Re: "Time" vs "physical time"

Liste des GroupesRevenir à p relativity 
Sujet : Re: "Time" vs "physical time"
De : relativity (at) *nospam* paulba.no (Paul.B.Andersen)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 12. Aug 2024, 20:18:00
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v9dn41$3eciu$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Den 11.08.2024 21:05, skrev Richard Hachel:
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.
A very strange (read stupid) statement indeed. :-D
Let's redo the calculation.
Let's assume that both clocks show UTC + 2h within a second.
I leave Oslo Airport (Gardemoen Airport) when the watch on
the airport shows 12.00.00 ± 1 s
I arrive at Paris Airport (Charles De Gaulle Airport) when
the watch on the airport shows 13.30.32 ± 1 s.
The difference is T = 1h 30m 32 ± 2 s
The distance in the ground frame between the airports is
L = 1358.03 ± 0.1 km
v = T/L = 250.01 ± 0.11 m/s = 900.0 ± 0.4 km/h
Please explain why this is not a consistent measurement. :-D
But forget this incredible stupidity of yours:
"the speeds are far too low (airliners) to have
   consistent measurements."
------------------------------------------
This is about synchronisation of clocks!
=========================================
|> 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.
|>>
The point is that if the clocks in Oslo and Paris
were not synchronous, then it would be impossible
to measure the speed of the aeroplane in the ground frame
with the clocks in Oslo and Paris.
Are you still claiming that the clocks in Oslo and Paris,
showing UTC + 2h, are NOT synchronous due to "universal anisochrony"?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

Date Sujet#  Auteur
6 Aug 24 * "Time" vs "physical time"43Maciej Wozniak
6 Aug 24 +* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"30Richard Hachel
6 Aug 24 i+* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"2Python
6 Aug 24 ii`- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Maciej Wozniak
8 Aug 24 i+* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"2Thomas Heger
9 Aug 24 ii`- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Thomas Heger
8 Aug 24 i`* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"25Paul.B.Andersen
8 Aug 24 i +* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"18Richard Hachel
8 Aug 24 i i+* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"10J. J. Lodder
8 Aug 24 i ii`* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"9Richard Hachel
8 Aug 24 i ii `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"8J. J. Lodder
8 Aug 24 i ii  +* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"6Richard Hachel
8 Aug 24 i ii  i`* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"5J. J. Lodder
9 Aug 24 i ii  i `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"4Richard Hachel
9 Aug 24 i ii  i  `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"3Baldomero Catalano
9 Aug 24 i ii  i   `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"2Athel Cornish-Bowden
9 Aug 24 i ii  i    `- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Francisco Basurto
9 Aug 24 i ii  `- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Athel Cornish-Bowden
10 Aug 24 i i`* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"7Paul.B.Andersen
10 Aug 24 i i +- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Richard Hachel
10 Aug 24 i i `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"5Richard Hachel
11 Aug 24 i i  `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"4Paul.B.Andersen
11 Aug 24 i i   +- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Athel Cornish-Bowden
11 Aug 24 i i   `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"2Richard Hachel
12 Aug 24 i i    `- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Paul.B.Andersen
8 Aug 24 i +* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"2Maciej Wozniak
8 Aug 24 i i`- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Richard Hachel
8 Aug 24 i `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"4Roscoe Baklykov
9 Aug 24 i  `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"3Athel Cornish-Bowden
9 Aug 24 i   `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"2Python
9 Aug 24 i    `- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Satrnino Robustelli
6 Aug 24 `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"12Python
6 Aug 24  `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"11Maciej Wozniak
6 Aug 24   `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"10Python
6 Aug 24    `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"9Maciej Wozniak
6 Aug 24     +- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Python
6 Aug 24     `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"7Python
6 Aug 24      `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"6gharnagel
6 Aug 24       `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"5Maciej Wozniak
6 Aug 24        +- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Richard Hachel
6 Aug 24        `* Re: "Time" vs "physical time"3gharnagel
6 Aug 24         +- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Maciej Wozniak
8 Aug 24         `- Re: "Time" vs "physical time"1Tchajegov Bakusov

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal