HI NG
here comes my latest version:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
The file should be downloaded, if you want to read the annotations.
(Sorry, but somehow google managed to reformat all my annotation windows
and pushed them to the right side.
this is not the best position to read them, but you can place them
wherever you want and save the file.)
HI NG
here comes my latest version:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
The file should be downloaded, if you want to read the annotations.
(Sorry, but somehow google managed to reformat all my annotation windows
and pushed them to the right side.
this is not the best position to read them, but you can place them
wherever you want and save the file.)
THThomas Heger, I have not been able to completely follow your magnum opus because of the time requirement needed to absorb your level of fine detail. Can you please sum up your conclusions for this forum in no more than three (3) concise statements?
Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
Thomas Heger wrote:Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading >>>>> the file).
nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study >>>> at an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many annotations.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these annotations).
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text
On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor, hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than
useless, they are signs of crackpottery.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text
No, you did not.
On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor, hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text
No, you did not.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.
As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration.
Am 08.02.2024 um 10:05 schrieb Mikko:
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.
As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration.
I have not said, that I'm a professor.
I wrote, that I play the role of a hypothetical professor, who had to
write annotations into the homework of a student.
This is actually a form of 'critical reading' and has absolutely
nothing to do with my profession.
It is a learning method and an itellectual challenge.
But I do NOT pretend to be a real professor (like in a college or university).
Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.
I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
This is one of the rules of science.
It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.
And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains valid.
You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it has
not the appropriate title.
But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text
No, you did not.
Actually I did, because I wrote them all myself.
Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.
I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
This is one of the rules of science.
It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.
And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
valid.
You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it has
not the appropriate title.
But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text
No, you did not.
Actually I did, because I wrote them all myself.
On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these >>>> annotations).
No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless, >>> they are signs of crackpottery.
I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor
This is one of the rules of science.
It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.
You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
anyone in science to look at them.
And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
valid.
You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
has not the appropriate title.
Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
which source will be ignored vs. studied?
But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.
I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous, obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.
Am 10.02.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney:
On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these >>>>> annotations).
No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than
useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.
I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor
This is one of the rules of science.
It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.
You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
anyone in science to look at them.
And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
valid.
You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
has not the appropriate title.
Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
which source will be ignored vs. studied?
But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome. >>>
Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.
I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.
Einstein made several serious errors.
One was his method of synchronisation.
he had (simplified) this picture in mind:
I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and take
that signal as information about the remote time.
The error:
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.
Einstein made several serious errors.
One was his method of synchronisation.
he had (simplified) this picture in mind:
I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and take
that signal as information about the remote time.
The error:
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.
mention it with a single word.
Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
The error:
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.
I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
seconds.
What is then the time on the Moon ?
It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
one light second away).
Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote time,
but we need to add the delay.
To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.
But this is NOT what Einstein had done.
In fact he made no efforts at all, to calculate, let alone measure that delay.
Therefore we are allowed to assume, that he didn't want to do this and
simply forgot the delay.
BTW: A very similar problem occurs in common cosmology, because
'stargazers' simply ignore, that the stars seen do not belong to the
same time 'sheet'.
This is a very serious and VERY obscure error, because you certainly do
not want to assume, that events at different times would influence each
other both ways.
TH
Den 11.02.2024 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein made several serious errors.
One was his method of synchronisation.
he had (simplified) this picture in mind:
I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and
take that signal as information about the remote time.
The error:
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.
mention it with a single word.
Einstein's definition of simultaneity:
"Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t'A.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = t'A − tB.
"
What is the time (tB − tA), and what is the time (t'A − tB)?
It is an obvious fact that the equations in part I.1. :
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
implies:
t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
which is a way to express that the light propagation time is taken
into account when synchronizing clocks. (AB)/c is *exactly*
this very delay.
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
The error:
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.
I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.
Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.
Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
seconds.
The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
the clock in the telescope shows tB.
What is then the time on the Moon ?
The time on the Moon is obviously:
the point in time t'A + the duration (t'A-tB).
Where (t'A-tB) = D/c where D is the distance Earth-Moon.
It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
one light second away).
Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
time, but we need to add the delay.
To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.
The 'delay' IS obviously measured!
It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
(t'A-tB)
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 10.02.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney:
On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of
these
annotations).
No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor, >>>>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than
useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.
I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor
This is one of the rules of science.
It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it >>>> might come, is valid.
You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
anyone in science to look at them.
And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains >>>> valid.
You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
has not the appropriate title.
Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
which source will be ignored vs. studied?
But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are
welcome.
Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read >>>> the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.
I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous, >>> obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to >>> wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.
Einstein made several serious errors.
He made no errors, let alone "serious" ones. He did commit a few
instances of
sloppiness but then so does literally every single science paper that
ever was.
One was his method of synchronisation.
he had (simplified) this picture in mind:
I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and
take that signal as information about the remote time.
The error:
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.
I won't even comment on that. Besides, I have just posted an article explaining
in detail why clock synchronisation is actually an inessential part of special
relativity. The beef lies elsewhere.
Another serious error:
he ascribed the effects of motion to the moving object, while it is
actually an effect, which is only visible at the side of the observer.
Gobbledygook.
Annoying were Einstein's naming conventions.
Especially annoying were the reuse of variable names and the lack of
definitions of used symbols.
No, his usage of symbols is standard.
Am 13.02.2024 um 14:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.
Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.
The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', but instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on the
local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).
Le 13/02/2024 à 18:18, Python a écrit :
[snip garbage]
He says:
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
[snip more garbage]
He poses for the outward journey t(to go)= t_B - t_A
and for the return: t(return)=t'_A - t_B
But WHO measures this time? Is it A? No. Is it B? Neither.
Am 13.02.2024 um 14:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
The error:
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time >>>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.
I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.
Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.
The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', but instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on the
local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).
Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use anything else than his own time measure.
It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.
It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon
would show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time
from such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the[snip]
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use different units.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in Earth-time-units.
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.
t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted.
t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives
t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives.
Am 13.02.2024 um 14:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
The error:
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time >>>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.
I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.
Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.
The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', but instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on the
local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).
Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use anything else than his own time measure.
It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.
It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon would
show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time from
such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.
therefore both measures (t_A and t'_A) are measured on Earth and what
clocks say on the Moon is unknown.
This is no problem, because t_B (the time of arrival of the signal on
the Moon) didn't make it into the equation in question.
Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
seconds.
The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
the clock in the telescope shows tB.
No.
One reason: there is no clock on the Moon, you could possibly read.
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use different units.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in Earth-time-units.
It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
one light second away).
Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
time, but we need to add the delay.
To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.
The 'delay' IS obviously measured!
Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.
Actually the word 'delay' or anything equivalent does not occur in his
text.
It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
(t'A-tB)
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.
On 2/14/2024 2:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 13.02.2024 um 14:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
The error:
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time >>>>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.
I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a >>>> HUGE clock on the Moon.
Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.
The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time',
but instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on
the local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).
What the hell is it that you call 'Moon-time'? If the moon is considered stationary (or moving slow enough not to matter) there is no time
dilation so 'Moon-time' ticks the same as 'Earth-Time'.
Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use
anything else than his own time measure.
It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.
But you just said there is a HUGE clock on the moon measuring the time.
It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon
would show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time
from such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.
therefore both measures (t_A and t'_A) are measured on Earth and what
clocks say on the Moon is unknown.
This is no problem, because t_B (the time of arrival of the signal on
the Moon) didn't make it into the equation in question.
This will be t_B if the clocks are synchronized, or considered set to
t_B to synchronize them.
Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
seconds.
The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
the clock in the telescope shows tB.
No.
One reason: there is no clock on the Moon, you could possibly read.
But you said there was.
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
It wouldn't matter, since there will be a conversion between
Moon-time-units and Earth time units (better known as the second). If
there are no Moon residents and no (earth origin) clocks there, there
isn't even such a thing as Moon-time-units so we can use anything we
want, such as the second. Even if there were little green men using Moon-time-units we can *still* use Earth units for Earthbound users, converting to Moon-time-units if and when necessary to communicate with
the little green men.
It appears you are confusing clocks with time. Clocks measure time, not clocks are time. The janitor has the very same problem when whining
about old time definitions based on earth rotation.
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
different units.
We can synchronize the clocks using Einstein's method, so that some
clock on the moon reading whatever it reads when we measure it is t_B.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.
Irrelevant.
The 'delay' IS obviously measured!
It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is >>>> one light second away).
Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
time, but we need to add the delay.
To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it. >>>
Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.
Actually the word 'delay' or anything equivalent does not occur in his
text.
He is using the time it takes the signal to travel (D/c) as the delay.
It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
(t'A-tB)
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
Yet you are talking about some HUGE clock on the moon viewed using a
HUGE telescope on earth.
t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.
Because it is calculated on earth to see what time it is on the moon.
Your obvious confusion here extends to your "420 errors" which are
nothing more than 420 examples of your confusion.
Le 14/02/2024 à 18:12, Python a écrit :
t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted.
Je suis d'accord, t_A est l'heure indiquée quand le rayon est émis par A.
t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives > t_B est l'heure indiquée par B quand le rayon arrive sur B.
t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives.
t'_A est l'heure indiquée par A quand le retour de l'information arrive.
[snip garbage]
You still fail to understand that there is no kind of C observer,
and that the POINT of the procedure is to only consider time marked
by clocks for events happening at the same time of the involved
clock.
As Python points out, both clocks are assumed IDENTICAL by Einstein, so
any hokum about little green men on the moon or Moon-time-units is
irrelevant so much of what I wrote here isn't applicable to anything.
The Moon clock is identical to the Earth clock.
Le 14/02/2024 à 19:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 14/02/2024 à 18:12, Python a écrit :
t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted.
Je suis d'accord, t_A est l'heure indiquée quand le rayon est émis par A.
Marked by A clock, you missed the crucial point.
t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives > t_B est l'heure
indiquée par B quand le rayon arrive sur B.
Marked by B clock, you, again, missed the point.
t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives.
t'_A est l'heure indiquée par A quand le retour de l'information arrive.
Notice that this time it is marked by a clock at A.
You still fail to understand that there is no kind of C observer,
and that the POINT of the procedure is to only consider time marked
by clocks for events happening at the same time of the involved
clock.
We had the same discussion twenty years ago, go figure!!! And
still you didn't get the point.
How can you cranks be soooo stupid? ? ?
[snip garbage]
Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're
saying to me?
Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization.
Le 14/02/2024 à 20:21, Richard Hachel a écrit :
[snip garbage]
Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're
saying to me?
You are. You've shown that you don't understand it. You're not
even trying because of stupidity AND hubris.
Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization.
Definitely NOT. You've shown you do not by mentioning
your observer "C".
Le 14/02/2024 à 20:26, Python a écrit :
Le 14/02/2024 à 20:21, Richard Hachel a écrit :
[snip garbage]
Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're
saying to me?
You are. You've shown that you don't understand it. You're not
even trying because of stupidity AND hubris.
Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization.
Definitely NOT. You've shown you do not by mentioning
your observer "C".
C'est toi qui ne comprends pas en quoi Einstein se trompe.
Il postule sans le dire qu'il existe dans son référentiel un plan du
temps présent absolu.
Il postule que si je me place en M (milieu de AB) et que j'envoie un
signal de même vitesse (qu'importe la vitesse) en A et en B, alors A et
B le recevront simultanément.
Idem pour le GPS basé sur un observateur C abstrait, mais fort utile.
Je sais tout ça.
Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
For instance:
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.
Thomas Heger wrote:
[snip]
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the[snip]
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
different units.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
*facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
For instance:
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.
What is the single not annoying use of the letter 'A' ?
Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:
Thomas Heger wrote:
[snip]
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the[snip]
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
different units.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
*facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the problem,
that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
stranger than the assumption of aliens.
But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is patently irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.
Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought experiments'.
If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
clocks onboard of their ships.
But in any case:
you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to synchronize clocks.
(In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to each
other.
In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true and
you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by deviding t'_A-t_A by two.
The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value t_B), needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and coding the
result into the signal.
That is another reason why you should know the delay.
But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.
On 2/14/2024 1:47 PM, Volney wrote:
On 2/14/2024 2:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 13.02.2024 um 14:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
The error:
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time >>>>>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't >>>>>> mention it with a single word.
I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT. >>>>>
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a >>>>> HUGE clock on the Moon.
Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.
The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time',
but instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on
the local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).
What the hell is it that you call 'Moon-time'? If the moon is considered
stationary (or moving slow enough not to matter) there is no time
dilation so 'Moon-time' ticks the same as 'Earth-Time'.
Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use
anything else than his own time measure.
It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.
But you just said there is a HUGE clock on the moon measuring the time.
It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon
would show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time
from such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.
therefore both measures (t_A and t'_A) are measured on Earth and what
clocks say on the Moon is unknown.
This is no problem, because t_B (the time of arrival of the signal on
the Moon) didn't make it into the equation in question.
This will be t_B if the clocks are synchronized, or considered set to
t_B to synchronize them.
Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero >>>>> seconds.
The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
the clock in the telescope shows tB.
No.
One reason: there is no clock on the Moon, you could possibly read.
But you said there was.
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
It wouldn't matter, since there will be a conversion between
Moon-time-units and Earth time units (better known as the second). If
there are no Moon residents and no (earth origin) clocks there, there
isn't even such a thing as Moon-time-units so we can use anything we
want, such as the second. Even if there were little green men using
Moon-time-units we can *still* use Earth units for Earthbound users,
converting to Moon-time-units if and when necessary to communicate with
the little green men.
It appears you are confusing clocks with time. Clocks measure time, not
clocks are time. The janitor has the very same problem when whining
about old time definitions based on earth rotation.
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
different units.
We can synchronize the clocks using Einstein's method, so that some
clock on the moon reading whatever it reads when we measure it is t_B.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.
Irrelevant.
The 'delay' IS obviously measured!
It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is >>>>> one light second away).
Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
time, but we need to add the delay.
To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it. >>>>
Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.
Actually the word 'delay' or anything equivalent does not occur in his
text.
He is using the time it takes the signal to travel (D/c) as the delay.
It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
(t'A-tB)
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
Yet you are talking about some HUGE clock on the moon viewed using a
HUGE telescope on earth.
t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.
Because it is calculated on earth to see what time it is on the moon.
Your obvious confusion here extends to your "420 errors" which are
nothing more than 420 examples of your confusion.
As Python points out, both clocks are assumed IDENTICAL by Einstein, so
Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
For instance:
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.
But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not possible
to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation has, if both meanings use the same symbol.
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with different meanings within a single sentence.
On 2/15/2024 12:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL.
Thomas Heger wrote:
[snip]
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the[snip]
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
different units.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not >>>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
*facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the problem,
that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
stranger than the assumption of aliens.
But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is patently
irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.
Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought experiments'. >>
If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
clocks onboard of their ships.
But in any case:
you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to synchronize
clocks.
(In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to each
other.
In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true and
you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by deviding
t'_A-t_A by two.
The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value t_B),
needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and coding the
result into the signal.
That is another reason why you should know the delay.
But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.
Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
For instance:
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.
In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.
In §6 the symbol 'A' is not used.
In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined:
"we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.
The numbering of an equation (A) is not another use of the symbol 'A'.
This is two well defined uses of the letter 'A' used to identify
a physical or mathematical entity.
Can you name the other six?
But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not
possible to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation has,
if both meanings use the same symbol.
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.
Can you quote the sentence in question?
Volney wrote:
On 2/15/2024 12:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL.
Thomas Heger wrote:
[snip]
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the[snip]
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units. >>>>>
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
different units.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not >>>>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in >>>>> Earth-time-units.
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
*facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the
problem, that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
stranger than the assumption of aliens.
But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is
patently irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity. >>>
Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought
experiments'.
If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
clocks onboard of their ships.
But in any case:
you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to
synchronize clocks.
(In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to
each other.
In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true
and you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by
deviding t'_A-t_A by two.
The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value
t_B), needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and
coding the result into the signal.
That is another reason why you should know the delay.
But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.
And you, stupid Mike, explicitely stated that IDENTIOCAL
clocks are some "Newton mode". You're such an agnorant idiot...
Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
For instance:
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.
In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.
In §6 the symbol 'A' is not used.
In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined:
"we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.
The numbering of an equation (A) is not another use of the symbol 'A'.
This is two well defined uses of the letter 'A' used to identify
a physical or mathematical entity.
Can you name the other six?
But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not
possible to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation
has, if both meanings use the same symbol.
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.
Can you quote the sentence in question?
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
I disliked already the used of 'force' for electrical field strength.
But anyhow...
'X' is here the x-component of the electric field-strength vector and
called 'X'
'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K.
Therefore we have twice the symbol 'X' in the same sentence (actually
also in the same line), but with two different meanings.
It is not really wrong, but VERY bad writing style.
At least Einstein could have made different types of symbols
distinguishable by attributes like italic or bold fonts.
TH
Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
For instance:
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.
In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.
In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined:
"we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.
'A' is an ASCII character and actually a very short text.
To use it as a symbol, for instance as name of a variable, you need to connect text and variable by a definition.
For instance you could write, that 'A' shall contain the value of a
certain area.
But Einstein didn't do that.
'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K.
Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not
possible to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation
has, if both meanings use the same symbol.
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
'X' is here the x-component of the electric field-strength vector and
called 'X'
'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K.
Am 15.02.2024 um 12:19 schrieb MaciejWozniak:
Volney wrote:
On 2/15/2024 12:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL.
Thomas Heger wrote:
[snip]
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the[snip]
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units. >>>>>>
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly >>>>>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use >>>>>> different units.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would >>>>>> not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in >>>>>> Earth-time-units.
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is >>>>>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
*facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the
problem, that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
stranger than the assumption of aliens.
But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is
patently irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without
gravity.
Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought
experiments'.
If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
clocks onboard of their ships.
But in any case:
you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to
synchronize clocks.
(In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to
each other.
In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true
and you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by
deviding t'_A-t_A by two.
The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value
t_B), needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and
coding the result into the signal.
That is another reason why you should know the delay.
But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word. >>>>
And you, stupid Mike, explicitely stated that IDENTIOCAL
clocks are some "Newton mode". You're such an agnorant idiot...
'Identical' clocks (actually mentioned were watches) are mechanically
the same.
But watches of 1905 were adjustable in the rate of ticks, hence could be synchronized to the local environment.
That's why it is complicated to synchronize clocks.
First you need to establish an agreement about the time units and tick
rates.
Theses tick rates already differ with hight (already on planet Earth).
This would require (already on Earth) agrements about the length of the second.
This is actually simple: simply add the delay to the coded time,
But you need to know the delay in the first place, if you like to add it.
But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't mention this, even if synchronization over long distances was his topic.
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K >>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the >>> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the >>>> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K >>>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..." >>>>
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se. >>>
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).
Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the >>>>> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone >>>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K >>>>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..." >>>>>
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se. >>>>
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).
The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with >>>> different meanings within a single sentence.
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy
On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the
system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X,
..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally
called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone >>>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein
per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).
The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with >>>> different meanings within a single sentence.
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".
Python wrote:
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt what a function is?
Le 17/02/2024 à 16:13, MaciejWozniak a écrit :
Python wrote:
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt what a function is?
I can teach that to you, $50/hour.
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K >>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the >>> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Le 17/02/2024 à 15:40, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an >>>>>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the
system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, >>>>>>> ..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally
called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone >>>>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein
per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).
The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice
with
different meanings within a single sentence.
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system
K along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".
Definitely.
It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
hardly be used for anything of practical value.
Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K >>>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..." >>>>
the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per
se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).
The point is still that the way misinterpret part I.1. in Einstein's
article is properly ridiculous. At first he didn't get that both clocks
A and B were mutually at rest (it comes from... the very title of the
whole paragraph), then he fantasized about clocks on Alpha Centaury
using alien units and mechanism, while Einstein specified that both
clocks were identical in all aspects. He persists, though, to consider
that this part of the article is about clocks separated by interstellar distances while it is obviously about clocks involved in different part
of a experiment in a hypothetical lab.
And, worse, while Einstein never wrote that the time label of a distant
event should be the time marked by a clock at that event position when
the event happens (i.e. "no delay") he persists to affirm that this is
the case even if the two equations in this part directly imply that
the light propagation delay is taken into account.
The absence of the word "delay" is far to subtle for him to grasp:
you cannot talk about a delay (outside of a round-trip time) between
two separated events if you do not define how clocks at these places
are synchronized, which is the very point of the paragraph which
start with a round-trip delay.
On 2/17/2024 11:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it couldFortunately, Einstein's paper doesn't have 400+ errors. Or any errors,
hardly be used for anything of practical value.
for that matter.
[ … ]
The problems came, when Einstein used the letters X,Y,Z also as
variables in the electric field strength vector.
He called this 'force' and used such a vector: (X, Y, Z).
Here he created an ambiguity between the name of an axis of coordinate
system K and a component of an electric field-strength vector.
To make matters worse, he used both meanings within a single sentence:
"...along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
This was comically twisted, because 'axis of X' was already an error
(correct would be: 'x-axis' or simply 'X').
TH
Am 17.02.2024 um 14:33 schrieb Python:
Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called >>>>> the
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K >>>>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..." >>>>>
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone >>>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per
se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).
The point is still that the way misinterpret part I.1. in Einstein's
article is properly ridiculous. At first he didn't get that both clocks
A and B were mutually at rest (it comes from... the very title of the
whole paragraph), then he fantasized about clocks on Alpha Centaury
using alien units and mechanism, while Einstein specified that both
clocks were identical in all aspects. He persists, though, to consider
that this part of the article is about clocks separated by interstellar
distances while it is obviously about clocks involved in different part
of a experiment in a hypothetical lab.
And, worse, while Einstein never wrote that the time label of a distant
event should be the time marked by a clock at that event position when
the event happens (i.e. "no delay") he persists to affirm that this is
the case even if the two equations in this part directly imply that
the light propagation delay is taken into account.
The absence of the word "delay" is far to subtle for him to grasp:
you cannot talk about a delay (outside of a round-trip time) between
two separated events if you do not define how clocks at these places
are synchronized, which is the very point of the paragraph which
start with a round-trip delay.
Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay
or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
Am 17.02.2024 um 11:47 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
I'm, of course, not a real professor and my aim was not to evaluate a translation.
Am 17.02.2024 um 17:16 schrieb Python:
Le 17/02/2024 à 15:40, Mikko a écrit :the 'x-Achse' had a name,
On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an >>>>>>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the
system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, >>>>>>>> ..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally
called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone >>>>>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that >>>>>>> calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very >>>>>>> commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein
per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).
The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".
Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice >>>>>> with
different meanings within a single sentence.
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system
K along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..." >>>
Definitely.
which was 'X'.
Am 17.02.2024 um 14:33 schrieb Python:
Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the
system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X,
..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called >>>>> the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone >>>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per
se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).
The point is still that the way misinterpret part I.1. in Einstein's
article is properly ridiculous. At first he didn't get that both clocks
A and B were mutually at rest (it comes from... the very title of the
whole paragraph), then he fantasized about clocks on Alpha Centaury
using alien units and mechanism, while Einstein specified that both
clocks were identical in all aspects. He persists, though, to consider
that this part of the article is about clocks separated by interstellar
distances while it is obviously about clocks involved in different part
of a experiment in a hypothetical lab.
And, worse, while Einstein never wrote that the time label of a distant
event should be the time marked by a clock at that event position when
the event happens (i.e. "no delay") he persists to affirm that this is
the case even if the two equations in this part directly imply that
the light propagation delay is taken into account.
The absence of the word "delay" is far to subtle for him to grasp:
you cannot talk about a delay (outside of a round-trip time) between
two separated events if you do not define how clocks at these places
are synchronized, which is the very point of the paragraph which
start with a round-trip delay.
Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay
or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different
places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).
This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay
caused by the transit of the signal.
IMHO is this the opnly possible interpretation of this part:
(page 3)
"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have
settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks
located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event
is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary
clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous,
and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock."
So, apparently Einstein wanted to make time dependent of the location
(within a single frame of reference).
But time in locations that are stationary in respect to the coordinate
system in question and in respect to the observer should have the same
time, because 'frame of reference' means a combination of a time measure
and a coordinate system, hence should not use different times for
stationary points within that FoR.
But apparently Einstein had a different idea and wanted to assigne
different time measures to different places.
This in turn would only make sense, if he wanted to ignore the delay and
take the apparent time without compensation of the delay as remote time.
E.g.:
the delay from Moon to Earth is roughly a second.
A HUGE clock on the Moon would show (for instance) 1:00:00 p.m.
This clock is seen from Earth and shows 1:00:00 p.m.
What is the correct time on the Moon?
it is, of course 1:00:01 p.m., because that one second delay is not
caused by a different time on the Moon, but by the delay.
But Einstein seemingly wanted 1:00:00 p.m. to be 'Moon-time', if
1:00:00 p.m. is seen (hence ignored the delay).
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Paul b. Andersen wrote:
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K >>>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called
the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per
se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
I also didn't want to discuss relativity per se or the validity of the pyhsical content of this paper.
It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
hardly be used for anything of practical value.
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X' was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...
Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay
or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different
places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).
This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay
caused by the transit of the signal.
IMHO is this the opnly possible interpretation of this part:
(page 3)
"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have
settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks
located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event
is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary
clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous,
and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock."
So, apparently Einstein wanted to make time dependent of the location
(within a single frame of reference).
But time in locations that are stationary in respect to the coordinate
system in question and in respect to the observer should have the same
time, because 'frame of reference' means a combination of a time measure
and a coordinate system, hence should not use different times for
stationary points within that FoR.
But apparently Einstein had a different idea and wanted to assigne
different time measures to different places.
This in turn would only make sense, if he wanted to ignore the delay and
take the apparent time without compensation of the delay as remote time.
E.g.:
the delay from Moon to Earth is roughly a second.
A HUGE clock on the Moon would show (for instance) 1:00:00 p.m.
This clock is seen from Earth and shows 1:00:00 p.m.
What is the correct time on the Moon?
of course 1:00:01 p.m., because that one second delay is not
caused by a different time on the Moon, but by the delay.
But Einstein seemingly wanted 1:00:00 p.m. to be 'Moon-time', if
1:00:00 p.m. is seen (hence ignored the delay).
Den 18.02.2024 06:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay
or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different
places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).
This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay
caused by the transit of the signal.
From whence do you get the weird idea that Einstein ignored
the transit time of a light beam?
Please read the following carefully.
====================================
Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.02.2024 06:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the
delay or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different
places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).
This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay
caused by the transit of the signal.
From whence do you get the weird idea that Einstein ignored
the transit time of a light beam?
Please read the following carefully.
====================================
Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.
You only believe that The Holiest Procedure
is somehow usable in the real world - because
you have no contact with the real wold.
Your gedankenland has replaced the reality
in your tiny, fanatic halfbrain. It happens.
On 2/17/2024 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K >>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the >>> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
Nice moving of the goalposts!
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.
Den 18.02.2024 05:47, skrev Thomas Heger:
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Paul b. Andersen wrote:
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the
system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X,
..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally
called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone >>>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein
per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
You wrote:
"But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
Einstein didn't use X as the name of the X-axis in §10,
he called it the X-Axis.
In the translation is the phrase "the axis of X" is used so
the axis was NOT called X.
The English translation of the "single sentence" was NOT:
"If an electron moves from rest at the origin of
co-ordinates of the system K along X under the action of
an electrostatic force X .."
The sentence wouldn't even have made sense if X had been used
as name of the X-Axis.
X is explicitly defined to be an "electrostatic force"
Since you have thoroughly scrutinized the text and failed to find
an example of "use of the same symbol twice with different meanings
within a single sentence", we can conclude that no such example exists.
Well done, and don't try to flee from the fact.
I also didn't want to discuss relativity per se or the validity of the
pyhsical content of this paper.
It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
hardly be used for anything of practical value.
It's rather 400+ cases of your failure to understand the text.
Let's review some of the alleged errors.
You, Thomas Heger, claimed:
"Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
"He had eight different uses of the letter 'A'."
And you list them up:
His [Einstein's] uses of 'A' were:
#1: as name of a point in space
#2: as name of the local time at point A as 'A-time'
#3: for one end of a flying rod
#4: as index of the time value t_A
#5: as area
#6: in 'electric power of deflection' A_e
#7: in 'magnetic power of deflection' A_m
#8: as (only!) internal reference 'A'
This is actually too stupid to comment, but since
you are too ignorant to understand how stupid it is,
I will do it anyway:
#1: Right.
In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.
#2: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A-time'" doesn't make sense.
#3: A is the name of the spatial point where one end of the rod
is positioned.
#4: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 't_A'" :-D
Doesn't make sense.
#5: 'A' is never used as area in this paper.
#6: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_e'" :-D
#7: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_m'" :-D
However,
In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined:
"we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.
#8: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean (A) " :-D
The symbol for numbering of equations '(A)' is not
equal to the symbol 'A', like the symbol '(1)' is not
equal to the symbol '1'.
So there are only two different meanings of 'A' in the paper.
In §1 to and including §5 'A' is a point in space.
In §7 to and including §10 'A' is the amplitude of
the electric or magnetic force.
Am 18.02.2024 um 13:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 18.02.2024 05:47, skrev Thomas Heger:
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Paul b. Andersen wrote:
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an >>>>>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the
system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, >>>>>>> ..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally
called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone >>>>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein
per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
You wrote:
"But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
Einstein didn't use X as the name of the X-axis in §10,
he called it the X-Axis.
In the translation is the phrase "the axis of X" is used so
the axis was NOT called X.
The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote
with the dagger.
quote:
"Editor’s note: In Einstein’s original paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z) for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without explicitly defining them. In the 1923 English translation, (X, Y, Z)
were used, creating an ambiguity between X co-ordinates in the fixed
system K and the parallel axis in moving system k. Here and in
subsequent references we use Ξ when referring to the axis of system k
along which the system is translating with respect to K. "
As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.
This means:
the axes have names, which consist of single large letters (Latin in
case of system K and Greek in case of system k)
Am 18.02.2024 um 17:30 schrieb Volney:
On 2/17/2024 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K >>>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..." >>>>
the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per
se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
Nice moving of the goalposts!
Well, as I can define my own goals, I can define what I want to do.
And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.
You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me, to
share any of them.
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.
No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.
Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.
But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.
I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.
Am 18.02.2024 um 13:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
You wrote:
"But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote
with the dagger.
quote:
"Editor’s note: In Einstein’s original paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z) for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without explicitly defining them. In the 1923 English translation, (X, Y, Z) were used, creating an ambiguity between X co-ordinates in the fixed system K and the parallel axis in moving system k. Here and in subsequent
references we use Ξ when referring to the axis of system k along which
the system is translating with respect to K. "
As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.
And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.
You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me,
to share any of them.
It's perfectly fine for you to move the goalposts all over the place.
But don't expect not to get called out for that.
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
But you didn't catch that.Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.
No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.
Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.
But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.
I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.
You are attempting to criticize a translation of a paper rather than the paper itself. You should either stick to either criticizing the
translator (not very useful, the translator wasn't very famous) or
criticize the original paper in German if that's your first language.
But again, your criticisms of the content is just your misunderstandings
and not useful.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
You wrote:
"But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
You can't blame Einstein for the alleged errors in the translation.
It is interesting to note that you have given up
claiming that Einstein in §10 used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence.
Now you claim to have found it in §3. Let's see.
The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote
with the dagger.
This Editor's note is partly plain wrong, and partly meaningless.
quote:
"Editor’s note: In Einstein’s original paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z) >> for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without
explicitly defining them.
??
As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.
A definition of what?
The "stationary system" is called K, with coordinates x,y,z,t.
The "moving system" is called k, with coordinates ξ, η, ζ, τ.
Am 19.02.2024 um 19:31 schrieb Volney:
...
And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version. >>>
You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me,
to share any of them.
It's perfectly fine for you to move the goalposts all over the place.
But don't expect not to get called out for that.
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis' >>>> is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...
Actually both are wrong, because the tall letters were the name of the
axes themselves, while small letters were the coordinates.
'X-axes' is wrong
'X_axis' is wrong
'axis of X' is wrong, too.
Am 19.02.2024 um 19:31 schrieb Volney:
...
And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this
version.
You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me,
to share any of them.
It's perfectly fine for you to move the goalposts all over the place.
But don't expect not to get called out for that.
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis' >>>> is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...
Actually both are wrong, because the tall letters were the name of the
axes themselves, while small letters were the coordinates.
'X-axes' is wrong
'X_axis' is wrong
'axis of X' is wrong, too.
('x-axis' is correct or possibly 'axis of x')
But you didn't catch that.Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as
well.
No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.
Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.
But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.
I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.
You are attempting to criticize a translation of a paper rather than the
paper itself. You should either stick to either criticizing the
translator (not very useful, the translator wasn't very famous) or
criticize the original paper in German if that's your first language.
But again, your criticisms of the content is just your misunderstandings
and not useful.
Other than you I can speak German very well.
But there is no point to do that in this UseNet group, were the language
is English.
So, my decision was to write annotations into the English translation,
which is most commonly used.
You may regard this as questionable, but I think, it is perfectly ok.
TH
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X' >>>>>> was already the name of the x-axis of system K.Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis' >>>>> is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
...
Actually both are wrong, because the tall letters were the name of the
axes themselves, while small letters were the coordinates.
'X-axes' is wrong
'X_axis' is wrong
'axis of X' is wrong, too.
('x-axis' is correct or possibly 'axis of x')
Why do you claim this? The name of the x axis is just that, a name. It
could be nearly anything. The sensible part would be to associate the
names of the X (Y or Z) axis with the names of the x (y or z) variables without using the exact same name. Which is what was done, calling the
axis 'X-Achse' and the associated variable 'x'. Similarly for
Am 22.02.2024 um 17:16 schrieb Volney:
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X' >>>>>>> was already the name of the x-axis of system K.Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than
...
'X_axis'
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
Actually both are wrong, because the tall letters were the name of the
axes themselves, while small letters were the coordinates.
'X-axes' is wrong
'X_axis' is wrong
'axis of X' is wrong, too.
('x-axis' is correct or possibly 'axis of x')
Why do you claim this? The name of the x axis is just that, a name. It
could be nearly anything. The sensible part would be to associate the
names of the X (Y or Z) axis with the names of the x (y or z) variables
without using the exact same name. Which is what was done, calling the
axis 'X-Achse' and the associated variable 'x'. Similarly for
Actually symbols in equations are 'case sensitive'.
Therefore, 'X' is not equal to 'x'.
(If you think otherwise, you should ask a specialist.)
What is commonly done or used by the public is patently irrelevant in theoretical physics.
On 2024-02-10 07:08:11 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 08.02.2024 um 10:05 schrieb Mikko:
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these >>>> annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a >>>> few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.
As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration.
I have not said, that I'm a professor.
Doesn't matter, your annotations wouldn't be worth of consderation
even if you were.
I wrote, that I play the role of a hypothetical professor, who had to
write annotations into the homework of a student.
This is actually a form of 'critical reading' and has absolutely
nothing to do with my profession.
It is a learning method and an itellectual challenge.
If it were an effective learning method you would have learned already.
Am 10.02.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-02-10 07:08:11 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 08.02.2024 um 10:05 schrieb Mikko:
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these >>>>> annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a >>>>> few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.
As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration.
I have not said, that I'm a professor.
Doesn't matter, your annotations wouldn't be worth of consderation
even if you were.
I don't see it like that.
In science any critique should be dealt with, from wherever this
critique may come.
If scientists fail to disprove something, then this something will remain.
This would cause a disaster, because if the critique turns out to be
valid some day, then everything done inbetween will be wasted effords.
I wrote, that I play the role of a hypothetical professor, who had to
write annotations into the homework of a student.
This is actually a form of 'critical reading' and has absolutely
nothing to do with my profession.
It is a learning method and an itellectual challenge.
If it were an effective learning method you would have learned already.
Oh, but I have learned a LOT!
Now I can almost sing 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'
(supposed it had inspired a musician to provide notes).
On 2024-02-18 05:48:12 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 17.02.2024 um 17:16 schrieb Python:
Le 17/02/2024 à 15:40, Mikko a écrit :the 'x-Achse' had a name,
On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an >>>>>>>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the >>>>>>>>> system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, >>>>>>>>> ..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally
called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that
someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that >>>>>>>> calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very >>>>>>>> commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein >>>>>>> per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is >>>>>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).
The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice >>>>>>> with
different meanings within a single sentence.
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system >>>>> K along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X,
..."
In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".
Definitely.
True.
which was 'X'.
No, its name was "X-Achse", and still is.
Am Sonntag000018, 18.02.2024 um 12:00 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-02-18 05:48:12 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 17.02.2024 um 17:16 schrieb Python:
Le 17/02/2024 à 15:40, Mikko a écrit :the 'x-Achse' had a name,
On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an >>>>>>>>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the >>>>>>>>>> system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, >>>>>>>>>> ..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally >>>>>>>>> called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone >>>>>>>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that >>>>>>>>> calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very >>>>>>>>> commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein >>>>>>>> per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is >>>>>>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there >>>>>> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A" >>>>>> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X", >>>>>> so he is blatantly lying (again).
The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".
Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice >>>>>>>> with
different meanings within a single sentence.
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system >>>>>> K along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..." >>>>>
Definitely.
True.
which was 'X'.
No, its name was "X-Achse", and still is.
No, that's wrong.
If 'x-Achse' ('x-axis' in German) was named 'X', then 'X-Achse' would
be in long form:
The system k had tall Greek letters as names of the axes:
Xsi, Eta and Zeta.
Here Einstein made an error, too, because once defined these names had
to be used.
In my role as a hypothetical professor, who had to write corrections, I freaked out a little at this point and wrote a big red 'F' on the first
page on the paper.
Le 19/04/2024 à 07:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
[...]
The system k had tall Greek letters as names of the axes:
Xsi, Eta and Zeta.
Here Einstein made an error, too, because once defined these names had
to be used.
Xsi intervenes several times from the sentence "For a ray of light
emitted at the time $\tau =0$ in the direction of the increasing $\xi$"
a few paragraphs later. All of them intervenes after the sentence "Substituting for x' its value, we obtain :"
In my role as a hypothetical professor, who had to write corrections,
I freaked out a little at this point and wrote a big red 'F' on the
first page on the paper.
In my role as a hypothetical ophthalmologist I freak out a lot and
advise you to buy glasses.
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 10:23, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 07:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
[...]
The system k had tall Greek letters as names of the axes:
Xsi, Eta and Zeta.
Here Einstein made an error, too, because once defined these names
had to be used.
Xsi intervenes several times from the sentence "For a ray of light
emitted at the time $\tau =0$ in the direction of the increasing $\xi$"
a few paragraphs later. All of them intervenes after the sentence
"Substituting for x' its value, we obtain :"
In my role as a hypothetical professor, who had to write corrections,
I freaked out a little at this point and wrote a big red 'F' on the
first page on the paper.
In my role as a hypothetical ophthalmologist I freak out a lot and
advise you to buy glasses.
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?
Le 19/04/2024 à 17:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 10:23, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 07:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
[...]
The system k had tall Greek letters as names of the axes:
Xsi, Eta and Zeta.
Here Einstein made an error, too, because once defined these names
had to be used.
Xsi intervenes several times from the sentence "For a ray of light
emitted at the time $\tau =0$ in the direction of the increasing $\xi$"
a few paragraphs later. All of them intervenes after the sentence
"Substituting for x' its value, we obtain :"
In my role as a hypothetical professor, who had to write
corrections, I freaked out a little at this point and wrote a big
red 'F' on the first page on the paper.
In my role as a hypothetical ophthalmologist I freak out a lot and
advise you to buy glasses.
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
I can recognize the appearances of a greek letter in an
article, can you?
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?
Still fighting with words and facts Wozmaniak ?
I'm not "trying to determine properties" of functions
using a definition of a different word.
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 17:56, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 17:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 10:23, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 07:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
[...]
The system k had tall Greek letters as names of the axes:
Xsi, Eta and Zeta.
Here Einstein made an error, too, because once defined these names
had to be used.
Xsi intervenes several times from the sentence "For a ray of light
emitted at the time $\tau =0$ in the direction of the increasing $\xi$" >>>> a few paragraphs later. All of them intervenes after the sentence
"Substituting for x' its value, we obtain :"
In my role as a hypothetical professor, who had to write
corrections, I freaked out a little at this point and wrote a big
red 'F' on the first page on the paper.
In my role as a hypothetical ophthalmologist I freak out a lot and
advise you to buy glasses.
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
I can recognize the appearances of a greek letter in an
article, can you?
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?
Still fighting with words and facts Wozmaniak ?
I'm not "trying to determine properties" of functions
using a definition of a different word.
Well, yes, poor stinker, you are.
Le 19/04/2024 à 21:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 17:56, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 17:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 10:23, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 07:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
[...]
The system k had tall Greek letters as names of the axes:
Xsi, Eta and Zeta.
Here Einstein made an error, too, because once defined these names >>>>>> had to be used.
Xsi intervenes several times from the sentence "For a ray of light
emitted at the time $\tau =0$ in the direction of the increasing
$\xi$"
a few paragraphs later. All of them intervenes after the sentence
"Substituting for x' its value, we obtain :"
In my role as a hypothetical professor, who had to write
corrections, I freaked out a little at this point and wrote a big
red 'F' on the first page on the paper.
In my role as a hypothetical ophthalmologist I freak out a lot and
advise you to buy glasses.
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
I can recognize the appearances of a greek letter in an
article, can you?
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?
Still fighting with words and facts Wozmaniak ?
I'm not "trying to determine properties" of functions
using a definition of a different word.
Well, yes, poor stinker, you are.
Not quite. What made you thing so Wozmaniak?
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 22:43, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 21:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 17:56, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 17:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 10:23, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 07:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
[...]
The system k had tall Greek letters as names of the axes:
Xsi, Eta and Zeta.
Here Einstein made an error, too, because once defined these
names had to be used.
Xsi intervenes several times from the sentence "For a ray of light >>>>>> emitted at the time $\tau =0$ in the direction of the increasing
$\xi$"
a few paragraphs later. All of them intervenes after the sentence
"Substituting for x' its value, we obtain :"
In my role as a hypothetical professor, who had to write
corrections, I freaked out a little at this point and wrote a big >>>>>>> red 'F' on the first page on the paper.
In my role as a hypothetical ophthalmologist I freak out a lot and >>>>>> advise you to buy glasses.
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
I can recognize the appearances of a greek letter in an
article, can you?
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?
Still fighting with words and facts Wozmaniak ?
I'm not "trying to determine properties" of functions
using a definition of a different word.
Well, yes, poor stinker, you are.
Not quite. What made you thing so Wozmaniak?
Tell me better, what made you think French
fonction and English function are the same words.
Are their definitions identical (after the
translation)?
Le 19/04/2024 à 23:26, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 22:43, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 21:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 17:56, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 17:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 10:23, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 07:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
[...]
The system k had tall Greek letters as names of the axes:
Xsi, Eta and Zeta.
Here Einstein made an error, too, because once defined these
names had to be used.
Xsi intervenes several times from the sentence "For a ray of
light emitted at the time $\tau =0$ in the direction of the
increasing $\xi$"
a few paragraphs later. All of them intervenes after the sentence >>>>>>> "Substituting for x' its value, we obtain :"
In my role as a hypothetical professor, who had to write
corrections, I freaked out a little at this point and wrote a
big red 'F' on the first page on the paper.
In my role as a hypothetical ophthalmologist I freak out a lot and >>>>>>> advise you to buy glasses.
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
I can recognize the appearances of a greek letter in an
article, can you?
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?
Still fighting with words and facts Wozmaniak ?
I'm not "trying to determine properties" of functions
using a definition of a different word.
Well, yes, poor stinker, you are.
Not quite. What made you thing so Wozmaniak?
Tell me better, what made you think French
fonction and English function are the same words.
Are their definitions identical (after the
translation)?
LOL! Maybe function in American English and British English
are different words too?
On 2024-04-05 08:00:52 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 10.02.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-02-10 07:08:11 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 08.02.2024 um 10:05 schrieb Mikko:
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of
these
annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of >>>>>> moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the
student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.
As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration.
I have not said, that I'm a professor.
Doesn't matter, your annotations wouldn't be worth of consderation
even if you were.
I don't see it like that.
In science any critique should be dealt with, from wherever this
critique may come.
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" is a historical document.
After its publication science has moved on so much that no comment
to it is relevant to today's education or science.
Le 19/04/2024 à 17:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 19.04.2024 o 10:23, Python pisze:
Le 19/04/2024 à 07:50, Thomas Heger a écrit :
[...]
The system k had tall Greek letters as names of the axes:
Xsi, Eta and Zeta.
Here Einstein made an error, too, because once defined these names
had to be used.
Xsi intervenes several times from the sentence "For a ray of light
emitted at the time $\tau =0$ in the direction of the increasing $\xi$"
a few paragraphs later. All of them intervenes after the sentence
"Substituting for x' its value, we obtain :"
In my role as a hypothetical professor, who had to write
corrections, I freaked out a little at this point and wrote a big
red 'F' on the first page on the paper.
In my role as a hypothetical ophthalmologist I freak out a lot and
advise you to buy glasses.
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
I can recognize the appearances of a greek letter in an
article, can you?
On 2024-04-19 05:50:28 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Sonntag000018, 18.02.2024 um 12:00 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-02-18 05:48:12 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 17.02.2024 um 17:16 schrieb Python:
Le 17/02/2024 à 15:40, Mikko a écrit :the 'x-Achse' had a name,
On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an >>>>>>>>>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the >>>>>>>>>>> system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic >>>>>>>>>>> force X,
..."
Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally >>>>>>>>>> called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that >>>>>>>>>> someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that >>>>>>>>>> calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very >>>>>>>>>> commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein >>>>>>>>> per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is >>>>>>>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there >>>>>>> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A" >>>>>>> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X", >>>>>>> so he is blatantly lying (again).
The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that >>>>>> Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice >>>>>>>>> with
different meanings within a single sentence.
Can you quote the sentence in question?
sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an >>>>>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system >>>>>>> K along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force >>>>>>> X, ..."
In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".
Definitely.
True.
which was 'X'.
No, its name was "X-Achse", and still is.
No, that's wrong.
If 'x-Achse' ('x-axis' in German) was named 'X', then 'X-Achse' would
be in long form:
"X-Achse" is a single word. It means wohat it means, independently of
what it parts might otherwise mean, just like the meaning of the word
"fair" is independent of the meaning of the word "air".
Am Freitag000005, 05.04.2024 um 10:39 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-04-05 08:00:52 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 10.02.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-02-10 07:08:11 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 08.02.2024 um 10:05 schrieb Mikko:
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these >>>>>>> annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the >>>>>>> homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of >>>>>>> moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a >>>>>>> few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many >>>>>>> annotations.
As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration.
I have not said, that I'm a professor.
Doesn't matter, your annotations wouldn't be worth of consderation
even if you were.
I don't see it like that.
In science any critique should be dealt with, from wherever this
critique may come.
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" is a historical document.
After its publication science has moved on so much that no comment
to it is relevant to today's education or science.
But that wasn't my topic.
I had a different problem:
Max Planck was certainly a very good physicist and certainly able to
see the errors in Einstein's text.
But why did he publish it, if it contains so many errors?
On 2024-05-18 06:20:57 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Freitag000005, 05.04.2024 um 10:39 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-04-05 08:00:52 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 10.02.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-02-10 07:08:11 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 08.02.2024 um 10:05 schrieb Mikko:
I have not said, that I'm a professor.I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of >>>>>>>> these
annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the >>>>>>>> homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of >>>>>>>> moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the
student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many >>>>>>>> annotations.
As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration. >>>>>>
Doesn't matter, your annotations wouldn't be worth of consderation
even if you were.
I don't see it like that.
In science any critique should be dealt with, from wherever this
critique may come.
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" is a historical document.
After its publication science has moved on so much that no comment
to it is relevant to today's education or science.
But that wasn't my topic.
I had a different problem:
Max Planck was certainly a very good physicist and certainly able to
see the errors in Einstein's text.
But why did he publish it, if it contains so many errors?
The answer is obvious: the text did not contain any significant errors.
[idiotic rant] was not even consistent,
the proof was published here many times and the only
thing idiots like you can do about it is pretending
they didn't notice.
Le 18/05/2024 à 16:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
[idiotic rant] was not even consistent,
the proof was published here many times and the only
thing idiots like you can do about it is pretending
they didn't notice.
You are a liar Maciej.
Python wrote:
Le 18/05/2024 à 16:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
[idiotic rant] was not even consistent,
the proof was published here many times and the only
thing idiots like you can do about it is pretending
they didn't notice.
You are a liar Maciej.
Nothing new about that!
JanPB wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
Thomas Heger wrote:Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading >>>>>>> the file).
nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study >>>>>> at an university with a ð˜ƒð—¶ð˜€ð—¶ð˜ð—¶ð—»ð—´_ð—½ð—¿ð—¼ð—³ð—²ð˜€ð˜€ð—¼ð—¿.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.
There are no errors in Einstein's paper. There are instances of sloppiness, >> bending over backwards, inconsequential omissions, and the like, all of which are
typical of any science paper.
"inconsequential omissions"???? Like Albert Einstein's 1905 Relativity
paper NOT neven even mentioning ONCE 'Gravity'.
On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
JanPB wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
Thomas Heger wrote:Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading >>>>>>> the file).
nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study >>>>>> at an university with a ð˜ƒð—¶ð˜€ð—¶ð˜ð—¶ð—»ð—´_ð—½ð—¿ð—¼ð—³ð—²ð˜€ð˜€ð—¼ð—¿.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these >>> annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a >>> few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.
There are no errors in Einstein's paper. There are instances of sloppiness,
bending over backwards, inconsequential omissions, and the like, all of which are
typical of any science paper.
"inconsequential omissions"???? Like Albert Einstein's 1905 Relativity paper NOT neven even mentioning ONCE 'Gravity'.
Duh-h-h! That was a paper on special relativity, and special relativity doesn't involve gravity!
Volney wrote:
On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
"inconsequential omissions"???? Like Albert Einstein's 1905 RelativityDuh-h-h! That was a paper on special relativity, and special relativity
paper NOT neven even mentioning ONCE 'Gravity'.
doesn't involve gravity!
That's what I said..it didn't include Gravity. Big mistake, wasn't it?
(i know yous people just look the other way)
On 5/19/2024 3:10 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Volney wrote:
On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
No mistake. It is for situations without gravity or where gravitational effects are too small to have any effect. Even the GPS system's GR"inconsequential omissions"???? Like Albert Einstein's 1905 Relativity >>>> paper NOT neven even mentioning ONCE 'Gravity'.Duh-h-h! That was a paper on special relativity, and special relativity
doesn't involve gravity!
That's what I said..it didn't include Gravity. Big mistake, wasn't it?
(i know yous people just look the other way)
effect is less than one part per billion.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 427 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:28:04 |
| Calls: | 9,029 |
| Files: | 13,384 |
| Messages: | 6,009,104 |