Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.1

On 05/27/2025 12:40 PM, squalk wrote:

Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 27/05/2025 à 00:12, Python a écrit :

Le 26/05/2025 à 23:49, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :

On 5/26/2025 10:42 PM, Python wrote:

Le 26/05/2025 à 22:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :

On 5/26/2025 9:17 PM, Python wrote:

Le 26/05/2025 à 20:38, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :

On 5/26/2025 8:11 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 26.05.2025 05:47, skrev Julio Di Egidio:

>

https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
>
Fact:
The east going clock left the ground clock when they were
synchronous. When it had travelled once around the Earth and
was back at the ground clock, the travelling clock was 59 ns
younger than the ground clock, and the ground clock was 59 ns
older than the travelling clock.

>
Mo, the fact is that relativistic idiots
neither know what they're talking about
nor what clocks are.

>
I asked a ‘relativistic idiot’ once how to check if two clocks
are in synch, I got a sensible answer I implemented in software.
Then I asked how to adjust them so that they are in synch, then
add this to my software and it ends up working very well.

>
Well,  their mad religion is forbidding
them to adjust clocks and teaching that
synchronizing clocks is impossible (except
conditions which never happen)

>
This is wrong on all aspects

>
No it is not.

>
Check for yourself.
>
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
Especially : § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
>
I applied, as you could see in the code, exactly the formulas and
defition of t_A, t_B nd t'_A there https://noedge.net/e
>

 From the very formulas in Einstein's and Poincaré's paper I
implemented a synchronization checking procedure and a
synchronization offset procedure.

>
A lie, of course. You didn't use light.

>
I didn't say so. I said I used the very formulas in Einstein's and
Poincaré's number.
>
You do thing that formulas or software "uses light"?

>
It is impossible to "absolutely" harmonize two watches placed in
different locations.
Even more so, a significant number of watches are all placed very far
from each other, even if they are stationary.
I am surprised that we are unable to understand this, and that we
retain an idea of ​​absolute simultaneity as long as things are comoving.
The only possibility of producing something coherent is to harmonize
all the watches in an "imaginary" way with a fictitious watch,
supposedly placed very far away in a fourth dimension, and equidistant
from all the worlds of the stationary 3D universe of our choice.
This is what universal time consists of, and this is Einstein's
synchronization, without him understanding that, in reality, he
measures like this.
>
R.H.

-------------------------------
>
What if two watches driven by the same chip?

What if you make an atomic clock lattice array,
and thus the mere fact of space-contraction means
that waving your hand past it is a simple automatic
sort of sensor courtesy "gravitational waves",
since the elements can compare each other's clocks.
Of course it's well known that the geodesy is always
contemporaneous everywhere, and that, for example,
the force vector of gravity points at the source,
not at the image, as if it were slowed to light speed.