Re: Why a time of the real world must be galilean

Le 15/12/2024 à 12:00, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 15.12.2024 o 10:53, Python pisze:

Le 12/12/2024 à 04:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 22:51, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 22:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 21:56, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 21:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 20:17, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 08:17, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 10.12.2024 o 20:45, Python pisze:

Le 10/12/2024 à 20:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...

How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for clocks standing next to each other?

>
I read the numbers they display and I compare them.

>
Good.
>

Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no

gravity involved?

>
I don't.

>
Sad. You don't. You can't. We can.

>
No you can't either. Sorry, There is a small technical detail: those
"distant clocks" are not moving wrt each
other.
How do you ensure that? By assuming the
condition a priori;and you can do it because
you're only applying your procedure
in your gedanken. Am I incorrect ?

>
You are. I put two clocks at the extremity of a rod.

>
Yeah, sure - "distant" clocks  at the
extremity of the rod - very practical
indeed, isn't it?
>
>
  This is quite

reasonable to assume they are at rest wrt to each other, isn't it?

>
No. Take 2 bodies - one orbitting the other.
Join them with a rod, do you secure their relative
immobility ? Yeah, you imagined and insisted
Gdańsk and Warsaw aren't moving wrt each other. You're
such an idiot.

>
What is the relative speed between Gdansk and Warsaw then?

>
Would have to calculate.

>
LOL!!!

>
OK, if you ask.
 From wiki - Gdańsk is 54°20′51″N 18°38′43″E,
Warsaw is 52°13′56″N 21°00′30″E.
Assuming the average Earth radius  6368km, Gdańsk
is 3713.3km distant from Earth axis, Warsaw is
3901.5km. That gives 972.1km/h and 1021.4km/h
of linear speed. The difference is 49.3km/h.
Good enough for you as the first estimation,
poor stinker?
Sure, the velocities are not quite parallel;
the final result will be slightly bigger.
>
>
>
>
>

>
>

You're only believing [into] a great
practical procedure - because your is pumping you with gedanken fairy
tales where it works fine.

>
Nope. If such a procedure would fail it could be checked.

>
How could it fail if you  have never used it.
>
>

No magic, and if gravity could not be ignored in a given practical setup

>
So, where, precisely, was your [method]
applied. In practice.

>
I asked for yours

>
And I asked where, precisely, was your idiocy
applied. In practice.
No answer? Of course,

>
Many labs where distant events are involved and high time resolution is > needed, inside CERN detectors for instance.

>
The source?

 http://ttc.web.cern.ch/LEB00Sync.pdf

 But the document is signed "Varela, J", not
"Einstein, A".

If you expected a paper on synchonization at LHC to be written by Albert Einstein you do have more issues than I thought...

And it's definitely
far, far, far more elaborate than the "masterpiece"
of [A. E.]

The practical implementation of a theoretical procedure is more complex than it? Big surprise!
Nevertheless it applied the consequences of tB - tA = t'A - tB and t'A - tA = 2(AB)/V and a signal travelling at speed V.
If you were an engineer you could check that it is equivalent to Poincaré's procedure while far more practical.

Poor stinker. Idiot.

Nice signature though.