----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<9dafcc00-6b5d-4eb9-b493-ea50aeb40aebn@googlegroups.com> efab856c
@REPLY: 98Pa.521485@fx03.ams4>
9ddb402f
@REPLYADDR Laurence Clark Crossen
<l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Laurence Clark Crossen
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References:
<281b9f71-7f06-41de-986c-d8a7e27d3d32n@googlegroups.com> 98Pa.521485@fx03.ams4>
@RFC-Message-ID:
<9dafcc00-6b5d-4eb9-b493-ea50aeb40aebn@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:56:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> > What was he hiding?
> > If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go
out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> > That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
> >
> Nonsense.
>
>
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual time dilation.pdf
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
https://paulba.no/
By saying, "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!" you
admit Dingle`s criticism is correct.
--- G2/1.0
* Origin: usenet.network (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441