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

Le 15/12/2024 à 20:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 15.12.2024 o 19:50, Python pisze:

Le 15/12/2024 à 14:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..

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

>
I didn't, but for sure I was expecting stinker
Python to lie that the synchronization for LHC
has been provided by his [A.E.]

 I didn't lie.

 Of course you did, like always.
 

The synchronization procedure that A.E. provided is actually used in practice at LHC. Face it.

 Nope. Repeating a lie won't make it true.
 

It is not, of course. It's fibre, the speed of a
signal in fibre is much lesser than c and - well
- obviously depending on the speed   of the fibre.
Just one of the differences.

 The procedure only requires a signal with a constant speed

 No. Procedure directly specifies - light in
vacuum.

If the procedure mentioned that light emitter/received should be on a piece of wook would make the math wrong if wood is not used? You are such a kook, Maciej... BTW, if you insists on vacum, call this Generalized Einstein's procedure. It doesn't matter: the math are EXACTLY the same for all sort of signals. Neither the signal's speed (nor the distance between clocks) appear in the offsets you can compute from the procedure. See https://noedge.net/e/
The procedure only requires a signal with a constant speed with respect to the source. Light in vaccum is ok, light in a fiber too. Even a gun shooting peas could be ok if you don't need much precision. As a matter of fact (you don't like such a word, right?) when you apply the procedure to derive offsets to apply to clocks you'll end with formulas that does not even involve the speed of the signal or the distance between them. See : https://noedge.net/e/

It's related with that "constant light speed in vacuum" idiocy.

Only invariance of speed or light wrt to the source is invoked.

Still convinced that Gdańsk and Warsaw
are not in relative move? Well, subtracting
their velocities doesn't give 0 in either
your galilean nonsense

 I sometime forgot that you depise Galileo as much as Einstein.

 Far, far less much.
So, still convinced they're in relative
rest? Simply ignoring the calculation of
velocities?
As expected

from a fanatic idiot.

Nice signature though.