Re: Sync two clocks

W dniu 16.08.2024 o 14:08, Python pisze:

Le 16/08/2024 à 14:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 16.08.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:

Le 16/08/2024 à 12:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 16.08.2024 o 12:47, Python pisze:

Le 15/08/2024 à 21:38, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

>
The notion of universal anisochrony means that each watch will lag behind the other with an anisochrony Et=x/c, a reciprocal phenomenon that will affect all the watches in the universe.
>

How naive is it possible to be?

>

You don't sync two clocks to each other, you sync one clock

to another clock.
>
You still don't understand.

>
You completely messed up your quotes above. Anyway...
>
You're probably a bit intellectually challenged to understand a
procedure that is fairly simple, just as you were in 2007 when you
miserably demonstrated it back then:
>
https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ
>
If the meaning of t_A, t_B, and t'_A are still unknown to you, you can
refer to Einstein 1905 article.
>
t_A is the time shown by clock A when a light signal is emitted;
>
t_B is the time shown by clock B when the signal is received and re-emitted;
>
t'_A is the time shown by clock A when the returned signal is received.
>
Given that your stubbornness in not wanting to understand what you don't
get at the first reading is even stronger than your stupidity (which is
saying something!), I doubt you'll even try to comprehend. However, here
are a few intermediate exercises to help you understand what most people
grasp on the first try:
>
1. Using the hypothesis (confirmed by experiment) that:

>
A lie,[snip whining]  -
the hypothesis was no way confirmed.

>
A Review of One-Way and Two-Way Experiments to Test the Isotropy of the Speed of Light
>
Md. Farid Ahmed, Brendan M. Quine, Stoyan Sargoytchev, A. D. Stauffer
>
https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1318

>
I could as well write those  experiments
are testing and confirming the advantage
of communism over rotten capitalism. But
they don't.
>
>

>

 But it was a self-denying absurd instead.

>
Because you say so?

>
Because that's a VERY simple consequence
of a definition, in the time you're talking
about - in the time when your idiot guru
lived and mumbled - valid also for his
moronic church.
>
>
Unfortunately there is nothing absurd into light

speed two-way experiments to confirm it to be invariant.

>
Oh, yes, it is. You're an idiot, so
you're unable to notice.

 So all you have is incoherent babbling and insults, as usual.

And a proof of inconsistency of incoherent
babbling of your idiot guru. As usual.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).