Shit is opposed so
fiercely by "laymen". Whet they
refer as "time" simply doesn't
have those absurd properties invented
by your idiot guru for pseudotime he
liked.
I don't understand what you're saying.
Of course, solar time depends on the person's location
But where I think you're making a mistake is when you think that we
can adjust this with a universal clock, independent of the sun, and
which would give a universal time.
This conception is false, and any clock can only give a local time.
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
Time was never local and it's not
going to become local just because some
idiots want it to. We can set clocks to
whatever we want. And we don't want to set
them to your local idiocy. Face it.
It is neither local, nor a phenomenon.
"Time in the meaning of a physicist/wannabe physicist"
may be both in their precious mystical gedankenwelts, but
the entities referred as "time" by sane people in the real
world - UTC, TAI, zone times - are coordinates: abstract,
human made, purely virtual. And, last but not least -
observer independent.
Richard Hachel <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr> wrote:
Le 08/08/2024 21:18, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a crit :
Does your peculiar physics predict a measured speed of c
for the highly relativistic neutrinos,
and if not, what else?
Your lack of knowledge in Hachelian physics is once again apparent.
Indeed, quite. Only Hachel knows about Hachelian physics.
Do you honestly believe that I am going to answer you with anything other
than what I have already said?
So say it again. Does Hachelian physics predict an observed speed of c
for relativistic neutrinos traveling the 732 km from CERN to Gran Sasso? (with the clocks at CERN and Gran Sasso synchronised by GPS)
Yes or no will do,
Jan
𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝗛𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗽_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀
𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝘀𝗸𝘀_𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝘁𝗼_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀
https://old.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/ug8XgTmLtsS3
On 2024-08-08 21:25:26 +0000, "Roscoe Baklykov" said:
𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝘀𝗻𝘂𝗯𝗯𝗲𝗱_𝗩𝗣_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗲’𝘀_𝗝𝗲𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵_–_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽
The Republican US presidential candidate has commented on Kamala Harris
not choosing Josh Shapiro
https://www.r%74.com/news/602334-trump-democrats-shapiro-jewish/
[ … ]
Yet another. When will it stop?
𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝘀𝗻𝘂𝗯𝗯𝗲𝗱_𝗩𝗣_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗲’𝘀_𝗝𝗲𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵_–_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽
The Republican US presidential candidate has commented on Kamala Harris
not choosing Josh Shapiro https://www.r%74.com/news/602334-trump-democrats-shapiro-jewish/
Le 08/08/2024 à 19:16, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
R.H.
You claim that clocks in Norway and France are not synchronous
even if both show the time UTC + 2h because of the universal
anisochrony.
The question is about your anisochrony, so please read this and
answer the questions.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
Is this a real time, or is it impossible to know the real time
because of the universal anisochrony?
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?
The question is simple:
Is it possible to calculate the real duration of the journey
by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo at the departure
and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?
Yes or no, please.
I can understand why you find it very hard to answer
questions when they are taken from practical scenarios
in the real world, and not from your fantasy world.
Paul
No, it is not difficult to answer your question, it is simply not very practical.
Discussing relativistic times with planes whose speeds are very
Newtonian is quite difficult.
Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel
between Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed
from Paris to Oslo and vice versa?
We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.
L= 13.2.10^5m
c=3.10^8m/s
(1/c)=3.333ns/m
There exists, between Paris and Oslo (the notion of universal present
time being finally understood as ridiculous and abstract in any inertial frame of reference) a reciprocal delay of information, of real present
of universe, of ΔTo=4.44ms during a synchronization that nevertheless appears perfectly established.
L= 13.2.10^5m
c=3.10^8m/s
(1/c)=3.333ns/m
There exists, between Paris and Oslo (the notion of universal present
time being finally understood as ridiculous and abstract in any inertial
frame of reference) a reciprocal delay of information, of real present
of universe, of ΔTo=4.44ms during a synchronization that nevertheless
appears perfectly established.
Is this an incredible convoluted attempt to say that the transit time
for light to go through the tunnel from Oslo to Paris or vice versa
is ≈ 4.44 ms ?
What is ridiculous about this simple fact?
Paul
Den 08.08.2024 19:55, skrev Richard Hachel:
OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
within a second.
So we will us two atomic clocks which are synchronised
by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.
The particle we will use is a photon.
A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Paris at the time 12.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Oslo at the time 13.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
Any problem with this?
Le 10/08/2024 à 21:48, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 08.08.2024 19:55, skrev Richard Hachel:
Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel between Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed from Paris to Oslo and vice versa?
We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.
OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
within a second.
So we will use two atomic clocks which are synchronised
by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.
The particle we will use is a photon.
A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Paris at the time 12.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Oslo at the time 13.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
Any problem with this?
No.
Absolutely not.
All you said is correct.
R.H.
Den 10.08.2024 23:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 10/08/2024 21:48, "Paul.B.Andersen" a crit :
Den 08.08.2024 19:55, skrev Richard Hachel:
Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel
between Paris and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high
speed from Paris to Oslo and vice versa?
We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.
OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
within a second.
So we will use two atomic clocks which are synchronised
by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.
The particle we will use is a photon.
A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 1ns
and is detected in Paris at the time 12.00.004403046 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 68 m/s
A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 1ns
and is detected in Oslo at the time 13.00.004403046 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 68 m/s
Any problem with this?
No.
Absolutely not.
All you said is correct.
R.H.
OK. So you have realised that it is possible to synchronise
a clock in Oslo and a clock in Paris to within 1 ns if
we use the GPS.
But have you realised that the clocks on the wall in
Oslo Airport and Paris Airport are synchronous to within
few seconds (probably better)?
Please answer the question below, and don't flee yet again.
Clocks in Oslo and Paris are showing the time UTC+2h.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
Question #1:
============
Is it possible to calculate the duration of the journey (measured
in the ground frame) by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo
at the departure and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?
Yes or no, please.
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
Question #2:
============
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?
Yes or no, please.
Den 10.08.2024 23:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 10/08/2024 à 21:48, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 08.08.2024 19:55, skrev Richard Hachel:
Can you reformulate your question using a vast underground tunnel between Paris
and Oslo, in which we could launch particles at high speed from Paris to Oslo and
vice versa?
We assume that the length of the tunnel would be 1320 kms.
OK, let's assume that the length of the tunnel is exactly 1320 km.
We are using two clocks showing UTC+2h. But they have to be
more precisely synchronised than the clocks on the airports
which can not be expected to be synchronous to much better than
within a second.
So we will use two atomic clocks which are synchronised
by GPS to show UTC+2h to within 1 ns.
The particle we will use is a photon.
A photon is sent from Oslo at the time 12.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Paris at the time 12.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
A photon is sent from Paris at the time 13.00.000000000 ± 1ns
and is detected in Oslo at the time 13.00.004403046 ± 1ns
The measured speed of the photon is 299792461 ± 68 m/s
Any problem with this?
No.
Absolutely not.
All you said is correct.
R.H.
OK. So you have realised that it is possible to synchronise
a clock in Oslo and a clock in Paris to within 1 ns if
we use the GPS.
But have you realised that the clocks on the wall in
Oslo Airport and Paris Airport are synchronous to within
few seconds (probably better)?
Please answer the question below, and don't flee yet again.
Clocks in Oslo and Paris are showing the time UTC+2h.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
Question #1:
============
Is it possible to calculate the duration of the journey (measured
in the ground frame) by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo
at the departure and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?
Yes or no, please.
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
Question #2:
============
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?
Yes or no, please.
Le 11/08/2024 à 19:32, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on the airport
shows 12.00.00
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when the watch
on the airport shows 13.30.32.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32s
Question #1:
============
Is it possible to calculate the duration of the journey (measured
in the ground frame) by comparing the reading of the clock in Oslo
at the departure and the reading of the clock in Paris at arrival?
Yes or no, please.
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is L = 1358.03 km.
Question #2:
============
Is the real speed of the plane in the ground frame v = L/T = 900 km/h,
or is it impossible to know the real speed of the plane because
of the universal anisochrony?
Yes or no, please.
The principles of relativity do not apply to your example because the
time measurements you use are of the order of seconds, and the speeds
you use are far too low (airliners) to have consistent measurements.
Den 22.07.2024 21:37, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:|
You know of course that all clocks in the same time zone
are synchronous. In France and Norway clocks are currently
showing GMT + 2 hour, so my clock and your clock are actually
synchronous.
Please explain why our clocks are NOT synchronous.
(To within few seconds|
Den 22.07.2024 23:55, Richard Hachel responded:>
But I keep explaining it to you.
This is a property of space that can be called universal anisochrony.
This does not translate into the idea that the “plan of present time” |>> so dear to physicists does not exist, it is a thought that seems
logical to them, but it is an abstract thought.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 05:58:11 |
Calls: | 7,824 |
Calls today: | 7 |
Files: | 12,930 |
Messages: | 5,769,090 |