• Re: [SR and synchronization] Cognitive Dissonances and Mental Blockage

    From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 14:56:14 2024
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability to
    pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve seen this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies, like atomic
    clocks in the receivers or synchronization with a clock infinitely far
    away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure described
    by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place 17 years ago
    and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other at
    a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within measurement
    accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.

    And hatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 14:52:46 2024
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think
    you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to
    produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability to
    pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve seen this before
    with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies, like atomic
    clocks in the receivers or synchronization with a clock infinitely far
    away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure described
    by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place 17 years ago
    and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other at
    a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within measurement
    accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the same rate." NOTHING
    more is assumed, especially regarding the time they display; the purpose
    is PRECISELY to adjust one of these clocks by applying a correction
    after a calculation involving the values indicated on these clocks
    during specific events, events that occur AT THE LOCATION OF EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure but a
    method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main difference from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven that Poincaré’s method leads to clocks synchronized in Einstein’s sense. You can also transform Einstein’s verification method into a synchronization procedure because
    it allows calculating the correction to apply to clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B.

    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a light signal
    is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.

    The values t_A, t_B, and t'_A relate to events that all occur exactly at
    the location of the clock displaying these measurements. They are
    perfectly objective and independent of any observer. Anywhere in the
    universe, whether at A, B, or on Andromeda, observers can obtain these
    values (via astronaut carrier pigeons, for example).

    Hachel/Lengrand manages to deny this simple FACT. This is the first
    level of severe cognitive dissonance.

    Einstein points out that the experiment (measuring time during round
    trips, thus involving only one clock) justifies the formula: 2(AB)/(t'_A
    - t_A) = c (*).

    He then introduces a *convention*: t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (**).

    Here, Hachel/Lengrand believes this is only possible if the clocks have
    been specially pre-set, but there is nothing like that in Einstein’s procedure. The point is *precisely* to check whether this formula holds
    or not. And if it doesn’t, to find a way to make it true.

    This shows Hachel/Lengrand’s ability to introduce additional conditions
    out of nowhere (to put it politely) and then go completely off track
    with objective values that don’t have the same value for everyone,
    comparing it to an entirely irrelevant "Langevin-style" scenario...

    *Epilogue: What to Do if (**) Is False??*

    Starting from:
    2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c
    t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

    Elementary algebra allows us to express t_A in terms of the other
    quantities involved:

    t'_A = t_A + 2(AB)/c
    t'_A = 2*t_B - t_A

    t_A + 2(AB)/c = 2*t_B - t_A

    2*t_A = 2( t_B - (AB)/c )

    t_A = t_B - (AB)/c

    The value t_A should have been t_B - (AB)/c.

    If the value was different, say t_Aerr, then adjust clock A by t_Aerr +
    t_B - (AB)/c.

    An operator at A knows all the involved values; either they’ve been
    observed, known in advance (distance AB), or received via some transport
    method (t_B).

    The procedure works regardless of the initial settings of the two
    clocks. We can then call the relationship (**) verified by the two
    clocks as "A is synchronized with B" or "A synch B."

    To validate this, we still need to verify that "synch" (under the
    hypothesis 2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c, which Hachel/Lengrand considers true!):

    A synch A (reflexivity)
    A synch B => B synch A (symmetry)
    A synch B AND B synch C => A synch C (transitivity)

    Einstein deemed it unnecessary to do this in his paper, considering it
    obvious to his readership (he wasn’t there to preemptively manage cranks).

    The procedure is also experimentally falsifiable, despite its
    conventional aspect: by retesting synchronization after a minute, an
    hour, a year, or a century for the same clocks left to run their course,
    one would notice a desynchronization due to some phenomenon (except for
    a technical defect in the clocks), which gives meaning to the often-read
    phrase in popular science books: "time flows more or less quickly here
    and there." Countless experiments validate this aspect of Einstein’s procedure.

    This procedure gives meaning to the coordinate "t" of an event for any
    inertial reference frame (thus t', t'', etc.).

    In General Relativity, we find this procedure with a limitation: it is
    purely local; it holds in the spatiotemporal vicinity of an event. And
    it must be taken into account that, by the definition of Gravitation,
    two freely moving bodies (no acting forces) can see their trajectories
    diverge or converge.

    This subtlety sheds light on a circular aspect of physics (which is
    entirely normal and quite a good sign): clocks are set to make Newton’s
    first law true, and Newton’s first law allows clocks to be set
    consistently (locally). Thanks to J. J. Lodder for pointing out this.

    It’s no coincidence that the "real-time" event labeling proposed by Hachel/Lengrand is incoherent in this sense: with such coordinates,
    Newton’s first law is systematically violated; at worst, we even get a
    speed ("apparent") that is not only variable but *discontinuous* (if the
    body's trajectory crosses the observer).

    I’ve written a small Python program that graphically demonstrates this phenomenon:

    https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/tree/main/Hachel/code

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 14:58:34 2024
    Le 17/08/2024 à 14:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think
    you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to
    produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability
    to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a
    perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve seen
    this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies,
    like atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization with a clock
    infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place
    17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other
    at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within measurement
    accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.

    I'm not explaining this for you Maciej. "One of the best
    logicians Humanity have" is clearly too dumb to get it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 15:40:13 2024
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 14:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think
    you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to
    produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability
    to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a
    perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve
    seen this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of
    fantasies, like atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization
    with a clock infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place
    17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ >>>
    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other
    at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.

    No, poor stinker, bullshit as usual. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum



    I'm not explaining this for you Maciej. "One of the best
    logicians Humanity have" is clearly too dumb to get it.

    Only brainwashed religious maniacs are smart
    accordingly to get it. Sure.

    And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 15:44:30 2024
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 14:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think
    you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage
    to produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and
    ability to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of
    a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve
    seen this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of
    fantasies, like atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization
    with a clock infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place
    17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ >>>>
    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other
    at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum

    Sure. It happened that for the most of us (a few exceptions
    though, like astronauts in the ISS) the other part of these
    device is freely available (it is called Earth, you may have
    heard about it).

    Poor stinker, bullshit as usual.

    Nice signature Maciej!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 15:54:46 2024
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:44, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 14:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:** >>>>>
    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think >>>>> you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage >>>>> to produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and
    ability to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of
    a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve >>>>> seen this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of
    fantasies, like atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization
    with a clock infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took
    place 17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ >>>>>
    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each
    other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum

    Sure. It happened that for the most of us (a few exceptions
    though, like astronauts in the ISS) the other part of these
    device is freely available (it is called Earth

    They don't say they're selling parts, they say
    they're selling whole clocks. Sorry. Like most
    of relativistic idiots led by their idiot guru -
    you simply don't know what a clock is.

    BTW, is the atmosphere a part of a plane for you
    too, poor stinker?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 15:58:50 2024
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:44, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 14:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:** >>>>>>
    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you
    think you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they >>>>>> manage to produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance >>>>>> and ability to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on
    top of a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is
    astonishing. We’ve seen this before with GPS, where Hachel invents >>>>>> all sorts of fantasies, like atomic clocks in the receivers or
    synchronization with a clock infinitely far away in a fourth
    spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took
    place 17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and >>>>>> fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ >>>>>>
    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each
    other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum

    Sure. It happened that for the most of us (a few exceptions
    though, like astronauts in the ISS) the other part of these
    device is freely available (it is called Earth

    They don't say they're selling parts,

    They should.

    they say they're selling whole clocks.

    They are only targeting human customers living on Earth. In a Inter-
    Galactic civilization they would add "Planet not included" :-D

    If not the Federation Regulation Authorities would sue them.

    Maybe you should sue your parents for providing you a defective
    brain, Maciej.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 16:02:01 2024
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:44, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 14:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:** >>>>>>
    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you
    think you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they >>>>>> manage to produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance >>>>>> and ability to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on
    top of a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is
    astonishing. We’ve seen this before with GPS, where Hachel invents >>>>>> all sorts of fantasies, like atomic clocks in the receivers or
    synchronization with a clock infinitely far away in a fourth
    spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took
    place 17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and >>>>>> fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ >>>>>>
    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each
    other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum


    https://www.amazon.fr/Swimming-Fins/s?k=Swimming+Fins

    How dear! They don't mention "Aimed to used in water!"

    I guess you're walking through streets of Poland wearing
    swimming fins and falling down repeatedly. You may consider
    suing swimming fins sellers :-P

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 16:09:11 2024
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:02, Python a écrit :
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:44, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 14:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:** >>>>>>>
    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you
    think you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they >>>>>>> manage to produce something even worse. Their cognitive
    dissonance and ability to pull out bizarre notions from who knows >>>>>>> where, on top of a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is >>>>>>> astonishing. We’ve seen this before with GPS, where Hachel
    invents all sorts of fantasies, like atomic clocks in the
    receivers or synchronization with a clock infinitely far away in >>>>>>> a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took
    place 17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity
    and fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each
    other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within >>>>>>> measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum


    https://www.amazon.fr/Swimming-Fins/s?k=Swimming+Fins

    How dear! They don't mention "Aimed to be used in water!"

    I guess you're walking through streets of Poland wearing
    swimming fins and falling down repeatedly. You may consider
    suing swimming fins sellers :-P




    Rare footage of Maciej Wozniak British cousin :

    https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2021-05-07/stepping-out-in-style-the-bolton-man-hoping-to-summit-snowdon-in-swimming-flippers

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 16:26:14 2024
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:44, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 14:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:** >>>>>>>
    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you
    think you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they >>>>>>> manage to produce something even worse. Their cognitive
    dissonance and ability to pull out bizarre notions from who knows >>>>>>> where, on top of a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is >>>>>>> astonishing. We’ve seen this before with GPS, where Hachel
    invents all sorts of fantasies, like atomic clocks in the
    receivers or synchronization with a clock infinitely far away in >>>>>>> a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took
    place 17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity
    and fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each
    other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within >>>>>>> measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum

    Sure. It happened that for the most of us (a few exceptions
    though, like astronauts in the ISS) the other part of these
    device is freely available (it is called Earth

    They don't say they're selling parts,

    They should.

    Because?
    Because otherwise poor stinker will get angry
    and start stamping his feet?


    they say they're selling whole clocks.

    They are only targeting human customers living on Earth. In a Inter-
    Galactic civilization they would add "Planet not included" :-D



    If not the Federation Regulation Authorities would sue them.

    Said a self-appointed Federation Regulation
    Authority.



    Maybe you should sue your parents for providing you a defective
    brain, Maciej.


    So, is the atmosphere a part of a plane as well,
    poor stinker?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 16:28:04 2024
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 16:09, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:02, Python a écrit :
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:44, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 14:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive
    Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand* >>>>>>>>
    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you >>>>>>>> think you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, >>>>>>>> they manage to produce something even worse. Their cognitive
    dissonance and ability to pull out bizarre notions from who
    knows where, on top of a perfectly well-defined technical
    procedure, is astonishing. We’ve seen this before with GPS,
    where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies, like atomic clocks >>>>>>>> in the receivers or synchronization with a clock infinitely far >>>>>>>> away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure >>>>>>>> described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took >>>>>>>> place 17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity >>>>>>>> and fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each >>>>>>>> other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within >>>>>>>> measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum


    https://www.amazon.fr/Swimming-Fins/s?k=Swimming+Fins

    How dear! They don't mention "Aimed to be used in water!"

    I guess you're walking through streets of Poland wearing
    swimming fins and falling down repeatedly. You may consider
    suing swimming fins sellers :-P
    slander
    noun [ C or U ]
    uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
    a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
    the making of such a statement:



    Rare footage of Maciej Wozniak British cousin :

    https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2021-05-07/stepping-out-in-style-the-bolton-man-hoping-to-summit-snowdon-in-swimming-flippers

    slander
    noun [ C or U ]
    uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
    a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
    the making of such a statement:

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 16:45:14 2024
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 16:32, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum

    Sure. It happened that for the most of us (a few exceptions
    though, like astronauts in the ISS) the other part of these
    device is freely available (it is called Earth

    They don't say they're selling parts,

    They should.

    Because?
    Because otherwise poor stinker  will get angry
    and start stamping his feet?

    I wear swimming fins. I'm not concerned. Moreover one well
    known angry poor stinker around is you, Maciej.

    they say they're selling whole clocks.

    They are only targeting human customers living on Earth. In a Inter-
    Galactic civilization they would add "Planet not included" :-D



    If not the Federation Regulation Authorities would sue them.

    Said a self-appointed Federation Regulation Authority.

    When you talk about it: What kind of pies to you like? We are
    providing a free delivery service for pompous imbeciles. You
    are eligible.


    See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.


    Maybe you should sue your parents for providing you a defective
    brain, Maciej.


    So, is the atmosphere a part of a plane as well,

    Did you notice that, as a flying device, a plane does not work well
    without air?

    Same as a pendulum does not work well as a clock without being near the surface of a planet.

    Yes, I did notice. So, is the atmosphere
    a part of a plane - same as Eart is allegedly
    a part od a pendulum clock, poor stinker?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 16:32:29 2024
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum

    Sure. It happened that for the most of us (a few exceptions
    though, like astronauts in the ISS) the other part of these
    device is freely available (it is called Earth

    They don't say they're selling parts,

    They should.

    Because?
    Because otherwise poor stinker  will get angry
    and start stamping his feet?

    I wear swimming fins. I'm not concerned. Moreover one well
    known angry poor stinker around is you, Maciej.

    they say they're selling whole clocks.

    They are only targeting human customers living on Earth. In a Inter-
    Galactic civilization they would add "Planet not included" :-D



    If not the Federation Regulation Authorities would sue them.

    Said a self-appointed Federation Regulation Authority.

    When you talk about it: What kind of pies to you like? We are
    providing a free delivery service for pompous imbeciles. You
    are eligible.

    Maybe you should sue your parents for providing you a defective
    brain, Maciej.


    So, is the atmosphere a part of a plane as well,

    Did you notice that, as a flying device, a plane does not work well
    without air?

    Same as a pendulum does not work well as a clock without being near the
    surface of a planet.

    poor stinker

    Nice signature Maciej.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 16:48:34 2024
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 16:32, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum

    Sure. It happened that for the most of us (a few exceptions
    though, like astronauts in the ISS) the other part of these
    device is freely available (it is called Earth

    They don't say they're selling parts,

    They should.

    Because?
    Because otherwise poor stinker  will get angry
    and start stamping his feet?

    I wear swimming fins. I'm not concerned. Moreover one well
    known angry poor stinker around is you, Maciej.

    they say they're selling whole clocks.

    They are only targeting human customers living on Earth. In a Inter-
    Galactic civilization they would add "Planet not included" :-D



    If not the Federation Regulation Authorities would sue them.

    Said a self-appointed Federation Regulation Authority.

    When you talk about it: What kind of pies to you like? We are
    providing a free delivery service for pompous imbeciles. You
    are eligible.


    See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.


    Maybe you should sue your parents for providing you a defective
    brain, Maciej.


    So, is the atmosphere a part of a plane as well,

    Did you notice that, as a flying device, a plane does not work well
    without air?

    Same as a pendulum does not work well as a clock without being near the
    surface of a planet.

    Yes, I did notice.

    Incredible! You are very smart, aren't you?

    So, is the atmosphere
    a part of a plane - same as Eart (sic) is allegedly
    a part od (sic) a pendulum clock,

    Ah, no you aren't.

    poor stinker.

    Nice signature, Maciej.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 16:56:59 2024
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 16:48, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 16:32, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum

    Sure. It happened that for the most of us (a few exceptions
    though, like astronauts in the ISS) the other part of these
    device is freely available (it is called Earth

    They don't say they're selling parts,

    They should.

    Because?
    Because otherwise poor stinker  will get angry
    and start stamping his feet?

    I wear swimming fins. I'm not concerned. Moreover one well
    known angry poor stinker around is you, Maciej.

    they say they're selling whole clocks.

    They are only targeting human customers living on Earth. In a Inter- >>>>>> Galactic civilization they would add "Planet not included" :-D



    If not the Federation Regulation Authorities would sue them.

    Said a self-appointed Federation Regulation Authority.

    When you talk about it: What kind of pies to you like? We are
    providing a free delivery service for pompous imbeciles. You
    are eligible.


    See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.


    Maybe you should sue your parents for providing you a defective
    brain, Maciej.


    So, is the atmosphere a part of a plane as well,

    Did you notice that, as a flying device, a plane does not work well
    without air?

    Same as a pendulum does not work well as a clock without being near the >>>> surface of a planet.

    Yes, I did notice.

    Incredible! You are very smart, aren't you?

    So, is the atmosphere
    a part of a plane - same as Eart (sic) is allegedly
    a part od (sic) a pendulum clock,

    Ah, no you aren't.

    Yes, I am.

    Definitely not. Would you consider conducting a poll on this question
    Maciej?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 16:53:03 2024
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 16:48, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 16:32, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum

    Sure. It happened that for the most of us (a few exceptions
    though, like astronauts in the ISS) the other part of these
    device is freely available (it is called Earth

    They don't say they're selling parts,

    They should.

    Because?
    Because otherwise poor stinker  will get angry
    and start stamping his feet?

    I wear swimming fins. I'm not concerned. Moreover one well
    known angry poor stinker around is you, Maciej.

    they say they're selling whole clocks.

    They are only targeting human customers living on Earth. In a Inter- >>>>> Galactic civilization they would add "Planet not included" :-D



    If not the Federation Regulation Authorities would sue them.

    Said a self-appointed Federation Regulation Authority.

    When you talk about it: What kind of pies to you like? We are
    providing a free delivery service for pompous imbeciles. You
    are eligible.


    See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.


    Maybe you should sue your parents for providing you a defective
    brain, Maciej.


    So, is the atmosphere a part of a plane as well,

    Did you notice that, as a flying device, a plane does not work well
    without air?

    Same as a pendulum does not work well as a clock without being near the
    surface of a planet.

    Yes, I did notice.

    Incredible! You are very smart, aren't you?

    So, is the atmosphere
    a part of a plane - same as Eart (sic) is allegedly
    a part od (sic) a pendulum clock,

    Ah, no you aren't.

    Yes, I am. So, is the atmosphere
    a part of a plane - same as Earth is
    allegedly a part of a pendulum clock?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 17:43:23 2024
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 16:48, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 16:32, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 16:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 15:58, Python pisze:
    Le 17/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.


    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=clocks+pendulum

    Sure. It happened that for the most of us (a few exceptions
    though, like astronauts in the ISS) the other part of these
    device is freely available (it is called Earth

    They don't say they're selling parts,

    They should.

    Because?
    Because otherwise poor stinker  will get angry
    and start stamping his feet?

    I wear swimming fins. I'm not concerned. Moreover one well
    known angry poor stinker around is you, Maciej.

    they say they're selling whole clocks.

    They are only targeting human customers living on Earth. In a Inter- >>>>>>> Galactic civilization they would add "Planet not included" :-D



    If not the Federation Regulation Authorities would sue them.

    Said a self-appointed Federation Regulation Authority.

    When you talk about it: What kind of pies to you like? We are
    providing a free delivery service for pompous imbeciles. You
    are eligible.


    See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
    guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
    apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.


    Maybe you should sue your parents for providing you a defective
    brain, Maciej.


    So, is the atmosphere a part of a plane as well,

    Did you notice that, as a flying device, a plane does not work well
    without air?

    Same as a pendulum does not work well as a clock without being near
    the
    surface of a planet.

    Yes, I did notice.

    Incredible! You are very smart, aren't you?

    So, is the atmosphere
    a part of a plane - same as Eart (sic) is allegedly
    a part od (sic) a pendulum clock,

    Ah, no you aren't.

    Yes, I am.

    Definitely not. Would you consider conducting a poll on this question
    Maciej?
    Don't give a damn to.
    So, is the atmosphere a part of a
    plane - same as Earth is allegedly a
    part of a pendulum clock?
    Still no answer? Of course.







    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Aug 17 16:52:02 2024
    On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 14:45:14 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    See, poor stinker -

    “You never look good trying to make someone else look bad.”
    -- TobyMac

    “When men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether it be
    good or bad.” ― Tacitus

    I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be inconsistent

    “There are basically two groups of people. People who accomplish
    things, and people who claim to have accomplished things.
    The first group is less crowded.” – Mark Twain

    Maciej is in the second group.

    and you can do nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting
    and slandering.

    "A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and
    ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood."
    -- William Shenstone

    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.

    “When men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether
    it be good or bad.” ― Tacitus

    Yes, I did notice. So, is the atmosphere
    a part of a plane - same as Eart is allegedly
    a part od a pendulum clock, poor stinker?

    "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the
    losers. -- Socrates

    Maciej lost the debate a long time ago, so he lies, insults
    and slanders in the hopes that his lies will become truth.
    Whenever he posts a message, we are sadly reminded of what
    Dale Carnegie said:

    “When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing
    with creatures of logic, but with creatures bristling
    with prejudice and motivated by pride and vanity.”

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 19:33:21 2024
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 18:52, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 14:45:14 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    See, poor stinker -

    “You never look good trying to make someone else look bad.”
    -- TobyMac

    “When men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether it be
    good or bad.” ― Tacitus

    I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be inconsistent

    “There are basically two groups of people.  People who accomplish
    things, and people who claim to have accomplished things.
    The first group is less crowded.” – Mark Twain

    Maciej is in the second group.

    and you can do nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting
    and slandering.

    "A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and
    ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood."
    -- William Shenstone

    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.

    “When men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether
    it be good or bad.” ― Tacitus

    Yes, I did notice. So, is the atmosphere
    a part of a plane - same as Eart is allegedly
    a part od a pendulum clock, poor stinker?

    "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the
    losers. -- Socrates


    Sure, that's why you and Python slander
    non stop.
    And the mumble of your idiot guru remains
    not even consistent; I've proven it and
    your mad ravings are changing nothing. Sorry,
    trash.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Aug 17 18:54:27 2024
    On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:33:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 18:52, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 14:45:14 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    See, poor stinker -

    “You never look good trying to make someone else look bad.”
    -- TobyMac

    “When men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether it be
    good or bad.” ― Tacitus

    I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be inconsistent

    “There are basically two groups of people.  People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things.
    The first group is less crowded.” – Mark Twain

    Maciej is in the second group.

    and you can do nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting
    and slandering.

    "A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and
    ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood."
    -- William Shenstone

    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.

    “When men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether
    it be good or bad.” ― Tacitus

    Yes, I did notice. So, is the atmosphere
    a part of a plane - same as Eart is allegedly
    a part od a pendulum clock, poor stinker?

    "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the
    losers. -- Socrates

    Sure, that's why you and Python slander non stop.

    Woznial is projecting his own despicable behavior of
    slandering. It's too bad he has never learned that what
    what goes around comes around.

    "If a man speak or act with an evil thought, suffering
    follows him as the wheel follows the hoof of the beast
    that draws the wagon" -- Buddha

    And the mumble of your idiot guru remains not even
    consistent; I've proven it

    “There are basically two groups of people.  People who accomplish
    things, and people who claim to have accomplished things.
    The first group is less crowded.” – Mark Twain

    Wozniak is in the second group because he has NEVER proven any
    inconsistency in relativity. So the question is: is he a liar,
    is he incompetent, or is he delusional? Those are the only
    possibilities that I can see.

    and your mad ravings

    No ravings going on here. I'm just reporting the facts.
    Wozniak seems to be the one doing the raving. I'm not a
    psychiatrist, but does this imply that Wozniak is a few
    fries short of a Happy Meal?

    are changing nothing. Sorry, trash.

    Wozniak continually attacks the messenger rather than the message.
    He could easily post his "proof" of the supposed inconsistency of
    relativity, but he refuses to do so. So is he a liar, is he
    incompetent, or is he delusional?

    He regularly accuses everyone else of what he routinely does, and
    he seems oblivious of the concept of karma: their are consequences
    to his own actions. It appears that he was never taught this in
    his childhood, never learned self-discipline.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 21:28:33 2024
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 20:54, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:33:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 18:52, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 14:45:14 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    See, poor stinker -

    “You never look good trying to make someone else look bad.”
    -- TobyMac

    “When men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether it be
    good or bad.” ― Tacitus

    I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be inconsistent

    “There are basically two groups of people.  People who accomplish
    things, and people who claim to have accomplished things.
    The first group is less crowded.” – Mark Twain

    Maciej is in the second group.

    and you can do nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting
    and slandering.

    "A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and
    ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood."
    -- William Shenstone

    And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
    Shit and your beloved church.

    “When men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether
    it be good or bad.” ― Tacitus

    Yes, I did notice. So, is the atmosphere
    a part of a plane - same as Eart is allegedly
    a part od a pendulum clock, poor stinker?

    "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the
    losers. -- Socrates

    Sure, that's why you and  Python slander non stop.

    Woznial is projecting his own despicable behavior of

    Relativistic doggies slander non stop, nazis,
    bottles of vodka, nurses changing shitty sheets
    - are their usual weapon. Not that anybody is
    expecting anything better from them, of course.
    That's what The Shit is training you for.


    Wozniak is in the second group because he has NEVER proven any
    inconsistency in relativity.  So the question is: is he a liar,

    I've pointed directly 2 denying themself
    numeric predictions derivable in the physics
    of your idiot guru. That's a proof of
    inconsistency and your mad ravings are
    changing nothing, sorry, trash.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Aug 17 22:49:02 2024
    On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 19:28:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 20:54, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:33:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Sure, that's why you and  Python slander non stop.

    Woznial is projecting his own despicable behavior of

    Relativistic doggies slander non stop, nazis,
    bottles of vodka, nurses changing shitty sheets
    - are their usual weapon. Not that anybody is
    expecting anything better from them, of course.
    That's what The Shit is training you for.

    This is an example of Wozniak projecting his own despicable
    behavior on others, conveniently forgetting that he reaps
    what he sows. That and being a potty are characteristics
    of one who was never taught self-discipline.

    Wozniak is in the second group because he has NEVER proven any inconsistency in relativity.  So the question is: is he a liar,

    I've pointed directly 2 denying themself
    numeric predictions derivable in the physics
    of your idiot guru. That's a proof of
    inconsistency

    If there were such things, surely Wozniak could post them. He's
    been asked to do so many times, but all that happens is unhinged
    ravings of an undisciplined mind.

    and your mad ravings

    Sadly, Wozniak is projecting his own behavior again.

    are changing nothing,

    Change is the essence of life. Sadly, Wozniak is stuck in his
    miasma of disinformation, never to grow up.

    “Changelessness is decay.” – Isaac Asimov

    “To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
    proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
    to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami

    sorry,

    Wozniak has proven that he is not "sorry."

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

    "a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue"

    trash.

    "1. ad hominem — attacking the arguer and not the argument."
    -- Carl Sagan

    Which is all that undisciplined Wozniak does. He has not
    even one iota of proof of proof that relativity is inconsistent.
    He just raves and slanders and lies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 18 06:03:02 2024
    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 00:49, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 19:28:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 20:54, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:33:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Sure, that's why you and  Python slander non stop.

    Woznial is projecting his own despicable behavior of

    Relativistic doggies slander non stop, nazis,
    bottles of vodka, nurses changing shitty sheets
    - are their usual weapon. Not that anybody is
    expecting anything better from them, of course.
    That's what The Shit is training you for.

    This is an example of Wozniak projecting his own despicable

    This is an example of some facts about
    The Shit and its fanatic worshippers.
    And you're well known for denying the
    reality whenever you don't like it,
    like with GPS clocks which are not real
    for you.



    Wozniak is in the second group because he has NEVER proven any
    inconsistency in relativity.  So the question is: is he a liar,

    I've pointed directly 2 denying themself
    numeric predictions derivable in the physics
    of your idiot guru. That's a proof of
    inconsistency

    If there were such things, surely Wozniak could post them.

    And I did, dosens of times.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 18 11:57:35 2024
    Am Samstag000017, 17.08.2024 um 14:52 schrieb Python:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability to
    pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve seen this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies, like atomic
    clocks in the receivers or synchronization with a clock infinitely far
    away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure described
    by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place 17 years ago
    and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other at
    a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within measurement
    accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the same rate." NOTHING
    more is assumed, especially regarding the time they display; the purpose
    is PRECISELY to adjust one of these clocks by applying a correction
    after a calculation involving the values indicated on these clocks
    during specific events, events that occur AT THE LOCATION OF EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure but a method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main difference from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven that Poincaré’s method leads to clocks synchronized in Einstein’s sense. You can also transform Einstein’s verification method into a synchronization procedure because
    it allows calculating the correction to apply to clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B.

    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a light signal
    is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.

    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize
    clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme, because
    Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.

    If A and B are located at different places in the universe and maintain
    their distance (at least as long as the procedure lasts), then delay
    B) should be equal to delay(B->A).

    If you would encode time into the exchanged signal, you could compare
    the local reading of your own clock (at -say- B in this case) with the
    content of the code in the received message from A, if you add
    delay(A->B) to t_A (which is encoded in the timing signal).

    But Einstein didn't calculate that delay, nor even mentioned it.

    So Einstein assumed something absurd:

    beings at B should see a blink of light, comming from A, compare that
    with their own clock and sent a light signal back to A.

    But: how do these beings know t_A in the first place?

    Sure, Einstein assumed kind of 'large telescope setting', where beings
    at B could see the clock at A.

    But this wouldn't cause a symmetric synchronization, because the signal
    arrives delayed at B and Einstein didn't calculate that delay.

    This would cause an obvious error, because the clock at B had to be set
    to an earlier time setting than it should, because the vision of the
    remote clock is delayed.

    Now this cannot be made symmetric, because otherwise the beings at both
    ends of the communication would turn their own clocks earlier and
    earlier (with each communication), because the remote station does that,
    too.


    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 18 12:05:33 2024
    Le 18/08/2024 à 11:57, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Samstag000017, 17.08.2024 um 14:52 schrieb Python:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think
    you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to
    produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability
    to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a
    perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve seen
    this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies,
    like atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization with a clock
    infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place
    17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other
    at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within measurement
    accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the same rate."
    NOTHING more is assumed, especially regarding the time they display;
    the purpose is PRECISELY to adjust one of these clocks by applying a
    correction after a calculation involving the values indicated on these
    clocks during specific events, events that occur AT THE LOCATION OF
    EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure but a
    method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main difference
    from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven that Poincaré’s
    method leads to clocks synchronized in Einstein’s sense. You can also
    transform Einstein’s verification method into a synchronization
    procedure because it allows calculating the correction to apply to
    clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B.

    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a light
    signal is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.

    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize
    clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme, because Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.

    The delay *is taken into account* this why (AB)/c intervene, as I've
    shown.

    If A and B are located at different places in the universe and maintain
    their distance (at least as long as the procedure lasts), then delay
    B) should be equal to delay(B->A).

    If you would encode time into the exchanged signal, you could compare
    the local reading of your own clock (at -say- B in this case) with the content of the code in the received message from A, if you add
    delay(A->B) to t_A (which is encoded in the timing signal).

    What you wrote is a fantasy of yours and has nothing to do with
    Einstein's procedure which embed the delay in the two postulates
    he stated (one is backed by experiments about round trip light
    propagation, the other one is - partly - conventional).

    But Einstein didn't calculate that delay, nor even mentioned it.

    Every sane person recognize the delay when noticing that (AB)/c is
    appearing when you turn the verification procedure into a
    synchronization procedure. You are NOT a sane person, you are
    a demented crook.


    So Einstein assumed something absurd:

    No. You do.

    beings at B should see a blink of light, comming from A, compare that
    with their own clock and sent a light signal back to A.

    But: how do these beings know t_A in the first place?

    Easy: juste write down t_A on a piece of paper when emitting the
    first signal.

    Sure, Einstein assumed kind of 'large telescope setting', where beings
    at B could see the clock at A.

    Not at all. There is nothing of this kind in Einstein's procedure. This
    is something you made up.

    But this wouldn't cause a symmetric synchronization, because the signal arrives delayed at B and Einstein didn't calculate that delay.

    The delay is embedded in the procedure. What do you think (AB)/c is?

    This would cause an obvious error, because the clock at B had to be set
    to an earlier time setting than it should, because the vision of the
    remote clock is delayed.

    And the delay is taken into account.

    Now this cannot be made symmetric, because otherwise the beings at both
    ends of the communication would turn their own clocks earlier and
    earlier (with each communication), because the remote station does that,
    too.

    It is symmetric. The proof is actually quite easy, even if out of your
    reach.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Aug 18 11:21:47 2024
    On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 4:03:02 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 00:49, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 19:28:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Relativistic doggies slander non stop, nazis,
    bottles of vodka, nurses changing shitty sheets
    - are their usual weapon. Not that anybody is
    expecting anything better from them, of course.
    That's what The Shit is training you for.

    This is an example of Wozniak projecting his own despicable

    This is an example of some facts about
    The Shit and its fanatic worshippers.
    And you're well known for denying the
    reality whenever you don't like it,
    like with GPS clocks which are not real
    for you.

    Wozniak is projecting again, as well as lying, insulting
    and slandering. He actually does what he accuses others
    of doing.

    I've pointed directly 2 denying themself
    numeric predictions derivable in the physics
    of your idiot guru. That's a proof of
    inconsistency

    If there were such things, surely Wozniak could post them.

    And I did, dosens of times.

    If this were true, I surely would have seen it and remembered.

    “There are basically two groups of people. People who accomplish
    things, and people who claim to have accomplished things.
    The first group is less crowded.” – Mark Twain

    If he would just post his "proof" one "more" time, it would prove
    that he wasn't a liar. Obviously, he won't do it because it's
    nonexistent. All he has posted is nebulous unconfirmed assertions
    which are in no way "proofs." So let's see these "proofs" again
    and clear the air.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Aug 18 15:22:34 2024
    On 2024-08-18 09:57:35 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Samstag000017, 17.08.2024 um 14:52 schrieb Python:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think
    you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to
    produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability to
    pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a perfectly
    well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve seen this
    before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies, like
    atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization with a clock
    infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place 17
    years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other at
    a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within measurement
    accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the same rate."
    NOTHING more is assumed, especially regarding the time they display;
    the purpose is PRECISELY to adjust one of these clocks by applying a
    correction after a calculation involving the values indicated on these
    clocks during specific events, events that occur AT THE LOCATION OF
    EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure but a
    method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main difference
    from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven that Poincaré’s
    method leads to clocks synchronized in Einstein’s sense. You can also
    transform Einstein’s verification method into a synchronization
    procedure because it allows calculating the correction to apply to
    clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B.

    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a light
    signal is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.

    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize
    clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you
    would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    The method needs not be symmetric. It is sufficient that the result is.
    Perhaps a symmetric method would be better in some cases. A possible
    symmetric method is to use a signal source that is equally far from
    both clocks.

    The result of Einstein's method is symmetric in the sense that if A is synchronized with B then B is synchornized with A.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 18 13:16:54 2024
    Le 18/08/2024 à 11:57, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods.

    Absolutely.

    C'est l'un des postulats essentiels de la théorie de la relativité.

    Repris encore plus profondément par le docteur Richard Hachel qui est
    parvenu à une théorie
    à la fois complète, théoriquement mathématique, expérimentalement
    jamais démentie.

    Que dit-il?

    "Les lois de la physique sont les mêmes par changement de référentiel inertiel, et les effets de cette physique sont réciproques par
    permutation d'observateur".

    Dans un monde normalement constitué, de telles phrases devraient faire l'objet d'études, et les équations
    qui en ressortent devraient faire l'objet d'intérêt.

    Tout le monde crache dessus.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Aug 18 11:08:47 2024
    On 8/17/2024 8:56 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think
    you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to
    produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability
    to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a
    perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve seen
    this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies,
    like atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization with a clock
    infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place
    17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other
    at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within measurement
    accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.

    Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the moon,
    wouldn't even be close to functioning identically. Two identical clocks,
    one in zero gravity deep space the other on earth wouldn't function
    identically either, because the one in deep space wouldn't work at all.

    Meanwhile, two identical balance spring/electronic clocks would work identically, other than a tiny correction for different GR effects.

    This is because the "identical" pendulum clocks are NOT identical in the mentioned situations. "Planet not included."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 18 17:22:20 2024
    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 13:21, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 4:03:02 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 00:49, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 19:28:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Relativistic doggies slander non stop, nazis,
    bottles of vodka, nurses changing shitty sheets
    - are their usual weapon. Not that anybody is
    expecting anything better from them, of course.
    That's what The Shit is training you for.

    This is an example of Wozniak projecting his own despicable

    This is an example of some facts about
    The Shit and its fanatic worshippers.
    And you're well known for denying the
    reality whenever you don't like it,
    like with GPS clocks which are not real
    for you.

    Wozniak is projecting again,

    Google keeps record, poor trash.

    I've pointed directly 2 denying themself
    numeric predictions derivable in the physics
    of your idiot guru. That's a proof of
    inconsistency

    If there were such things, surely Wozniak could post them.

    And I did, dosens of times.

    If this were true, I surely would have seen it and remembered.

    And you did. You're just a piece of lying
    shit, just like everyone in your moronic
    church.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 18 17:24:25 2024
    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 17:08, Volney pisze:
    On 8/17/2024 8:56 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think
    you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to
    produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability
    to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a
    perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve
    seen this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of
    fantasies, like atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization
    with a clock infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place
    17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ >>>
    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other
    at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.

    Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the moon,
    wouldn't even be close to functioning identically.


    Indeed, stupid Mike, and that's why Python's
    "Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)" is just some delusion
    of a fanatic idiot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Beraldo Papadelias@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Aug 18 17:16:24 2024
    XPost: sci.math, sci.physics

    Volney wrote:

    On 8/17/2024 8:56 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows this pathetic bullshit out.

    Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the moon,
    wouldn't even be close to functioning identically. Two identical clocks,
    one in zero gravity deep space the other on earth wouldn't function identically either, because the one in deep space wouldn't work at all. Meanwhile, two identical balance spring/electronic clocks would work identically, other than a tiny correction for different GR effects. This
    is because the "identical" pendulum clocks are NOT identical in the
    mentioned situations. "Planet not included."

    I love you, my friend, for your consistency. However, not to forget, consistency is only an outcome of macro scale configuration, which make me doubt the consistency itself. According to my theory "𝙊𝙣_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝘿𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩_𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧_𝙤𝙛_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙈𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙆𝙤𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨_𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡". But your post is
    deeply appreciated, my friend. That's me. I always appreciate consistency
    posts of everything. Beyond it, I dont know much, I wish I could.

    𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗣𝗠_𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱_𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗹_𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱
    Whoever funded and carried out the sabotage operation should shut up,
    Donald Tusk has said
    https://www.r%74.com/news/602761-tusk-nord-stream-quiet/

    Bury Nordstream sabotage scandal together with EU's economy.

    Once you accept the 1st bribe - you are enslaved to Nato, the Zionists,
    the Governments, - you name it. And then, you are finished as being
    Honest.

    let the scandal be buried after the truth comes out and the consequences
    of those perpetrators are dealt with

    Terrorists wanting their crimes against humanity buried.... They need
    buried.

    not surprising as poland signed with usa a natural gas supply from usa
    just before nord stream explosion occured

    Says terrorist who helped destroying German economy be depriving it from
    cheap natural gas. Do Germans have any self respect left in them as a
    nation?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Aug 18 20:20:57 2024
    On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:22:20 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 13:21, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 4:03:02 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    This is an example of some facts about
    The Shit and its fanatic worshippers.
    And you're well known for denying the
    reality whenever you don't like it,
    like with GPS clocks which are not real
    for you.

    Wozniak is projecting again,

    Google keeps record,

    Then it would be easy for Wozniak to supply a
    link to what he posted. Since he hasn't done
    that, one can only conclude that there is no
    such post.

    poor trash.

    The only "proof" that Wozniak posts is that he
    insults, defames and slanders.

    I've pointed directly 2 denying themself
    numeric predictions derivable in the physics
    of your idiot guru. That's a proof of
    inconsistency

    If there were such things, surely Wozniak could post them.

    And I did, dosens of times.

    If this were true, I surely would have seen it and remembered.

    And you did.

    So Wozniak "knows" whether or not I remember :-) How can he know
    this. Mental telepathy?

    You're just a piece of lying shit,

    He doesn't know whether or not I remember, so he ASSUMES that I'm
    lying. This is a very sad state of existence.

    just like everyone in your moronic church.

    Not just me, but everyone that disagrees with his unproven assertions.
    It is easier for Wozniak to insult, defame and slander again and again
    and again rather than post a simple link. Or he could paste and copy
    it into a new post. Surely he would have something as important as
    that saved in a file. One can only conclude that Wozniak is an empty
    suit, a hollow man, a paper tiger, and, yes, a liar. Thus he knows
    that he himself is a liar, so he projects his own behavior on others.

    “There are basically two groups of people. People who accomplish
    things, and people who claim to have accomplished things.
    The first group is less crowded.” – Mark Twain

    “How much better would life be if a liar’s pants really did catch fire?
    -- Rebel Circus

    "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,
    and
    whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have
    their
    part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the
    second
    death." -- Revelations 21:8

    Wozniak could rescue himself from this awful state by posting his
    "proofs"
    just one more time. But he won't. Because he can't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 06:48:12 2024
    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 22:20, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:22:20 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 13:21, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 4:03:02 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    This is an example of some facts about
    The Shit and its fanatic worshippers.
    And you're well known for denying the
    reality whenever you don't like it,
    like with GPS clocks which are not real
    for you.

    Wozniak is projecting again,

    Google keeps record,

    Then it would be easy for Wozniak to supply a
    link to what he posted.

    Harrie, this part of thread is not about
    what I posted, it's about your fellow trash
    babbling about nurses, bottles of vodka, nazis
    and so on.


    I've pointed directly 2 denying themself
    numeric predictions derivable in the physics
    of your idiot guru. That's a proof of
    inconsistency

    If there were such things, surely Wozniak could post them.

    And I did, dosens of times.

    If this were true, I surely would have seen it and remembered.

    And you did.

    So Wozniak "knows" whether or not I remember :-)  How can he know
    this.  Mental telepathy?

    You're just a piece of lying shit,

    He doesn't know whether or not I remember, so he ASSUMES that I'm
    lying.

    Oh, yes, trash, I KNOW you are.
    Im not going to prove you anything, I did
    many times andit's a waste of time.

    This is a very sad state of existence.

    just like everyone in your moronic church.

    Not just me, but everyone that disagrees with his unproven assertions.

    They're proven, unfortunately. But nobody
    expect a fanatic scumbag to accept a proof.
    You can't even accept GPS clocks and
    insist they are not real.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 08:44:07 2024
    Am Sonntag000018, 18.08.2024 um 12:05 schrieb Python:

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other
    at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the same
    rate." NOTHING more is assumed, especially regarding the time they
    display; the purpose is PRECISELY to adjust one of these clocks by
    applying a correction after a calculation involving the values
    indicated on these clocks during specific events, events that occur
    AT THE LOCATION OF EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure but
    a method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main difference
    from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven that Poincaré’s >>> method leads to clocks synchronized in Einstein’s sense. You can also
    transform Einstein’s verification method into a synchronization
    procedure because it allows calculating the correction to apply to
    clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B.

    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a light
    signal is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.


    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize
    clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you
    would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    Einstein's method did not allow mutally symmetric synchronization.

    Einstein's method would cause an error, because if you do not add the
    time of travel for the signal, you would turn the own clock to a time
    too early, if you synchronize it with a received timing signal.

    This 'too early' would change the setting of your clock to a time too
    early. This is seen from the far side, where the observers there try to synchronize their clocks with your clock, which is already to early, but
    with additional (uncompensated) delay.

    This would make the whole installation run in a backwards circle.

    This is way too obvious to ignore, but not what Einstein had done or
    written.




    But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme, because
    Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.

    The delay *is taken into account* this why (AB)/c intervene, as I've
    shown.

    The word 'delay' or anything similar did not occur in Einstein's text.

    There is also no equation, which could eventually be interpreted as
    delay calculation.

    Delay for a signal from A->B in distance x would be:

    x=c*t => delay (A->B)= x/c

    Extremely simple, isn't it?

    Now you need to measure this delay, because you cannot measure distance
    x with rods (at least in cosmology).

    But where have you found such a calculation in Einstein's text???

    And where have you found any use of the value for delay?

    I personally have searched for it but couldn't find that.

    This leaves only one interpretation: that Einstein didn't want to take
    delay into considerations.

    This would fit to his obscure method, which assignes different time
    values to remote locations in different distances, but within the same coordinate system.



    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 12:28:53 2024
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 12:18, Python pisze:
    Le 18/08/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 17:08, Volney pisze:
    On 8/17/2024 8:56 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:** >>>>>
    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think >>>>> you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage >>>>> to produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and
    ability to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of
    a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve >>>>> seen this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of
    fantasies, like atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization
    with a clock infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took
    place 17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ >>>>>
    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each
    other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.

    Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the moon,
    wouldn't even be close to functioning identically.


    Indeed, stupid Mike, and that's why Python's
    "Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)" is just some delusion
    of a fanatic idiot.

    Oh, it was a "nothing goes" day for Maciej Wozniak yesterday :-)

    No, it is just "I will lie, insult and slander
    for the glory of my glorious Church of The Shit"
    day for Python today. Samely as it was yesterday
    and will be tomorrow.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 12:57:09 2024
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 12:18, Python pisze:
    Le 18/08/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 17:08, Volney pisze:
    On 8/17/2024 8:56 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:** >>>>>>
    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you
    think you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they >>>>>> manage to produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance >>>>>> and ability to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on
    top of a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is
    astonishing. We’ve seen this before with GPS, where Hachel invents >>>>>> all sorts of fantasies, like atomic clocks in the receivers or
    synchronization with a clock infinitely far away in a fourth
    spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took
    place 17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and >>>>>> fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ >>>>>>
    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each
    other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.

    Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the moon,
    wouldn't even be close to functioning identically.


    Indeed, stupid Mike, and that's why Python's
    "Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)" is just some delusion
    of a fanatic idiot.

    Oh, it was a "nothing goes" day for Maciej Wozniak yesterday :-)

    No [snip slander]

    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending
    that building and putting at different places two clocks with "identical functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is *weird*?

    Seriously Wozniak?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 12:18:14 2024
    Le 18/08/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 17:08, Volney pisze:
    On 8/17/2024 8:56 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think
    you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage
    to produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and
    ability to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of
    a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve
    seen this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of
    fantasies, like atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization
    with a clock infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place
    17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ >>>>
    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other
    at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.

    Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the moon,
    wouldn't even be close to functioning identically.


    Indeed, stupid Mike, and that's why Python's
    "Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)" is just some delusion
    of a fanatic idiot.

    Oh, it was a "nothing goes" day for Maciej Wozniak yesterday :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 14:14:22 2024
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 12:57, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 12:18, Python pisze:
    Le 18/08/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 17:08, Volney pisze:
    On 8/17/2024 8:56 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:** >>>>>>>
    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you
    think you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they >>>>>>> manage to produce something even worse. Their cognitive
    dissonance and ability to pull out bizarre notions from who knows >>>>>>> where, on top of a perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is >>>>>>> astonishing. We’ve seen this before with GPS, where Hachel
    invents all sorts of fantasies, like atomic clocks in the
    receivers or synchronization with a clock infinitely far away in >>>>>>> a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took
    place 17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity
    and fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each
    other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within >>>>>>> measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.

    Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the
    moon, wouldn't even be close to functioning identically.


    Indeed, stupid Mike, and that's why Python's
    "Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)" is just some delusion
    of a fanatic idiot.

    Oh, it was a "nothing goes" day for Maciej Wozniak yesterday :-)

    No [snip slander]

    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending
    that building and putting at different places two clocks with "identical functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is *weird*?

    Seriously Wozniak?

    No, neither seriously nor any other way.
    Just another slander of yours.
    Still, your "logic" of
    "identical clocks"=>"identical functioning
    (within measurement accuracy)" is kind of
    absurd. Like most of your "logic".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 14:39:08 2024
    Le 19/08/2024 à 14:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    Still, your "logic" of
    "identical clocks"=>"identical functioning
    (within measurement accuracy)" is kind of
    absurd.

    Would it satisfy you if I'd only written "clocks functioning
    identically (within measurement accuracy)" (i.e. removed
    "identical clocks", btw?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 14:56:38 2024
    Le 19/08/2024 à 08:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000018, 18.08.2024 um 12:05 schrieb Python:

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other
    at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the
    same rate." NOTHING more is assumed, especially regarding the time
    they display; the purpose is PRECISELY to adjust one of these clocks
    by applying a correction after a calculation involving the values
    indicated on these clocks during specific events, events that occur
    AT THE LOCATION OF EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure but >>>> a method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main
    difference from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven that >>>> Poincaré’s method leads to clocks synchronized in Einstein’s sense. >>>> You can also transform Einstein’s verification method into a
    synchronization procedure because it allows calculating the
    correction to apply to clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B.

    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a light
    signal is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.


    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize
    clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you
    would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?

    Einstein's method did not allow mutally symmetric synchronization.

    The procedure can be proven symmetric. Face it.

    Einstein's method would cause an error, because if you do not add the
    time of travel for the signal, you would turn the own clock to a time
    too early, if you synchronize it with a received timing signal.

    Einstein's method, which is a checking method, end up adding the
    delay as it can be shown very easily by turning it into a
    synchronization procedure, as shown in my post.


    This 'too early' would change the setting of your clock to a time too
    early. This is seen from the far side, where the observers there try to synchronize their clocks with your clock, which is already to early, but
    with additional (uncompensated) delay.

    This is not AT ALL what Einstein's method does.

    This would make the whole installation run in a backwards circle.

    This is way too obvious to ignore, but not what Einstein had done or
    written.

    It is way too obvious to notice that the delay is embedded in the very definition of the method. Only YOU are too stupid to notice.

    But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme, because
    Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.

    The delay *is taken into account* this why (AB)/c intervene, as I've
    shown.

    The word 'delay' or anything similar did not occur in Einstein's text.

    The delay is part of the method, as I've shown. Einstein was writing
    to an audience that is not dumb enough to need to see the letters
    d e l a y to get it. You are not part of this audience Thomas.

    There is also no equation, which could eventually be interpreted as
    delay calculation.

    As I've shown there is. A single step from the provided equations
    leads to t_A = t_B - (AB)/c

    Delay for a signal from A->B in distance x would be:

    x=c*t => delay (A->B)= x/c

    Extremely simple, isn't it?

    Extremely stupid insteed x=c*t is not generally true. x/c is
    not at all the delay your asking for. (AB)/c is such a delay.

    Now you need to measure this delay, because you cannot measure distance
    x with rods (at least in cosmology).

    If rods are not practical, then use another method.

    The point of synchronizing clocks is practically about clocks involved
    in a single experiment in a single laboratory by the way, not
    cosmological distances.

    But where have you found such a calculation in Einstein's text???

    Distance (AB) is assumed to be known.

    And where have you found any use of the value for delay?

    From both equation provided by A.E. I can derive t_A = t_B - (AB)/c
    i.e. t'_A = t_B - "delay"

    I personally have searched for it but couldn't find that.

    You are not very smart, are you?

    This leaves only one interpretation: that Einstein didn't want to take
    delay into considerations.

    Absolutely not.

    You were clearly misunderstanding everything from the very
    beginning (it took you *years* to get that clock A & B are mutually at
    rest ! Go figure !). Iif you had a bit of sanity you would have
    tried to find this delay using algebra (it is not quite "hidden" !),
    instead you made up stupid stuff out of nowhere like : "Sure, Einstein
    assumed kind of 'large telescope setting', where beings at B could see
    the clock at A." which nobody could find a trace of in A.E. article.

    This would fit to his obscure method, which assignes different time
    values to remote locations in different distances, but within the same coordinate system.

    There is nothing obscure in the method, at least to numerous people.

    I actually wrote my initial post to help make this not obscure at all
    for other kind of people.

    Clearly, I overestimated the mental abilities of few of these people
    (you and Lengrand/Hachel/Wozniak/...)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 14:29:51 2024
    Le 19/08/2024 à 14:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 12:57, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 12:18, Python pisze:
    Le 18/08/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 17:08, Volney pisze:
    On 8/17/2024 8:56 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive
    Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand* >>>>>>>>
    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you >>>>>>>> think you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, >>>>>>>> they manage to produce something even worse. Their cognitive
    dissonance and ability to pull out bizarre notions from who
    knows where, on top of a perfectly well-defined technical
    procedure, is astonishing. We’ve seen this before with GPS,
    where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies, like atomic clocks >>>>>>>> in the receivers or synchronization with a clock infinitely far >>>>>>>> away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure >>>>>>>> described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took >>>>>>>> place 17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity >>>>>>>> and fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each >>>>>>>> other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within >>>>>>>> measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.

    Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the
    moon, wouldn't even be close to functioning identically.


    Indeed, stupid Mike, and that's why Python's
    "Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)" is just some delusion
    of a fanatic idiot.

    Oh, it was a "nothing goes" day for Maciej Wozniak yesterday :-)

    No [snip slander]

    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending
    that building and putting at different places two clocks with "identical
    functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is *weird*?

    Seriously Wozniak?

    No, neither seriously nor any other way.
    Just another slander of yours.
    Still, your "logic" of
    "identical clocks"=>"identical functioning
    (within measurement accuracy)" is kind of
    absurd. Like most of your "logic".

    “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” That witticism — I'll call it “Einstein Insanity” — is usually
    attributed to Albert Einstein.

    He wrote about you, after all :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 15:47:57 2024
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 14:29, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 14:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 12:57, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 12:18, Python pisze:
    Le 18/08/2024 à 17:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 17:08, Volney pisze:
    On 8/17/2024 8:56 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive
    Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand* >>>>>>>>>
    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you >>>>>>>>> think you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, >>>>>>>>> they manage to produce something even worse. Their cognitive >>>>>>>>> dissonance and ability to pull out bizarre notions from who
    knows where, on top of a perfectly well-defined technical
    procedure, is astonishing. We’ve seen this before with GPS, >>>>>>>>> where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies, like atomic clocks >>>>>>>>> in the receivers or synchronization with a clock infinitely far >>>>>>>>> away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure >>>>>>>>> described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took >>>>>>>>> place 17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity >>>>>>>>> and fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each >>>>>>>>> other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning
    (within measurement accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.

    Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the
    moon, wouldn't even be close to functioning identically.


    Indeed, stupid Mike, and that's why Python's
    "Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy)" is just some delusion
    of a fanatic idiot.

    Oh, it was a "nothing goes" day for Maciej Wozniak yesterday :-)

    No [snip slander]

    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending
    that building and putting at different places two clocks with "identical >>> functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is *weird*?

    Seriously Wozniak?

    No, neither seriously nor any other way.
    Just another slander of yours.
    Still, your "logic" of
    "identical clocks"=>"identical functioning
    (within measurement accuracy)" is kind of
    absurd. Like most of your "logic".

    “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” That witticism — I'll call it “Einstein Insanity” — is usually
    attributed to Albert Einstein.

    Your idiot guru was an idiot, sure, but
    suggesting he didn't know the basics of
    probability is IMHO too much.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 17:07:47 2024
    Le 19/08/2024 à 16:56, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:57, Python a écrit :
    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending
    that building and putting at different places two clocks with "identical
    functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is *weird*?

    Seriously Wozniak?

    Yet this is true.

    What Wozniak claim is not at all what you pretend to hear there...

    It's even worse (yes, it is possible!). He claims that two clocks
    cannot have the same beat rate.

    Or maybe that it possible on Mondays and Wednesdays (but not in
    February, who knows?)

    He's a worst weirdo than you. Impressive!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 14:56:44 2024
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:57, Python a écrit :
    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending
    that building and putting at different places two clocks with "identical functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is *weird*?

    Seriously Wozniak?

    Yet this is true.
    Two clocks placed in different places will mark different times.
    This subtlety is difficult to understand, as universal gravitation was difficult to understand.
    "The earth cannot be round, it is absurd, otherwise, there would be no
    water in the oceans".
    Let's separate these two perfectly synchronized watches by 3.10^8m.
    An event occurs on watch A at 00'00". What does this mean: "Einstein, for
    once is right, he says that this means that event A occurred at the moment
    when watch A marked 00'00". It is a local joint event".
    But what time did watch B mark AT THE TIME when FOR B event A occurred?
    This is where the human stupidity of 7 billion morons will come into play,
    who will not try to understand the very bases of the theory and why it is
    like this, and how the universe is made.
    The basic moron (Jean-Pierre Python) will throw himself on the ground
    holding his sides. Believing he understood everything with his two
    neurons.
    "But you didn't understand anything... you didn't understand anything"...

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 18:08:19 2024
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 17:07, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 16:56, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:57, Python a écrit :
    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending
    that building and putting at different places two clocks with "identical >>> functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is *weird*?

    Seriously Wozniak?

    Yet this is true.

    What Wozniak claim is not at all what you pretend to hear there...

    It's even worse (yes, it is possible!). He claims that two clocks
    cannot have the same beat rate.

    slander
    noun [ C or U ]
    uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
    a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
    the making of such a statement:

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 15:51:10 2024
    Le 19/08/2024 à 17:07, Python a écrit :
    Yet this is true.

    What Wozniak claim is not at all what you pretend to hear there...

    It's even worse (yes, it is possible!). He claims that two clocks
    cannot have the same beat rate.

    Or maybe that it possible on Mondays and Wednesdays (but not in
    February, who knows?)

    He's a worst weirdo than you. Impressive!

    In short, he claims that two stationary watches cannot have the same chronotropy (internal measurement of time) if they are not in the same
    place, but that t'=t if the watches are in relative motion?
    Readers will have to hang on.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 22:32:37 2024
    Le 19/08/2024 à 18:08, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 17:07, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 16:56, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:57, Python a écrit :
    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending
    that building and putting at different places two clocks with
    "identical
    functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is *weird*?

    Seriously Wozniak?

    Yet this is true.

    What Wozniak claim is not at all what you pretend to hear there...

    It's even worse (yes, it is possible!). He claims that two clocks
    cannot have the same beat rate.

    slander
    noun [ C or U ]
    uk  /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us  /ˈslæn.dɚ/
    a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
    the making of such a statement:

    This is definitely not slander.

    The only point of my post you pretend to be "bullshit out" is exactly
    that, at this point of my post it is the only required condition for
    two clocks I need for.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 23:12:09 2024
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 22:32, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 18:08, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 17:07, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 16:56, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:57, Python a écrit :
    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending
    that building and putting at different places two clocks with
    "identical
    functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is *weird*? >>>>>
    Seriously Wozniak?

    Yet this is true.

    What Wozniak claim is not at all what you pretend to hear there...

    It's even worse (yes, it is possible!). He claims that two clocks
    cannot have the same beat rate.

    slander
    noun [ C or U ]
    uk  /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us  /ˈslæn.dɚ/
    a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
    or the making of such a statement:

    This is definitely not slander.

    As I've definitely never claimed anything like that
    - it's definitely false, and as you definitely brought
    this lie to damage my reputation - it's definitely a
    slander.
    Nothing surprising from a piece of fanatic relativistic
    shit, of course.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 23:16:59 2024
    Le 19/08/2024 à 23:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 22:32, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 18:08, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 17:07, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 16:56, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:57, Python a écrit :
    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending
    that building and putting at different places two clocks with
    "identical
    functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is *weird*? >>>>>>
    Seriously Wozniak?

    Yet this is true.

    What Wozniak claim is not at all what you pretend to hear there...

    It's even worse (yes, it is possible!). He claims that two clocks
    cannot have the same beat rate.

    slander
    noun [ C or U ]
    uk  /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us  /ˈslæn.dɚ/
    a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
    or the making of such a statement:

    This is definitely not slander.

    As I've definitely never  claimed  anything like that

    like what?

    - it's  definitely false, and as you definitely brought
    this  lie to damage my reputation - it's definitely a
    slander.
    Nothing surprising from a piece of [snip profanities]

    There is NO WAY to damage your reputation Wozniak, face it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 23:31:33 2024
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 23:16, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 23:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 22:32, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 18:08, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 17:07, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 16:56, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:57, Python a écrit :
    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending
    that building and putting at different places two clocks with
    "identical
    functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is *weird*? >>>>>>>
    Seriously Wozniak?

    Yet this is true.

    What Wozniak claim is not at all what you pretend to hear there...

    It's even worse (yes, it is possible!). He claims that two clocks
    cannot have the same beat rate.

    slander
    noun [ C or U ]
    uk  /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us  /ˈslæn.dɚ/
    a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
    reputation, or the making of such a statement:

    This is definitely not slander.

    As I've definitely never  claimed  anything like that

    like what?

    Like the above " that two clocks
    cannot have the same beat rate".

    - it's  definitely false, and as you definitely brought
    this  lie to damage my reputation - it's definitely a
    slander.
    Nothing surprising from a piece of [snip profanities]

    There is NO WAY to damage your reputation Wozniak, face it.

    Still you constantly lie trying to damage it.
    As expected from a piece of fanatic relativistic
    shit, of course - that's what your moronic
    religion is training its doggies for.

    And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Aug 19 22:01:42 2024
    On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:22:20 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 13:21, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 4:03:02 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    This is an example of some facts about
    The Shit and its fanatic worshippers.
    And you're well known for denying the
    reality whenever you don't like it,
    like with GPS clocks which are not real
    for you.

    Wozniak is projecting again,

    Google keeps record,

    "Google"? Ain't no google here. Who goes there anymore?

    poor trash.

    Wozniak proves that HE is the one who insults, slanders
    and lies.

    And I did, dosens of times.

    If this were true, I surely would have seen it and remembered.

    And you did.

    Wozniak has perfected mental telepathy. He "knows" that I have
    remembered his "proof" :-)

    Where is it? On googles? Nobody goes to google anymore, so if
    Wozniak doesn't post his "proofs" here, he will prove himself to
    be

    "just a piece of lying shit"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 23:39:08 2024
    Le 19/08/2024 à 23:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 23:16, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 23:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 22:32, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 18:08, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 17:07, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 16:56, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:57, Python a écrit :
    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending >>>>>>>> that building and putting at different places two clocks with
    "identical
    functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is
    *weird*?

    Seriously Wozniak?

    Yet this is true.

    What Wozniak claim is not at all what you pretend to hear there... >>>>>>
    It's even worse (yes, it is possible!). He claims that two clocks
    cannot have the same beat rate.

    slander
    noun [ C or U ]
    uk  /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us  /ˈslæn.dɚ/
    a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
    reputation, or the making of such a statement:

    This is definitely not slander.

    As I've definitely never  claimed  anything like that

    like what?

    Like the above " that two clocks
     cannot have the same beat rate".

    This is the only point I need at this step of my post you
    choked on. So replace my prerequisite by "have the same beat
    rate" and read on.

    - it's  definitely false, and as you definitely brought
    this  lie to damage my reputation - it's definitely a
    slander.
    Nothing surprising from a piece of [snip profanities]

    There is NO WAY to damage your reputation Wozniak, face it.

    Still you constantly lie trying to damage it.

    1. I'm not lying
    2. I do not damage your reputation, even if I'd like to :-D

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 20 07:06:26 2024
    W dniu 20.08.2024 o 00:01, gharnagel pisze:
    On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:22:20 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 18.08.2024 o 13:21, gharnagel pisze:

    On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 4:03:02 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    This is an example of some facts about
    The Shit and its fanatic worshippers.
    And you're well known for denying the
    reality whenever you don't like it,
    like with GPS clocks which are not real
    for you.

    Wozniak is projecting again,

    Google keeps record,

    "Google"?  Ain't no google here.  Who goes there anymore?

    Nobody has to go to the archive

    poor trash.

    Wozniak proves that HE is the one who insults, slanders
    and lies.

    And I did, dosens of times.

    If this were true, I surely would have seen it and remembered.

    And you did.

    Wozniak has perfected mental telepathy.  He "knows" that I have
    remembered his "proof" :-)

    Yes I do.


    Where is it?  On googles?  Nobody goes to google anymore, so if
    Wozniak doesn't post his "proofs" here


    Yes I do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 20 07:04:23 2024
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 23:39, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 23:31, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 23:16, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 23:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 22:32, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 18:08, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 19.08.2024 o 17:07, Python pisze:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 16:56, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:57, Python a écrit :
    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending >>>>>>>>> that building and putting at different places two clocks with >>>>>>>>> "identical
    functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is
    *weird*?

    Seriously Wozniak?

    Yet this is true.

    What Wozniak claim is not at all what you pretend to hear there... >>>>>>>
    It's even worse (yes, it is possible!). He claims that two clocks >>>>>>> cannot have the same beat rate.

    slander
    noun [ C or U ]
    uk  /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us  /ˈslæn.dɚ/
    a false spoken statement about someone that damages their
    reputation, or the making of such a statement:

    This is definitely not slander.

    As I've definitely never  claimed  anything like that

    like what?

    Like the above " that two clocks
      cannot have the same beat rate".

    This is the only point I need at this step of my post you
    choked on.

    Fuck your needs - I haven't claimed it or anything
    similar, you lied/slandered about it, as usual.



    So replace my prerequisite by "have the same beat
    rate" and read on.

    - it's  definitely false, and as you definitely brought
    this  lie to damage my reputation - it's definitely a
    slander.
    Nothing surprising from a piece of [snip profanities]

    There is NO WAY to damage your reputation Wozniak, face it.

    Still you constantly lie trying to damage it.

    1. I'm not lying

    Yes, you are.

    2. I do not damage your reputation, even if I'd like to :-D

    You don't, but that's still the intention
    of most of your lies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 20 08:02:49 2024
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 08:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000018, 18.08.2024 um 12:05 schrieb Python:

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each
    other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the
    same rate." NOTHING more is assumed, especially regarding the time
    they display; the purpose is PRECISELY to adjust one of these
    clocks by applying a correction after a calculation involving the
    values indicated on these clocks during specific events, events
    that occur AT THE LOCATION OF EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure
    but a method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main
    difference from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven that >>>>> Poincaré’s method leads to clocks synchronized in Einstein’s sense. >>>>> You can also transform Einstein’s verification method into a
    synchronization procedure because it allows calculating the
    correction to apply to clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B.

    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a light
    signal is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.


    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize
    clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you
    would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?

    AB was actually meant as:

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would usually be
    the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    Besides of this little formal issue (actually meant was |r_AB| ),
    Einstein had not written AB/c (or r_AB/c).

    What he had actually written was

    r_AB/(c-v)


    Einstein's method did not allow mutally symmetric synchronization.

    The procedure can be proven symmetric. Face it.

    No, it wouldn't.

    I take as example two spaceships in 1 lightseconds distance, which are
    called A and B.



    Both have a HUGE clock strapped to that spaceship and use a VERY HUGE
    telescope to read the clock of the other ship.


    Now clock A shows 12 o'clock and zero seconds.

    Ship B reads this at time 12 o'clock plus 1 second, but turns the own
    clock (showing 12 o'clock plus one seconds) back by one second.

    Now the observer of ship A reads the clock from ship B and reads 12
    o'clock plus zero seconds, while the own clock shows 12 o'clock plus one seconds.

    This is regarded as an error and the own clocks as being ahead, hence it
    was turned back to 12 o'clock plus zero seconds.

    This is seen from ship B, where the own clock shows actually 12 o'clock
    plus one second. This is corrected by adjustment of one second, by which
    that clock is turned backwards.

    This could go on forever, while both clocks would stand still.

    But certainly this is not what you would call 'synchronization'.


    TH

    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 20 08:30:49 2024
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    ...
    There is also no equation, which could eventually be interpreted as
    delay calculation.

    As I've shown there is. A single step from the provided equations
    leads to t_A = t_B - (AB)/c

    Delay for a signal from A->B in distance x would be:

    x=c*t => delay (A->B)= x/c

    Extremely simple, isn't it?

    Extremely stupid insteed x=c*t is not generally true. x/c is
    not at all the delay your asking for. (AB)/c is such a delay.

    Einstein defined two coordinate systems (K and k).

    System k was placed with its center upon the axis of x of system K.

    So the value 'x' is a coordinate in respect to system K with distance
    |x| to system K's center.

    Now I use this setting and place A in the center of K and B in the
    center of k.

    So: the distance from A to B is x.

    Well, yes, this was a little bad, because I had to explain it in the
    first place, before I could use this setting.

    I would agree, that another variable name for distance would have been
    better.

    How about 'd'?

    (d for distance)

    So d = 'distance from A to B'.
    then:
    delay(A->B) = d/c

    Now you need to measure this delay, because you cannot measure
    distance x with rods (at least in cosmology).

    If rods are not practical, then use another method.

    The point of synchronizing clocks is practically about clocks involved
    in a single experiment in a single laboratory by the way, not
    cosmological distances.


    'empty space' and 'inertial motion' are not really possible upon Earth' surface.

    Therefore, the 'environment' of SRT is usually something very remote
    from any other celestial object, in the far ends of the universe.

    'In one single lab' isn't even remotely what SRT is about.

    But smallness isn't actually an issue here, because it makes no
    difference in principle, if you place two floating spaceships into a
    distance of 1 lightyear or 1 nano-light-second.

    What disturbs the measurements is actually air and gravity.


    But where have you found such a calculation in Einstein's text???

    Distance (AB) is assumed to be known.

    And where have you found any use of the value for delay?

    From both equation provided by A.E. I can derive t_A = t_B - (AB)/c
    i.e. t'_A = t_B - "delay"

    https://ia601704.us.archive.org/23/items/einstein-1905-relativity/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf

    Einstein had a slightly different equation.

    But he used it not as calculation of delay, but as definition of the
    speed of light.

    (§1, page 3, last paragraph)
    quote

    "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
    2AB/(t′_A − t_A)= c,
    to be a universal constant—the velocity of light in empty space."

    What you apparently quoted was on page 5 first paragraph.

    But this didn't contain 'c' but 'c-v' in the denominator and was also
    meant for some other situation.

    TH

    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to he is referring to a consequence of on Tue Aug 20 08:39:32 2024
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:30, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    ...
    There is also no equation, which could eventually be interpreted as
    delay calculation.

    As I've shown there is. A single step from the provided equations
    leads to t_A = t_B - (AB)/c

    Delay for a signal from A->B in distance x would be:

    x=c*t => delay (A->B)= x/c

    Extremely simple, isn't it?

    Extremely stupid insteed x=c*t is not generally true. x/c is
    not at all the delay your asking for. (AB)/c is such a delay.

    Einstein defined two coordinate systems (K and k).

    System k was placed with its center upon the axis of x of system K.

    So the value 'x' is a coordinate in respect to system K  with distance
    |x| to system K's center.

    Now I use this setting and place A in the center of K and B in the
    center of k.

    So: the distance from A to B is x.

    Well, yes, this was a little bad, because I had to explain it in the
    first place, before I could use this setting.

    What you "explain" is, again, something you made up out of nothing.

    Systems K and k are even defined yet in paragraph 2.

    It makes basically no sense to put the center of K at A and the
    center of k at B. K and k are in relative motion while clock-A
    and clock-B are mutually at rest. So your "setting" is setting
    v to 0.

    I would agree, that another variable name for distance would have been better.

    How about 'd'?

    (d for distance)

    AB is good enough for everyone.

    So d = 'distance from A to B'.
    then:
     delay(A->B) = d/c

    Now you need to measure this delay, because you cannot measure
    distance x with rods (at least in cosmology).

    If rods are not practical, then use another method.

    The point of synchronizing clocks is practically about clocks involved
    in a single experiment in a single laboratory by the way, not
    cosmological distances.


    'empty space' and 'inertial motion' are not really possible upon Earth' surface.

    Therefore, the 'environment' of SRT is usually something very remote
    from any other celestial object, in the far ends of the universe.

    'In one single lab' isn't even remotely what SRT is about.

    It definitely IS. There are a lot of situations where the concept of
    "inertial frame" is good enough, even on Earth. Ask CERN.

    But smallness isn't actually an issue here, because it makes no
    difference in principle, if you place two floating spaceships into a
    distance of 1 lightyear or 1 nano-light-second.

    What disturbs the measurements is actually air and gravity.


    But where have you found such a calculation in Einstein's text???

    Distance (AB) is assumed to be known.

    And where have you found any use of the value for delay?

     From both equation provided by A.E. I can derive t_A = t_B - (AB)/c
    i.e. t'_A = t_B - "delay"

    https://ia601704.us.archive.org/23/items/einstein-1905-relativity/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf

    Einstein had a slightly different equation.

    It has TWO equations (paragraph 2) from which you can derive
    t'_A = t_B - "delay" in a very small number of steps.

    Your lacking of mastering elementary algebra is showing Thomas.

    But he used it not as calculation of delay, but as definition of the
    speed of light.

    (§1, page 3, last paragraph)
    quote

    "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
    2AB/(t′_A − t_A)= c,
    to be a universal constant—the velocity of light in empty space."

    Yes, he is referring to a consequence of what he wrote in paragraph 2.

    What you apparently quoted was on page 5 first paragraph.

    Not at all. What I wrote is a two-steps consequence of what is written
    on page 3.

    But this didn't contain 'c' but 'c-v' in the denominator and was also
    meant for some other situation.

    It is. You level of imbecility is AMAZING Thomas.

    Or is it hypocrisy (it would be better, you know...) ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to NO WAY related to something Einstei on Tue Aug 20 08:16:15 2024
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 08:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000018, 18.08.2024 um 12:05 schrieb Python:

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each
    other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within
    measurement accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the
    same rate." NOTHING more is assumed, especially regarding the time >>>>>> they display; the purpose is PRECISELY to adjust one of these
    clocks by applying a correction after a calculation involving the
    values indicated on these clocks during specific events, events
    that occur AT THE LOCATION OF EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure >>>>>> but a method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main
    difference from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven
    that Poincaré’s method leads to clocks synchronized in Einstein’s >>>>>> sense. You can also transform Einstein’s verification method into >>>>>> a synchronization procedure because it allows calculating the
    correction to apply to clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B. >>>>>>
    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a light
    signal is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.


    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you
    synchronize clock B with clock A, this must come to the same
    result, as if you would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?

    AB was actually meant as:

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would usually be
    the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    Yes it would be absurd. BTW you are conflating affine spaces with
    vector spaces here.

    Besides of this little formal issue (actually meant was |r_AB| ),

    Well, Thomas, this is utterly ridiculous. Any reader understands what
    AB as it appears in 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) is the distance AB. From high
    school to Ph. D.

    Einstein had not written AB/c (or r_AB/c).

    It appears after ONE step of elementary algebra from the two first
    equations on page 3 there :

    https://users.physics.ox.ac.uk/~rtaylor/teaching/specrel.pdf

    Do you really think that readers (physicists) in 1905 couldn't
    immediately recognize this from two so simple equations, Thomas ?
    Really ?

    What he had actually written was

    r_AB/(c-v)

    This is in paragraph 3. We are dealing with paragraph 2 here.

    Einstein's method did not allow mutally symmetric synchronization.

    The procedure can be proven symmetric. Face it.

    No, it wouldn't.

    It can be shown. This is a very simple exercise even for high school
    students. You cannot seriously pretend to be an engineer Thomas.

    I take as example two spaceships in 1 lightseconds distance, which are
    called A and B.



    Both have a HUGE clock strapped to that spaceship and use a VERY HUGE telescope to read the clock of the other ship.

    The is NO reading of another clock with a telescope in the procedure
    described at paragraph 2 (nor elsewhere in the article)

    There is no point in addressing something you made up and is by
    NO WAY related to something Einstein wrote or implied.

    Now clock A shows 12 o'clock and zero seconds.

    Ship B reads this at time 12 o'clock plus 1 second, but turns the own
    clock (showing 12 o'clock plus one seconds) back by one second.

    Now the observer of ship A reads the clock from ship B and reads 12
    o'clock plus zero seconds, while the own clock shows 12 o'clock plus one seconds.

    This is regarded as an error and the own clocks as being ahead, hence it
    was turned back to 12 o'clock plus zero seconds.

    This is seen from ship B, where the own clock shows actually 12 o'clock
    plus one second. This is corrected by adjustment of one second, by which
    that clock is turned backwards.

    This could go on forever, while both clocks would stand still.

    But certainly this is not what you would call 'synchronization'.

    Sure. Hopefully this is not at all related what Einstein wrote. This
    is, again, something you MADE UP out of nowhere. You are actually
    describing Hachel's defective, inconsistent, "method", not Einstein's
    one.

    I know your French is bad, nevertheless everything I wrote in my
    initial post has been recomposed in LaTeX, the pdf is there :

    https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/dissonance_lengrand.pdf

    (there were ONE mistake in ONE equation in my initial post, could
    you find it?)

    Alternatively you can read Paul's post in this thread, he's explaining Einstein's method of synchronization too. He is synchronizing B on A,
    while I'm synchronizing A on B. Nevertheless it leads to the same
    result : Einstein's method is consistent AND symmetric.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 20 08:42:58 2024
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:39, Python a écrit :
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:30, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    ...
    There is also no equation, which could eventually be interpreted as
    delay calculation.

    As I've shown there is. A single step from the provided equations
    leads to t_A = t_B - (AB)/c

    Delay for a signal from A->B in distance x would be:

    x=c*t => delay (A->B)= x/c

    Extremely simple, isn't it?

    Extremely stupid insteed x=c*t is not generally true. x/c is
    not at all the delay your asking for. (AB)/c is such a delay.

    Einstein defined two coordinate systems (K and k).

    System k was placed with its center upon the axis of x of system K.

    So the value 'x' is a coordinate in respect to system K  with distance
    |x| to system K's center.

    Now I use this setting and place A in the center of K and B in the
    center of k.

    So: the distance from A to B is x.

    Well, yes, this was a little bad, because I had to explain it in the
    first place, before I could use this setting.

    What you "explain" is, again, something you made up out of nothing.

    Systems K and k are even defined yet in paragraph 2.

    It makes basically no sense to put the center of K at A and the
    center of k at B. K and k are in relative motion while clock-A
    and clock-B are mutually at rest. So your "setting" is setting
    v to 0.

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
    x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    You really don't understand A SINGLE SENTENCE in Einstein's paper,
    NOT A SINGLE ONE. This is pathetic.

    I would agree, that another variable name for distance would have been
    better.

    How about 'd'?

    (d for distance)

    AB is good enough for everyone.

    So d = 'distance from A to B'.
    then:
      delay(A->B) = d/c

    Now you need to measure this delay, because you cannot measure
    distance x with rods (at least in cosmology).

    If rods are not practical, then use another method.

    The point of synchronizing clocks is practically about clocks involved
    in a single experiment in a single laboratory by the way, not
    cosmological distances.


    'empty space' and 'inertial motion' are not really possible upon
    Earth' surface.

    Therefore, the 'environment' of SRT is usually something very remote
    from any other celestial object, in the far ends of the universe.

    'In one single lab' isn't even remotely what SRT is about.

    It definitely IS. There are a lot of situations where the concept of "inertial frame" is good enough, even on Earth. Ask CERN.

    But smallness isn't actually an issue here, because it makes no
    difference in principle, if you place two floating spaceships into a
    distance of 1 lightyear or 1 nano-light-second.

    What disturbs the measurements is actually air and gravity.


    But where have you found such a calculation in Einstein's text???

    Distance (AB) is assumed to be known.

    And where have you found any use of the value for delay?

     From both equation provided by A.E. I can derive t_A = t_B - (AB)/c
    i.e. t'_A = t_B - "delay"

    https://ia601704.us.archive.org/23/items/einstein-1905-relativity/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf

    Einstein had a slightly different equation.

    It has TWO equations (paragraph 2) from which you can derive
    t'_A = t_B - "delay" in a very small number of steps.

    Your lacking of mastering elementary algebra is showing Thomas.

    But he used it not as calculation of delay, but as definition of the
    speed of light.

    (§1, page 3, last paragraph)
    quote

    "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
    2AB/(t′_A − t_A)= c,
    to be a universal constant—the velocity of light in empty space."

    Yes, he is referring to a consequence of what he wrote in paragraph 2.

    What you apparently quoted was on page 5 first paragraph.

    Not at all. What I wrote is a two-steps consequence of what is written
    on page 3.

    But this didn't contain 'c' but 'c-v' in the denominator and was also
    meant for some other situation.

    It is. You level of imbecility is AMAZING Thomas.

    Or is it hypocrisy (it would be better, you know...) ?



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Python on Tue Aug 20 10:44:36 2024
    Python <python@invalid.org> wrote:

    Le 17/08/2024 14:56, Maciej Wozniak a crit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincar Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What's fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think
    you've seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to
    produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability
    to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a
    perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We've seen
    this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies,
    like atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization with a clock
    infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place
    17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ >>
    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other
    at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within measurement
    accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.

    Indeed. Pendulum clocks cannot serve as absolute time keepers,
    since they need to be calibrated against a real clock.
    (such as the motions of the Earth)
    They can only serve to interpolate between astronomical observations.

    Man-made clocks of better accuracy than the Earth
    didn't become available until the late 1930-ies.
    All talk of the relevance of real clocks to Einstein 1905
    is hogwash,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 20 09:38:03 2024
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:

    I take as example two spaceships in 1 lightseconds distance, which are
    called A and B.

    AB = 1 lightsecond

    Both have a HUGE clock strapped to that spaceship and use a VERY HUGE telescope to read the clock of the other ship.


    Now clock A shows 12 o'clock and zero seconds.

    "Now" for A.

    Ship B reads this at time 12 o'clock plus 1 second,

    Si sa montre est synchronisée en convention Eisntein.

    but turns the own
    clock (showing 12 o'clock plus one seconds) back by one second.

    Dans ce cas, B est parfaitement synchronisé sur A, c'est à dire que B
    "vit" exactement dans la
    même simultanéité que A, dans le même instant présent que B.

    C'était vrai au départ, et ça l'est encore plus sur les horloges.

    Now the observer of ship A reads the clock from ship B and reads 12
    o'clock plus zero seconds, while the own clock shows 12 o'clock plus one seconds.

    No!

    J'ai reculé ma montre B d'une seconde.

    A me voyait déjà, lui, avec une seconde de retard.

    Il me voit maintenant avec deux secondes de retard.

    This is regarded as an error and the own clocks as being ahead, hence it
    was turned back to 12 o'clock plus zero seconds.

    This is seen from ship B, where the own clock shows actually 12 o'clock
    plus one second. This is corrected by adjustment of one second, by which
    that clock is turned backwards.

    This could go on forever, while both clocks would stand still.

    But certainly this is not what you would call 'synchronization'.


    TH

    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 20 12:12:19 2024
    W dniu 20.08.2024 o 10:44, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Python <python@invalid.org> wrote:

    Le 17/08/2024 à 14:56, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What's fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think
    you've seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to
    produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability
    to pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a
    perfectly well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We've seen >>>> this before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies,
    like atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization with a clock
    infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place
    17 years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ >>>>
    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other
    at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within measurement >>>> accuracy)


    Taking 2 identical pendulum clocks blows
    this pathetic bullshit out.


    Not at all. A pendulum by itself is not a clock. The
    system Earth-Pendulum is.

    Indeed. Pendulum clocks cannot serve as absolute time keepers,
    since they need to be calibrated against a real clock.

    Ah ah ah, the evil calibration is definitely
    disqualifying a measurement device.
    That's what The Shit is doing with the brains
    of its unfortunate victims:(.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Tue Aug 20 14:04:57 2024
    On 2024-08-19 14:56:44 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

    Le 19/08/2024 à 12:57, Python a écrit :
    Are you that delusional that you cannot realize that pretending
    that building and putting at different places two clocks with "identical
    functioning (within measurement accuracy)" is impossible is *weird*?

    Seriously Wozniak?

    Yet this is true.
    Two clocks placed in different places will mark different times.

    A clock does not mark a specific time. It marks many times, one
    after another. Another clock at another place also marks manu
    times, one after another.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Tue Aug 20 14:00:41 2024
    On 2024-08-20 06:02:49 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 08:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000018, 18.08.2024 um 12:05 schrieb Python:

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other at >>>>>> a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within measurement >>>>>> accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the same rate."
    NOTHING more is assumed, especially regarding the time they display; >>>>>> the purpose is PRECISELY to adjust one of these clocks by applying a >>>>>> correction after a calculation involving the values indicated on these >>>>>> clocks during specific events, events that occur AT THE LOCATION OF >>>>>> EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure but a >>>>>> method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main difference >>>>>> from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven that Poincaré’s
    method leads to clocks synchronized in Einstein’s sense. You can also >>>>>> transform Einstein’s verification method into a synchronization
    procedure because it allows calculating the correction to apply to >>>>>> clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B. >>>>>>
    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a light
    signal is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.


    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize >>>>> clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you
    would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?

    AB was actually meant as:

    Note that in Einstein's text the definition of synchronity (page 894)
    does not use AB. Lower on the same page AB has an overbar.

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would usually be
    the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    A nad B are not position vectors, they are positions. Postions are not
    vectors. AB with overbar is the standard notation for the distance btween positions A and B.

    Besides of this little formal issue (actually meant was |r_AB| ),
    Einstein had not written AB/c (or r_AB/c).

    Einstain also used r_AB, whith an explicit definition of its meaning.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 21 08:15:23 2024
    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 08:16 schrieb Python:
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 08:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000018, 18.08.2024 um 12:05 schrieb Python:

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each
    other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within >>>>>>> measurement accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the >>>>>>> same rate." NOTHING more is assumed, especially regarding the
    time they display; the purpose is PRECISELY to adjust one of
    these clocks by applying a correction after a calculation
    involving the values indicated on these clocks during specific
    events, events that occur AT THE LOCATION OF EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure >>>>>>> but a method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main
    difference from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven >>>>>>> that Poincaré’s method leads to clocks synchronized in Einstein’s >>>>>>> sense. You can also transform Einstein’s verification method into >>>>>>> a synchronization procedure because it allows calculating the
    correction to apply to clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B. >>>>>>>
    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a light >>>>>>> signal is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.


    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you
    synchronize clock B with clock A, this must come to the same
    result, as if you would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?

    AB was actually meant as:

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would usually
    be the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    Yes it would be absurd. BTW you are conflating affine spaces with
    vector spaces here.

    Besides of this little formal issue (actually meant was |r_AB| ),

    Well, Thomas, this is utterly ridiculous. Any reader understands what
    AB as it appears in 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) is the distance AB. From high
    school to Ph. D.

    "the distance AB" is not equal to "AB"!

    Actually meant was: 'A' and 'B' denote locations in a certain coordinate system, hence are technically position vectors.

    Because a product of vectors is possible, 'AB' would be the product of A
    and B.

    If you want to adress the distance from point 'A' to point 'B' you
    cannot simply say 'AB'.

    Whether or not 'any reader understands' is patently irrelevant.


    Einstein had not written AB/c (or r_AB/c).

    It appears after ONE step of elementary algebra from the two first
    equations on page 3 there :

    https://users.physics.ox.ac.uk/~rtaylor/teaching/specrel.pdf

    Do you really think that readers (physicists) in 1905 couldn't
    immediately recognize this from two so simple equations, Thomas ?

    SRT is certainly a socio-cultural mystery and the question you wrote is
    also a mystery.

    I have not dealt with that question, but here with a formal issue.

    My point was, that 'AB' is not a valid symbol for 'distance from point A
    to point B'.


    What he had actually written was

    r_AB/(c-v)

    This is in paragraph 3. We are dealing with paragraph 2 here.

    Sure, but §3 does not contain the equation you quoted.

    to remind you, that's what you have written:

    "... It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?.."



    Einstein's method did not allow mutally symmetric synchronization.

    The procedure can be proven symmetric. Face it.

    No, it wouldn't.

    It can be shown. This is a very simple exercise even for high school students. You cannot seriously pretend to be an engineer Thomas.

    I take as example two spaceships in 1 lightseconds distance, which are
    called A and B.



    Both have a HUGE clock strapped to that spaceship and use a VERY HUGE
    telescope to read the clock of the other ship.

    The is NO reading of another clock with a telescope in the procedure described at paragraph 2 (nor elsewhere in the article)


    Sure, there ain't.

    But it should, because relativity requires mutually symmetric relations.

    This means:

    if one side can apply a certain method, than the other side should be
    allowed to apply the same method, too.

    If you would not require this, you would drop the essence of relativity,
    which says, that all inertial frames of reference are of equal rights.

    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 21 08:22:09 2024
    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 08:39 schrieb Python:
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:30, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    ...
    There is also no equation, which could eventually be interpreted as
    delay calculation.

    As I've shown there is. A single step from the provided equations
    leads to t_A = t_B - (AB)/c

    Delay for a signal from A->B in distance x would be:

    x=c*t => delay (A->B)= x/c

    Extremely simple, isn't it?

    Extremely stupid insteed x=c*t is not generally true. x/c is
    not at all the delay your asking for. (AB)/c is such a delay.

    Einstein defined two coordinate systems (K and k).

    System k was placed with its center upon the axis of x of system K.

    So the value 'x' is a coordinate in respect to system K  with distance
    |x| to system K's center.

    Now I use this setting and place A in the center of K and B in the
    center of k.

    So: the distance from A to B is x.

    Well, yes, this was a little bad, because I had to explain it in the
    first place, before I could use this setting.

    What you "explain" is, again, something you made up out of nothing.

    Systems K and k are even defined yet in paragraph 2.

    It makes basically no sense to put the center of K at A and the
    center of k at B. K and k are in relative motion while clock-A
    and clock-B are mutually at rest. So your "setting" is setting
    v to 0.


    What???

    A coordinate system can actually be placed anywhere.

    Here we have a point 'A' and an observer (also called 'A') and a
    coordinates system called 'K'.

    The best and most natural setting would be, that you place the
    coordinate system with its center at 'A' and also the observer in K there.

    Since the coordinate system k is equivalent in function and settings, we
    should place 'B' in the center of k.

    This is simply the best way to place all the items mentioned into a
    useful order.

    If you (or Einstein) like something else, this would be allowed, but you
    had to say so.
    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 21 08:30:08 2024
    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 08:42 schrieb Python:
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:39, Python a écrit :
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:30, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    ...
    There is also no equation, which could eventually be interpreted as
    delay calculation.

    As I've shown there is. A single step from the provided equations
    leads to t_A = t_B - (AB)/c

    Delay for a signal from A->B in distance x would be:

    x=c*t => delay (A->B)= x/c

    Extremely simple, isn't it?

    Extremely stupid insteed x=c*t is not generally true. x/c is
    not at all the delay your asking for. (AB)/c is such a delay.

    Einstein defined two coordinate systems (K and k).

    System k was placed with its center upon the axis of x of system K.

    So the value 'x' is a coordinate in respect to system K  with
    distance |x| to system K's center.

    Now I use this setting and place A in the center of K and B in the
    center of k.

    So: the distance from A to B is x.

    Well, yes, this was a little bad, because I had to explain it in the
    first place, before I could use this setting.

    What you "explain" is, again, something you made up out of nothing.

    Systems K and k are even defined yet in paragraph 2.

    It makes basically no sense to put the center of K at A and the
    center of k at B. K and k are in relative motion while clock-A
    and clock-B are mutually at rest. So your "setting" is setting
    v to 0.

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
    x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from the
    center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the
    center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x.

    But, of course, your critique is valid and you should not use generic
    variables for special purposes.

    Therefore I made already the proposal to call the distance from A to B 'd'.


    BTW: x was not meant as coordinate of an event, because system K and k
    were defined as Euclidian coordinate systems.

    Such a coordinate system does not contain time in any way, hence cannot
    address events.

    ..

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 21 08:43:35 2024
    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:

    I take as example two spaceships in 1 lightseconds distance, which are
    called A and B.

    AB = 1 lightsecond

    Both have a HUGE clock strapped to that spaceship and use a VERY HUGE
    telescope to read the clock of the other ship.


    Now clock A shows 12 o'clock and zero seconds.

    "Now" for A.
    Ship B reads this at time 12 o'clock plus 1 second,

    Si sa montre est synchronisée en convention Eisntein.

    but turns the own clock (showing 12 o'clock plus one seconds) back by
    one second.

    Dans ce cas, B est parfaitement synchronisé sur A, c'est à dire que B
    "vit" exactement dans la
    même simultanéité que A, dans le même instant présent que B.

    No, this is WRONG!



    if you do not add the delay, your visions of remote events are not a representation of events at the same time.

    You simply cannot take an event seen in, say, 1 million light years
    distance as happening now.

    Instead you should subtract the delay (1 million years in this case) and
    say, that this events happend 1 million years ago (not!!! now).

    The same problem occurs also in much smaller distances, say between
    Earth and Moon.

    Earth and Moon are a particular good choice, because they are roughly
    one light-second apart.

    Now we can simply assume two stations, one on Earth and one on the Moon,
    which try to synchronize clocks.

    Those would not use Einstein's method, because that is not mutually
    symmetric.

    Instead you would 'ping' the remote station, measure the dealy and add
    half of the value to the time transmitted with a coded timing signal.


    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 21 08:49:08 2024
    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 13:00 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you
    synchronize clock B with clock A, this must come to the same
    result, as if you would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?

    AB was actually meant as:

    Note that in Einstein's text the definition of synchronity (page 894)
    does not use AB. Lower on the same page AB has an overbar.

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would usually
    be the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    A nad B are not position vectors, they are positions. Postions are not vectors. AB with overbar is the standard notation for the distance btween positions A and B.

    In my version there were no overbars.

    But the actual positions cannot be used in equations anyhow, because
    real material objects cannot be used in equations of any kind.

    It is just rediculus to regard the points themselves as part of an equation. ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 21 09:31:02 2024
    Le 21/08/2024 à 08:30, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 08:42 schrieb Python:
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:39, Python a écrit :
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:30, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    ...
    There is also no equation, which could eventually be interpreted
    as delay calculation.

    As I've shown there is. A single step from the provided equations
    leads to t_A = t_B - (AB)/c

    Delay for a signal from A->B in distance x would be:

    x=c*t => delay (A->B)= x/c

    Extremely simple, isn't it?

    Extremely stupid insteed x=c*t is not generally true. x/c is
    not at all the delay your asking for. (AB)/c is such a delay.

    Einstein defined two coordinate systems (K and k).

    System k was placed with its center upon the axis of x of system K.

    So the value 'x' is a coordinate in respect to system K  with
    distance |x| to system K's center.

    Now I use this setting and place A in the center of K and B in the
    center of k.

    So: the distance from A to B is x.

    Well, yes, this was a little bad, because I had to explain it in the
    first place, before I could use this setting.

    What you "explain" is, again, something you made up out of nothing.

    Systems K and k are even defined yet in paragraph 2.

    It makes basically no sense to put the center of K at A and the
    center of k at B. K and k are in relative motion while clock-A
    and clock-B are mutually at rest. So your "setting" is setting
    v to 0.

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
    x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from the
    center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the
    center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x.

    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was
    placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k"
    is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article.

    But, of course, your critique is valid and you should not use generic variables for special purposes.

    Therefore I made already the proposal to call the distance from A to B 'd'.

    AB, (AB) or \overbar(AB) make the job for every one but you.

    BTW: x was not meant as coordinate of an event, because system K and k
    were defined as Euclidian coordinate systems.

    Such a coordinate system does not contain time in any way, hence cannot address events.

    k and K are defined as 4-D dimensional systems with coordinates
    x, y, z, t and epsilon, nu, eta, tau. BOTH include a time coordinate
    so BOTH are representing EVENTS.

    "does not contain time in any way" ? How can you be so clueless ??? Or
    is it deliberates lies ???

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 21 09:24:48 2024
    Le 21/08/2024 à 08:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 08:39 schrieb Python:
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:30, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    ...
    There is also no equation, which could eventually be interpreted as
    delay calculation.

    As I've shown there is. A single step from the provided equations
    leads to t_A = t_B - (AB)/c

    Delay for a signal from A->B in distance x would be:

    x=c*t => delay (A->B)= x/c

    Extremely simple, isn't it?

    Extremely stupid insteed x=c*t is not generally true. x/c is
    not at all the delay your asking for. (AB)/c is such a delay.

    Einstein defined two coordinate systems (K and k).

    System k was placed with its center upon the axis of x of system K.

    So the value 'x' is a coordinate in respect to system K  with
    distance |x| to system K's center.

    Now I use this setting and place A in the center of K and B in the
    center of k.

    So: the distance from A to B is x.

    Well, yes, this was a little bad, because I had to explain it in the
    first place, before I could use this setting.

    What you "explain" is, again, something you made up out of nothing.

    Systems K and k are even defined yet in paragraph 2.

    It makes basically no sense to put the center of K at A and the
    center of k at B. K and k are in relative motion while clock-A
    and clock-B are mutually at rest. So your "setting" is setting
    v to 0.


    What???

    A coordinate system can actually be placed anywhere.

    Certainly. But putting K/k origins at positions A/B (as they are
    defined in part I.2) would lead to v=0 because A and B are mutually
    at rest clocks.

    Here we have a point 'A' and an observer (also called 'A') and a
    coordinates system called 'K'.

    The best and most natural setting would be, that you place the
    coordinate system with its center at 'A' and also the observer in K there.

    Since the coordinate system k is equivalent in function and settings, we should place 'B' in the center of k.

    This is simply the best way to place all the items mentioned into a
    useful order.

    If you (or Einstein) like something else, this would be allowed, but you
    had to say so.

    He didn't say that both clocks are made of Swiss cheese. If Einstein
    likes something else, this would be allowed, but he had to say so.

    So the article is about clocks made of Swiss cheese.

    You are pathetically absurd Thomas.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to or can you try to on Wed Aug 21 09:22:35 2024
    Le 21/08/2024 à 08:15, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 08:16 schrieb Python:
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 08:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000018, 18.08.2024 um 12:05 schrieb Python:

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each >>>>>>>> other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within >>>>>>>> measurement accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the >>>>>>>> same rate." NOTHING more is assumed, especially regarding the
    time they display; the purpose is PRECISELY to adjust one of
    these clocks by applying a correction after a calculation
    involving the values indicated on these clocks during specific >>>>>>>> events, events that occur AT THE LOCATION OF EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure >>>>>>>> but a method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main >>>>>>>> difference from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven >>>>>>>> that Poincaré’s method leads to clocks synchronized in
    Einstein’s sense. You can also transform Einstein’s verification >>>>>>>> method into a synchronization procedure because it allows
    calculating the correction to apply to clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B. >>>>>>>>
    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a
    light signal is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.


    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you
    synchronize clock B with clock A, this must come to the same
    result, as if you would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?

    AB was actually meant as:

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would usually
    be the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    Yes it would be absurd. BTW you are conflating affine spaces with
    vector spaces here.

    Besides of this little formal issue (actually meant was |r_AB| ),

    Well, Thomas, this is utterly ridiculous. Any reader understands what
    AB as it appears in 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) is the distance AB. From high
    school to Ph. D.

    "the distance AB" is not equal to "AB"!

    The distance between A and B can be denoted in a lot of ways. The point
    is to ensure that there is no ambiguity given the context. As a matter
    of fact Einstein in the ORIGINAL paper used an overbar on top of
    AB (https://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1905_17_891-921.pdf)

    So if there were someone to blame here, it would be the translator.

    But there is no one to blame the context is clear enough.

    Actually meant was: 'A' and 'B' denote locations in a certain coordinate system, hence are technically position vectors.

    Technically there are points in an affine space. Don't pontificate on
    math when you are ignorant of it Thomas.

    Because a product of vectors is possible, 'AB' would be the product of A
    and B.

    You are ridiculous.

    If you want to adress the distance from point 'A' to point 'B' you
    cannot simply say 'AB'.

    You can.

    Whether or not 'any reader understands' is patently irrelevant.

    It is not. Every text as an intended audience.

    Einstein had not written AB/c (or r_AB/c).

    It appears after ONE step of elementary algebra from the two first
    equations on page 3 there :

    https://users.physics.ox.ac.uk/~rtaylor/teaching/specrel.pdf

    Do you really think that readers (physicists) in 1905 couldn't
    immediately recognize this from two so simple equations, Thomas ?

    SRT is certainly a socio-cultural mystery and the question you wrote is
    also a mystery.

    A mystery to YOU because you are stupid.

    I have not dealt with that question, but here with a formal issue.

    My point was, that 'AB' is not a valid symbol for 'distance from point A
    to point B'.

    And you are wrong.

    What he had actually written was

    r_AB/(c-v)

    This is in paragraph 3. We are dealing with paragraph 2 here.

    Sure, but §3 does not contain the equation you quoted.

    I didn't pretend otherwise, you did. Moreover §3 is off-topic: we
    are talking about clocks synchronization here.

    to remind you, that's what you have written:

    "... It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to
    you?.."

    Yes. And (AB)/c can be derived from equations in part I.2 by elementary algebra.

    Einstein's method did not allow mutally symmetric synchronization.

    The procedure can be proven symmetric. Face it.

    No, it wouldn't.

    It can be shown. This is a very simple exercise even for high school
    students. You cannot seriously pretend to be an engineer Thomas.

    I take as example two spaceships in 1 lightseconds distance, which
    are called A and B.



    Both have a HUGE clock strapped to that spaceship and use a VERY HUGE
    telescope to read the clock of the other ship.

    The is NO reading of another clock with a telescope in the procedure
    described at paragraph 2 (nor elsewhere in the article)


    Sure, there ain't.

    So STOP mentioning it!!!

    But it should, because relativity requires mutually symmetric relations.

    You say "it should" because you fail to understand the procedure, as
    a matter of fact it shouldn't. Values of t_A and t_A' can be
    communicated to B, as well as value of t_B to A by any means. Including
    carrier pigeons or slugs. It doesn't matter.

    Moreover the procedure described in paragraph I.2 IS SYMMETRIC!

    It is high school level math. You really want me to show you the proof
    or can you try to write it down by yourself?

    This means:

    if one side can apply a certain method, than the other side should be
    allowed to apply the same method, too.

    Yes.

    If you would not require this, you would drop the essence of relativity, which says, that all inertial frames of reference are of equal rights.

    It is worse that that. If you drop symmetry you cannot even define a
    *single* frame of reference consistently.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 21 10:21:38 2024
    Le 21/08/2024 à 08:14, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    relativity requires mutually symmetric relations.

    This means:

    If you would not require this, you would drop the essence of relativity, which says, that all inertial frames of reference are of equal rights.

    Absolutely.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 22 08:51:06 2024
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
    x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from the
    center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the
    center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x.

    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was
    placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k"
    is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article.

    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire paper,
    unless stated otherwise.

    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later 'foregets'
    this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    What you apparently want is simply inexaptable:
    you want the reader to find out, which definition is valid at a certain position of the text and which one already expired.

    The author needs to stick to a certain setting, because otherwise a
    reader could not jump backwards with reading in a paper, if the setting changes.



    But, of course, your critique is valid and you should not use generic
    variables for special purposes.

    Therefore I made already the proposal to call the distance from A to B
    'd'.

    AB, (AB) or \overbar(AB) make the job for every one but you.

    BTW: x was not meant as coordinate of an event, because system K and k
    were defined as Euclidian coordinate systems.

    Such a coordinate system does not contain time in any way, hence
    cannot address events.

    k and K are defined as 4-D dimensional systems with coordinates
    x, y, z, t and epsilon, nu, eta, tau. BOTH include a time coordinate
    so BOTH are representing EVENTS.

    Actually 'coordinate systems' were mentionend and only the axes x, y and
    z in K and xsi, eta and zeta in k.

    These cordinate systems should be Euclidean, because Einstein wrote so.

    These coordinate systems were combined with a time measure t or tau,
    which would be kind of 4-dimensional, if you count 3 + 1.

    But time isn't a spatial dimension, hence '4D' is rather misleading.
    ...

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 22 08:36:07 2024
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:22 schrieb Python:
    Le 21/08/2024 à 08:15, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 08:16 schrieb Python:
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 08:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000018, 18.08.2024 um 12:05 schrieb Python:

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each >>>>>>>>> other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning
    (within measurement accuracy) allows us to assume that they
    "tick at the same rate." NOTHING more is assumed, especially >>>>>>>>> regarding the time they display; the purpose is PRECISELY to >>>>>>>>> adjust one of these clocks by applying a correction after a
    calculation involving the values indicated on these clocks
    during specific events, events that occur AT THE LOCATION OF >>>>>>>>> EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization
    procedure but a method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is >>>>>>>>> the main difference from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can >>>>>>>>> be proven that Poincaré’s method leads to clocks synchronized >>>>>>>>> in Einstein’s sense. You can also transform Einstein’s
    verification method into a synchronization procedure because it >>>>>>>>> allows calculating the correction to apply to clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A
    towards B.

    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a
    light signal is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.


    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you
    synchronize clock B with clock A, this must come to the same
    result, as if you would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?

    AB was actually meant as:

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would usually
    be the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    Yes it would be absurd. BTW you are conflating affine spaces with
    vector spaces here.

    Besides of this little formal issue (actually meant was |r_AB| ),

    Well, Thomas, this is utterly ridiculous. Any reader understands what
    AB as it appears in 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) is the distance AB. From high
    school to Ph. D.

    "the distance AB" is not equal to "AB"!

    The distance between A and B can be denoted in a lot of ways. The point
    is to ensure that there is no ambiguity given the context. As a matter
    of fact Einstein in the ORIGINAL paper used an overbar on top of
    AB (https://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1905_17_891-921.pdf)

    So if there were someone to blame here, it would be the translator.



    I wrote annotations from a certain perspective:

    I treated the text in question as homework of a student and myself as hypothetical professor, who had to write corrections for that paper.

    Therefore, I had the duty and the right to complain about a missing overbar.

    I maintained, if possible, the interpretation, which is exactly the
    opposite from what the author possibly wanted, but what would fit to
    what was actually written.

    This sounds a little 'hostile', but my aim was to teach scientific
    correctness, which would not allow ambiguity.

    Therefore, 'AB' was interpreted as 'algebraic product of two position
    vectors A and B'.

    That was certainly not, what Einstein wanted, but was a possible interpretation.

    Since ambiguity is counted against the author's intentions, I used the
    most remote valid interpretation.

    TH


    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Aug 22 10:50:22 2024
    On 2024-08-21 06:49:08 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 13:00 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize >>>>>>> clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you >>>>>>> would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?

    AB was actually meant as:

    Note that in Einstein's text the definition of synchronity (page 894)
    does not use AB. Lower on the same page AB has an overbar.

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would usually be
    the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    A nad B are not position vectors, they are positions. Postions are not
    vectors. AB with overbar is the standard notation for the distance btween
    positions A and B.

    In my version there were no overbars.

    Your version is irrelevant. Einstein used overbar. But the equation that
    is relevant to the current discussion does not use AB at all.

    But the actual positions cannot be used in equations anyhow, because
    real material objects cannot be used in equations of any kind.

    Position is not a real material object.

    It is just rediculus to regard the points themselves as part of an equation.

    It is common to use the same word for the symbol and the thing denoted
    by the symbol. For example the word "Thomas" is can refer to the name
    "Thomas" itself.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 22 12:58:03 2024
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:36, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:22 schrieb Python:
    Le 21/08/2024 à 08:15, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 08:16 schrieb Python:
    Le 20/08/2024 à 08:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
    Le 19/08/2024 à 08:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000018, 18.08.2024 um 12:05 schrieb Python:

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each >>>>>>>>>> other at a certain distance. Their identical functioning
    (within measurement accuracy) allows us to assume that they >>>>>>>>>> "tick at the same rate." NOTHING more is assumed, especially >>>>>>>>>> regarding the time they display; the purpose is PRECISELY to >>>>>>>>>> adjust one of these clocks by applying a correction after a >>>>>>>>>> calculation involving the values indicated on these clocks >>>>>>>>>> during specific events, events that occur AT THE LOCATION OF >>>>>>>>>> EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization
    procedure but a method to VERIFY their synchronization. This >>>>>>>>>> is the main difference from Poincaré’s approach. However, it >>>>>>>>>> can be proven that Poincaré’s method leads to clocks
    synchronized in Einstein’s sense. You can also transform >>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s verification method into a synchronization
    procedure because it allows calculating the correction to
    apply to clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A
    towards B.

    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a >>>>>>>>>> light signal is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.


    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you
    synchronize clock B with clock A, this must come to the same >>>>>>>>> result, as if you would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?

    AB was actually meant as:

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would
    usually be the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    Yes it would be absurd. BTW you are conflating affine spaces with
    vector spaces here.

    Besides of this little formal issue (actually meant was |r_AB| ),

    Well, Thomas, this is utterly ridiculous. Any reader understands what
    AB as it appears in 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) is the distance AB. From high
    school to Ph. D.

    "the distance AB" is not equal to "AB"!

    The distance between A and B can be denoted in a lot of ways. The point
    is to ensure that there is no ambiguity given the context. As a matter
    of fact Einstein in the ORIGINAL paper used an overbar on top of
    AB
    (https://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1905_17_891-921.pdf)

    So if there were someone to blame here, it would be the translator.



    I wrote annotations from a certain perspective:

    I treated the text in question as homework of a student and myself as hypothetical professor, who had to write corrections for that paper.

    You cannot pretend to be a professor, even hypothetical, when dealing
    with subject you are both ignorant of and too stupid to understand.

    Therefore, I had the duty and the right to complain about a missing
    overbar.

    Not really, as it doesn't alter the comprehension of the text, for
    sane people I mean.

    I maintained, if possible, the interpretation, which is exactly the
    opposite from what the author possibly wanted, but what would fit to
    what was actually written.

    This sounds a little 'hostile', but my aim was to teach scientific correctness, which would not allow ambiguity.

    Therefore, 'AB' was interpreted as 'algebraic product of two position
    vectors A and B'.

    Which is an utterly idiotic interpretation. A and B are points in an
    affine space.

    That was certainly not, what Einstein wanted, but was a possible interpretation.

    Since ambiguity is counted against the author's intentions, I used the
    most remote valid interpretation.

    There is ZERO ambiguity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 22 13:06:21 2024
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
    x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from the
    center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in
    the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x.

    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was
    placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k"
    is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article.

    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire paper,
    unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
    part I.3.

    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later 'foregets'
    this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover
    neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    What you apparently want is simply inexaptable:
    you want the reader to find out, which definition is valid at a certain position of the text and which one already expired.

    What I want is perfectly acceptable: that the reader has a functional
    brain.

    The author needs to stick to a certain setting, because otherwise a
    reader could not jump backwards with reading in a paper, if the setting changes.

    It is not needed here, neither backwards nor forwards.

    But, of course, your critique is valid and you should not use generic
    variables for special purposes.

    Therefore I made already the proposal to call the distance from A to
    B 'd'.

    AB, (AB) or \overbar(AB) make the job for every one but you.

    BTW: x was not meant as coordinate of an event, because system K and
    k were defined as Euclidian coordinate systems.

    Such a coordinate system does not contain time in any way, hence
    cannot address events.

    k and K are defined as 4-D dimensional systems with coordinates
    x, y, z, t and epsilon, nu, eta, tau. BOTH include a time coordinate
    so BOTH are representing EVENTS.

    Actually 'coordinate systems' were mentionend and only the axes x, y and
    z in K and xsi, eta and zeta in k.

    This is factually wrong. Part I.3 :

    " To any system of values x, y, z, t, which completely defines the place
    and time of an event in the stationary system [K], there belongs a
    system of values $\xi$, $\eta$, $\zeta$, $\tau$, determining that
    event relatively to the system k, and our task is now to find the
    system of equations connecting these quantities. "

    These cordinate systems should be Euclidean, because Einstein wrote so.

    The only time "euclidean" appears in the article is in paragraph I.1.
    and it is about the first three coordinates in a system of co-ordinates
    that has four coordinates.

    These coordinate systems were combined with a time measure t or tau,
    which would be kind of 4-dimensional, if you count 3 + 1.

    But time isn't a spatial dimension, hence '4D' is rather misleading.

    It is not. Dimensions, in math or physics, are not limited to space coordinates. They often cover also time, speeds, forces, heat, etc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 23 08:09:09 2024
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 09:50 schrieb Mikko:
    On 2024-08-21 06:49:08 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 13:00 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you
    synchronize clock B with clock A, this must come to the same
    result, as if you would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?

    AB was actually meant as:

    Note that in Einstein's text the definition of synchronity (page 894)
    does not use AB. Lower on the same page AB has an overbar.

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would usually
    be the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    A nad B are not position vectors, they are positions. Postions are not
    vectors. AB with overbar is the standard notation for the distance
    btween
    positions A and B.

    In my version there were no overbars.

    Your version is irrelevant. Einstein used overbar. But the equation that
    is relevant to the current discussion does not use AB at all.

    Well, in a way you have the right to complain, because I have not used
    the German original for my annotations, but a certain English translation.

    This text alone was my topic, without considerations, who had actually
    written it.

    This setting was used, because I wanted to separate the text and allow
    to analyse the content of this text alone.

    This was a necessary step, becaause I wanted to apply a certain method.

    I wanted to find ALL errors in this text, but only in THIS text.

    To do this I 'serialised' its content and separated all single statements.

    Any statement has some content and declares a certain relation between
    some kind of prerequisites and some conclusion.

    A simple statement would be ' 1 + 1 =2 '.

    Now this is an overly simple example to explain what I wanted:

    I wanted to identify each statement and search for everything, which
    could eventually be meant to define the content and the used axioms or
    some other requirements.

    Now theoretical physics is somehow similar to mathematics and physical
    proof similar to a mathematical proof.

    In math a single statement in a proof is assumed to be based on previous
    ones or axioms. And every single statement had to be correct.

    Now I searched for statements and the possible definitions used parts in
    of this statement.

    Then I discussed the validity of such a statement.

    In math this process is over, once an error is encountered.

    But I wanted to find ALL errors, hence continued after errors with the
    next statement, tried to identify, what the author had in mind and
    pieced the statement together. Than I could start to discuss its validity.

    By this method I found well over four-hundred errors.

    All of these 'errors' are in fact my own statements, hence are possibly
    wrong themselves.

    But I was quite careful and spent a lot of time on this subject, hence
    the chances are low, that you could find any errors in my own statements.

    Now, ALL 'errors' belong to a certain text, which is this particular
    English translation alone.

    I have spent some time with the German version, but my comments are
    almost exclusively about the used translation.

    And that translation does not contain overbars.


    But the actual positions cannot be used in equations anyhow, because
    real material objects cannot be used in equations of any kind.

    Position is not a real material object.

    Well, yes and no...

    A position vector like (1,2,3) is a mathematical object, while the point
    itself is not.

    Now it would be better to distinguish between different types of objects
    (here: points and positions of points), but physicists have the odd
    habbit of doing something odd, like using 'material points' and that in equations.



    It is just rediculus to regard the points themselves as part of an
    equation.

    It is common to use the same word for the symbol and the thing denoted
    by the symbol. For example the word "Thomas" is can refer to the name "Thomas" itself.

    Sure, my name is 'Thomas', but I'm not a name.

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 23 08:14:39 2024
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 12:58 schrieb Python:
    ...
    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you? >>>>>>
    AB was actually meant as:

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would
    usually be the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    Yes it would be absurd. BTW you are conflating affine spaces with
    vector spaces here.

    Besides of this little formal issue (actually meant was |r_AB| ),

    Well, Thomas, this is utterly ridiculous. Any reader understands what >>>>> AB as it appears in 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) is the distance AB. From high
    school to Ph. D.

    "the distance AB" is not equal to "AB"!

    The distance between A and B can be denoted in a lot of ways. The point
    is to ensure that there is no ambiguity given the context. As a matter
    of fact Einstein in the ORIGINAL paper used an overbar on top of
    AB
    (https://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1905_17_891-921.pdf)

    So if there were someone to blame here, it would be the translator.



    I wrote annotations from a certain perspective:

    I treated the text in question as homework of a student and myself as
    hypothetical professor, who had to write corrections for that paper.

    You cannot pretend to be a professor, even hypothetical, when dealing
    with subject you are both ignorant of and too stupid to understand.

    I have already written, that this is a certain perspective of writing.

    I could - for instance - write a novel from the perspective of JFK,
    after being shot.

    You could complain, this is not possible.

    Sure, most likely this isn't.

    BUT: it's the author, who choses the writing perspective and not the reader. ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 23 08:27:37 2024
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
    x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from
    the center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in
    the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x.

    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was
    placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k"
    is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article.

    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire paper,
    unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
    part I.3.

    Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

    I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the
    author states otherwise.



    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later
    'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover
    neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form part
    1.3 on page 3.

    That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.



    What you apparently want is simply inexaptable:
    you want the reader to find out, which definition is valid at a
    certain position of the text and which one already expired.

    What I want is perfectly acceptable: that the reader has a functional
    brain.


    It is a VERY bad idea, to 'fill the blancs' in a scientific text,
    because it would invite to see, what simply isn't there.


    The author needs to stick to a certain setting, because otherwise a
    reader could not jump backwards with reading in a paper, if the
    setting changes.

    It is not needed here, neither backwards nor forwards.


    Sure, you need to skip backwards, if you encounter a statement and
    simply forgot, what a certain symbol means.

    In Einstein's case, this was often necessary, because Einstein used very strange naming conventions.

    A very simple example would be the symbols for the four used coordinate systems: K, k, K' and k'.

    It is very difficult, to identify the intended meaning from the names
    alone, hence one need to remember, what some variable should express.

    Since Einstein had also the odd habit to reuse variable names, it would
    require also attempts to remember the validity realm of each variable
    name and which interpretation is valid in which contxt.


    This is simply unacceptable.

    TH



    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Aug 23 09:47:45 2024
    On 2024-08-23 06:09:09 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 09:50 schrieb Mikko:
    On 2024-08-21 06:49:08 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 13:00 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize >>>>>>>>> clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you >>>>>>>>> would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    It is.

    No, it is not!

    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?

    AB was actually meant as:

    Note that in Einstein's text the definition of synchronity (page 894)
    does not use AB. Lower on the same page AB has an overbar.

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would usually be >>>>> the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    A nad B are not position vectors, they are positions. Postions are not >>>> vectors. AB with overbar is the standard notation for the distance btween >>>> positions A and B.

    In my version there were no overbars.

    Your version is irrelevant. Einstein used overbar. But the equation that
    is relevant to the current discussion does not use AB at all.

    Well, in a way you have the right to complain, because I have not used
    the German original for my annotations, but a certain English
    translation.

    Not just "in a way". You have consistently said "Einstein" when you
    mean someone else. Some might call that lying, especially coming from
    someone able to read German.

    This text alone was my topic, without considerations, who had actually written it.

    This setting was used, because I wanted to separate the text and allow
    to analyse the content of this text alone.

    This was a necessary step, becaause I wanted to apply a certain method.

    I wanted to find ALL errors in this text, but only in THIS text.

    To do this I 'serialised' its content and separated all single statements.

    Any statement has some content and declares a certain relation between
    some kind of prerequisites and some conclusion.

    A simple statement would be ' 1 + 1 =2 '.

    Now this is an overly simple example to explain what I wanted:

    I wanted to identify each statement and search for everything, which
    could eventually be meant to define the content and the used axioms or
    some other requirements.

    Now theoretical physics is somehow similar to mathematics and physical
    proof similar to a mathematical proof.

    In math a single statement in a proof is assumed to be based on
    previous ones or axioms. And every single statement had to be correct.

    Now I searched for statements and the possible definitions used parts
    in of this statement.

    Then I discussed the validity of such a statement.

    In math this process is over, once an error is encountered.

    But I wanted to find ALL errors, hence continued after errors with the
    next statement, tried to identify, what the author had in mind and
    pieced the statement together. Than I could start to discuss its
    validity.

    By this method I found well over four-hundred errors.

    All of these 'errors' are in fact my own statements, hence are possibly
    wrong themselves.

    But I was quite careful and spent a lot of time on this subject, hence
    the chances are low, that you could find any errors in my own
    statements.

    Now, ALL 'errors' belong to a certain text, which is this particular
    English translation alone.

    I have spent some time with the German version, but my comments are
    almost exclusively about the used translation.

    And that translation does not contain overbars.


    But the actual positions cannot be used in equations anyhow, because
    real material objects cannot be used in equations of any kind.

    Position is not a real material object.

    Well, yes and no...

    A position vector like (1,2,3) is a mathematical object, while the
    point itself is not.

    Now it would be better to distinguish between different types of
    objects (here: points and positions of points), but physicists have the
    odd habbit of doing something odd, like using 'material points' and
    that in equations.



    It is just rediculus to regard the points themselves as part of an equation.

    It is common to use the same word for the symbol and the thing denoted
    by the symbol. For example the word "Thomas" is can refer to the name
    "Thomas" itself.

    Sure, my name is 'Thomas', but I'm not a name.

    TH


    --
    Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
    in England until 1987.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Aug 23 14:58:07 2024
    On 2024-08-23 06:27:37 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
    x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from the >>>>> center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the >>>>> center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x.

    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was
    placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k"
    is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article.

    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire paper,
    unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
    part I.3.

    Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

    I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the
    author states otherwise.



    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later
    'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover
    neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form part
    1.3 on page 3.

    That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.



    What you apparently want is simply inexaptable:
    you want the reader to find out, which definition is valid at a certain
    position of the text and which one already expired.

    What I want is perfectly acceptable: that the reader has a functional
    brain.


    It is a VERY bad idea, to 'fill the blancs' in a scientific text,
    because it would invite to see, what simply isn't there.


    The author needs to stick to a certain setting, because otherwise a
    reader could not jump backwards with reading in a paper, if the setting
    changes.

    It is not needed here, neither backwards nor forwards.


    Sure, you need to skip backwards, if you encounter a statement and
    simply forgot, what a certain symbol means.

    In Einstein's case, this was often necessary, because Einstein used
    very strange naming conventions.

    A very simple example would be the symbols for the four used coordinate systems: K, k, K' and k'.

    These symbols are easy to remember: all are variants of K, which is
    the first letter of Koordinaten-system. The only difference is that
    K denotes the coordinate system K, k denotes the coordinate system k,
    K' denotes the coordinate syste K', and k' denotes the coordinate
    system k'. All coordinate systems are intertial, and much else is
    not said about them so needn'd be remembered.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 23 15:43:50 2024
    Le 23/08/2024 à 08:14, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 12:58 schrieb Python:
    ...
    It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you? >>>>>>>
    AB was actually meant as:

    distance from A to B,

    even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would
    usually be the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

    Yes it would be absurd. BTW you are conflating affine spaces with
    vector spaces here.

    Besides of this little formal issue (actually meant was |r_AB| ), >>>>>>
    Well, Thomas, this is utterly ridiculous. Any reader understands what >>>>>> AB as it appears in 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) is the distance AB. From high >>>>>> school to Ph. D.

    "the distance AB" is not equal to "AB"!

    The distance between A and B can be denoted in a lot of ways. The point >>>> is to ensure that there is no ambiguity given the context. As a matter >>>> of fact Einstein in the ORIGINAL paper used an overbar on top of
    AB
    (https://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1905_17_891-921.pdf)

    So if there were someone to blame here, it would be the translator.



    I wrote annotations from a certain perspective:

    I treated the text in question as homework of a student and myself as
    hypothetical professor, who had to write corrections for that paper.

    You cannot pretend to be a professor, even hypothetical, when dealing
    with subject you are both ignorant of and too stupid to understand.

    I have already written, that this is a certain perspective of writing.

    I could - for instance - write a novel from the perspective of JFK,
    after being shot.

    You could complain, this is not possible.

    Sure, most likely this isn't.

    BUT: it's the author, who choses the writing perspective and not the
    reader.

    The reader can evaluate the quality and soundness of a text. Yours
    is abysmally bad and absolutely unsound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 23 15:46:46 2024
    Le 23/08/2024 à 08:27, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
    x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from
    the center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in
    the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x.

    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was
    placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k"
    is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article.

    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire paper,
    unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
    part I.3.

    Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

    I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the
    author states otherwise.

    But not the other way around. Nothing defined in §1.3 (like k or K)
    is involved in §1.2.

    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later
    'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover
    neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form part
    1.3 on page 3.

    Absolutely NOT. I was CLEARLY talking about §1.1. and §1.1 alone.

    Are you that stupid, hypocrite or both?

    That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.



    What you apparently want is simply inexaptable:
    you want the reader to find out, which definition is valid at a
    certain position of the text and which one already expired.

    What I want is perfectly acceptable: that the reader has a functional
    brain.


    It is a VERY bad idea, to 'fill the blancs' in a scientific text,
    because it would invite to see, what simply isn't there.

    It is a VERY good idea to use its brain, as long as it is functioning
    of course. Yours is NOT.

    [snip more idiocies]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 24 08:40:35 2024
    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 08:27 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
    x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from
    the center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in
    the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x.

    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was
    placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k"
    is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article.

    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire paper,
    unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
    part I.3.

    Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

    I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the
    author states otherwise.



    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later
    'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover
    neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form part
    1.3 on page 3.

    That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.

    SORRY!

    This was wrong.

    Me culpa!

    page 3 belongs to §1.1. and not to § 1.3.

    § 1.1 had not used two different coordinate systems in relative motion.
    Those were intruduced in the next chapter § 1.2.

    (Sorry, but I make errors, too.)


    In § 1.1. we have a different setting:

    assumed is a single coordinate system, where Newton's equations are
    valid and an euclidan space, in which that coordinate system is stationary.


    This setting is slightly different to the ones in the subsequent chapters.

    In fact Einstein assumed here some forcefree 'flat' Euclidean space, in
    which one single coordinate system would be considered.

    This setting is more or less motionless, hence different to the setting
    in the following chapters.

    I personally had sorted the mentioned variables in a certain way, which
    was actually different than Einstein's.

    For me such a single coordinate system in a forcefree euclidean space
    would allow only one single time measure, which is valid troughout this
    entire coordinate system.

    Clocks could not be synchronised by light signals, however, because
    light needs time to travel.

    To maintain the same time measure throughout that coordinate system,
    each remote clock needs to measure the transit delay and add that to a
    received timing signal, which would be sent out by kind of master clock
    in the center of the coordinate system.

    But this was NOT, what Einstein had in mind.

    Instead Einstein wanted to ignore the delay and turn the remote clocks
    to the received content of the timing signal (without compensation of
    the delay).




    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 24 09:02:23 2024
    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 13:58 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    In Einstein's case, this was often necessary, because Einstein used
    very strange naming conventions.

    A very simple example would be the symbols for the four used
    coordinate systems: K, k, K' and k'.

    These symbols are easy to remember: all are variants of K, which is
    the first letter of Koordinaten-system. The only difference is that
    K denotes the coordinate system K, k denotes the coordinate system k,
    K' denotes the coordinate syste K', and k' denotes the coordinate
    system k'. All coordinate systems are intertial, and much else is
    not said about them so needn'd be remembered.


    Well, but no.

    The symbols K, k, K' and k' use two variations:
    a) small and large letters
    b) primed and not primed letters

    Now 'small' means 'moving' (of k along the x-axis of K)

    But 'primed' means what????

    ' was used to denote movement in subsequent chapters.

    But here k' means the reverted movement of k along the x-axis of K with velocity -v.


    To me these naming conventions were just terrible.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 24 09:09:19 2024
    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 15:43 schrieb Python:
    ...

    I wrote annotations from a certain perspective:

    I treated the text in question as homework of a student and myself
    as hypothetical professor, who had to write corrections for that paper. >>>
    You cannot pretend to be a professor, even hypothetical, when dealing
    with subject you are both ignorant of and too stupid to understand.

    I have already written, that this is a certain perspective of writing.

    I could - for instance - write a novel from the perspective of JFK,
    after being shot.

    You could complain, this is not possible.

    Sure, most likely this isn't.

    BUT: it's the author, who choses the writing perspective and not the
    reader.

    The reader can evaluate the quality and soundness of a text. Yours
    is abysmally bad and absolutely unsound.

    Well, nobody required from you, that you have to like my 'annotations'.

    But in case of science, you need to substantiate your critique a little
    more than by just expressiong your dislike.

    For instance, you could disprove a few of my annotations:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sat Aug 24 11:11:09 2024
    On 2024-08-24 07:02:23 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 13:58 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    In Einstein's case, this was often necessary, because Einstein used
    very strange naming conventions.

    A very simple example would be the symbols for the four used coordinate
    systems: K, k, K' and k'.

    These symbols are easy to remember: all are variants of K, which is
    the first letter of Koordinaten-system. The only difference is that
    K denotes the coordinate system K, k denotes the coordinate system k,
    K' denotes the coordinate syste K', and k' denotes the coordinate
    system k'. All coordinate systems are intertial, and much else is
    not said about them so needn'd be remembered.


    Well, but no.

    The symbols K, k, K' and k' use two variations:
    a) small and large letters
    b) primed and not primed letters

    Now 'small' means 'moving' (of k along the x-axis of K)

    Of those that are used at the same time, everyone is moving relative
    to every other.

    But 'primed' means what????

    Nothing by itself. It is used to create a symbol that is different
    but not too different from an earlier symbol.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 25 09:01:16 2024
    Am Samstag000024, 24.08.2024 um 10:11 schrieb Mikko:
    On 2024-08-24 07:02:23 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 13:58 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    In Einstein's case, this was often necessary, because Einstein used
    very strange naming conventions.

    A very simple example would be the symbols for the four used
    coordinate systems: K, k, K' and k'.

    These symbols are easy to remember: all are variants of K, which is
    the first letter of Koordinaten-system. The only difference is that
    K denotes the coordinate system K, k denotes the coordinate system k,
    K' denotes the coordinate syste K', and k' denotes the coordinate
    system k'. All coordinate systems are intertial, and much else is
    not said about them so needn'd be remembered.


    Well, but no.

    The symbols K, k, K' and k' use two variations:
    a) small and large letters
    b) primed and not primed letters

    Now 'small' means 'moving' (of k along the x-axis of K)

    Of those that are used at the same time, everyone is moving relative
    to every other.

    But 'primed' means what????

    Nothing by itself. It is used to create a symbol that is different
    but not too different from an earlier symbol.

    Yes, but I have critized this, because any symbol used should have a
    meaning.

    So ' should have a meaning of some sort and the author should stick to
    that meaning, because otherwise is get's really annyoing to read such a
    paper.

    It would actually be nice, if an author would also tell the reader, what interpretation of a symbol was intended.

    But many readers are able to find out on their own, what an author
    eventually meant.

    But even such readers could get really frustrated, if the symbol alters
    it's meaning within a longish text.

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to actually on Sun Aug 25 09:21:57 2024
    Le 24/08/2024 à 08:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 08:27 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
    x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from
    the center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in >>>>>> the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x.

    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was >>>>> placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k"
    is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article.

    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire paper,
    unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
    part I.3.

    Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

    I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the
    author states otherwise.



    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later
    'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover
    neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form
    part 1.3 on page 3.

    That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.

    SORRY!

    This was wrong.

    Me culpa!

    page 3 belongs to §1.1. and not to § 1.3.

    § 1.1 had not used two different coordinate systems in relative motion. Those were intruduced in the next chapter § 1.2.

    (Sorry, but I make errors, too.)

    Good to hear. Now you may consider that you've made a LOT of errors.
    Including below:

    In § 1.1. we have a different setting:

    assumed is a single coordinate system, where Newton's equations are
    valid and an euclidan space, in which that coordinate system is stationary.


    This setting is slightly different to the ones in the subsequent chapters.

    This setting is what allows to make sense of sytems k, K, etc. later.

    In fact Einstein assumed here some forcefree 'flat' Euclidean space, in
    which one single coordinate system would be considered.

    This setting is more or less motionless, hence different to the setting
    in the following chapters.

    Nothing prevent considering several coordinate systems of the same kind,
    in relative motion wrt each others. This is actually what he's doing
    there.

    I personally had sorted the mentioned variables in a certain way, which
    was actually different than Einstein's.

    Again adding stuff that is asinine and unrelated to what Einstein
    actually wrote?

    For me such a single coordinate system in a forcefree euclidean space
    would allow only one single time measure, which is valid troughout this entire coordinate system.

    This is basically ok.

    Clocks could not be synchronised by light signals, however, because
    light needs time to travel.

    Einstein (following Poincaré's work) showed that it can be done, taking propagation time into account.

    To maintain the same time measure throughout that coordinate system,
    each remote clock needs to measure the transit delay and add that to a received timing signal, which would be sent out by kind of master clock
    in the center of the coordinate system.

    But this was NOT, what Einstein had in mind.

    What is right is that you do not need a "master clock", as you can
    synchronized every pair of clocks separately. You can also pick
    one clock as the "master clock" and synchronize every other clock
    against it, using the same method. This is practically how it is
    done in real lab experiments.

    Instead Einstein wanted to ignore the delay and turn the remote clocks
    to the received content of the timing signal (without compensation of
    the delay).

    Eistein didn't want to ignore the delay, quite the opposite: he coined
    up a way to embedded this delay into the convention stated by
    t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 25 09:26:04 2024
    Le 24/08/2024 à 09:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 15:43 schrieb Python:
    ...

    I wrote annotations from a certain perspective:

    I treated the text in question as homework of a student and myself
    as hypothetical professor, who had to write corrections for that
    paper.

    You cannot pretend to be a professor, even hypothetical, when dealing
    with subject you are both ignorant of and too stupid to understand.

    I have already written, that this is a certain perspective of writing.

    I could - for instance - write a novel from the perspective of JFK,
    after being shot.

    You could complain, this is not possible.

    Sure, most likely this isn't.

    BUT: it's the author, who choses the writing perspective and not the
    reader.

    The reader can evaluate the quality and soundness of a text. Yours
    is abysmally bad and absolutely unsound.

    Well, nobody required from you, that you have to like my 'annotations'.

    But in case of science, you need to substantiate your critique a little
    more than by just expressiong your dislike.

    For instance, you could disprove a few of my annotations:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view

    I've already disproved your claim about Einstein not taking into account
    light propagation time when synchronizing clocks.

    A LOT of people have disprove most of you annotations: they are ALL
    utterly idiotic and nonsensical.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 25 09:30:46 2024
    W dniu 25.08.2024 o 09:21, Python pisze:
    Le 24/08/2024 à 08:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 08:27 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too. >>>>>>>> x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from >>>>>>> the center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B
    in the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x. >>>>>>
    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was >>>>>> placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k"
    is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article. >>>>>
    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire
    paper, unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
    part I.3.

    Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

    I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the
    author states otherwise.



    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later
    'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover
    neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form
    part 1.3 on page 3.

    That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.

    SORRY!

    This was wrong.

    Me culpa!

    page 3 belongs to §1.1. and not to § 1.3.

    § 1.1 had not used two different coordinate systems in relative
    motion. Those were intruduced in the next chapter § 1.2.

    (Sorry, but I make errors, too.)

    Good to hear. Now you may consider that you've made a LOT of errors. Including below:

    In § 1.1. we have a different setting:

    assumed is a single coordinate system, where Newton's equations are
    valid and an euclidan space, in which that coordinate system is
    stationary.


    This setting is slightly different to the ones in the subsequent
    chapters.

    This setting is what allows to make sense of sytems k, K, etc. later.

    In fact Einstein assumed here some forcefree 'flat' Euclidean space,
    in which one single coordinate system would be considered.

    This setting is more or less motionless, hence different to the
    setting in the following chapters.

    Nothing prevent considering several coordinate systems of the same kind,
    in relative motion wrt each others. This is actually what he's doing
    there.

    I personally had sorted the mentioned variables in a certain way,
    which was actually different than Einstein's.

    Again adding stuff that is asinine and unrelated to what Einstein
    actually wrote?

    For me such a single coordinate system in a forcefree euclidean space
    would allow only one single time measure, which is valid troughout
    this entire coordinate system.

    This is basically ok.

    Clocks could not be synchronised by light signals, however, because
    light needs time to travel.

    Einstein (following Poincaré's work) showed

    Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 25 09:55:46 2024
    W dniu 25.08.2024 o 09:48, Python pisze:
    Le 25/08/2024 à 09:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.08.2024 o 09:21, Python pisze:
    Le 24/08/2024 à 08:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 08:27 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too. >>>>>>>>>> x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in >>>>>>>>>> general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance >>>>>>>>> from the center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B >>>>>>>>> in the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x. >>>>>>>>
    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k >>>>>>>> was
    placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k" >>>>>>>> is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article. >>>>>>>
    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire
    paper, unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
    part I.3.

    Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

    I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the >>>>> author states otherwise.



    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later
    'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover >>>>>> neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form
    part 1.3 on page 3.

    That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.

    SORRY!

    This was wrong.

    Me culpa!

    page 3 belongs to §1.1. and not to § 1.3.

    § 1.1 had not used two different coordinate systems in relative
    motion. Those were intruduced in the next chapter § 1.2.

    (Sorry, but I make errors, too.)

    Good to hear. Now you may consider that you've made a LOT of errors.
    Including below:

    In § 1.1. we have a different setting:

    assumed is a single coordinate system, where Newton's equations are
    valid and an euclidan space, in which that coordinate system is
    stationary.


    This setting is slightly different to the ones in the subsequent
    chapters.

    This setting is what allows to make sense of sytems k, K, etc. later.

    In fact Einstein assumed here some forcefree 'flat' Euclidean space,
    in which one single coordinate system would be considered.

    This setting is more or less motionless, hence different to the
    setting in the following chapters.

    Nothing prevent considering several coordinate systems of the same kind, >>> in relative motion wrt each others. This is actually what he's doing
    there.

    I personally had sorted the mentioned variables in a certain way,
    which was actually different than Einstein's.

    Again adding stuff that is asinine and unrelated to what Einstein
    actually wrote?

    For me such a single coordinate system in a forcefree euclidean
    space would allow only one single time measure, which is valid
    troughout this entire coordinate system.

    This is basically ok.

    Clocks could not be synchronised by light signals, however, because
    light needs time to travel.

    Einstein (following Poincaré's work) showed

    Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to [idiotic whining]

    Whatever (yawn)...

    I've just receive this book by the post:

    Great for you, but whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).


    Einstein's clocks and Poincaré's maps
    by Peter Galison

    https://archive.org/details/einsteinsclocksp00gali



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 25 09:48:31 2024
    Le 25/08/2024 à 09:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.08.2024 o 09:21, Python pisze:
    Le 24/08/2024 à 08:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 08:27 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too. >>>>>>>>> x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance
    from the center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B >>>>>>>> in the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x. >>>>>>>
    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was >>>>>>> placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k" >>>>>>> is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article. >>>>>>
    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire
    paper, unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
    part I.3.

    Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

    I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the
    author states otherwise.



    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later
    'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover >>>>> neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form
    part 1.3 on page 3.

    That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.

    SORRY!

    This was wrong.

    Me culpa!

    page 3 belongs to §1.1. and not to § 1.3.

    § 1.1 had not used two different coordinate systems in relative
    motion. Those were intruduced in the next chapter § 1.2.

    (Sorry, but I make errors, too.)

    Good to hear. Now you may consider that you've made a LOT of errors.
    Including below:

    In § 1.1. we have a different setting:

    assumed is a single coordinate system, where Newton's equations are
    valid and an euclidan space, in which that coordinate system is
    stationary.


    This setting is slightly different to the ones in the subsequent
    chapters.

    This setting is what allows to make sense of sytems k, K, etc. later.

    In fact Einstein assumed here some forcefree 'flat' Euclidean space,
    in which one single coordinate system would be considered.

    This setting is more or less motionless, hence different to the
    setting in the following chapters.

    Nothing prevent considering several coordinate systems of the same kind,
    in relative motion wrt each others. This is actually what he's doing
    there.

    I personally had sorted the mentioned variables in a certain way,
    which was actually different than Einstein's.

    Again adding stuff that is asinine and unrelated to what Einstein
    actually wrote?

    For me such a single coordinate system in a forcefree euclidean space
    would allow only one single time measure, which is valid troughout
    this entire coordinate system.

    This is basically ok.

    Clocks could not be synchronised by light signals, however, because
    light needs time to travel.

    Einstein (following Poincaré's work) showed

    Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to [idiotic whining]

    Whatever (yawn)...

    I've just receive this book by the post:

    Einstein's clocks and Poincaré's maps
    by Peter Galison

    https://archive.org/details/einsteinsclocksp00gali

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Aug 25 12:03:30 2024
    On 2024-08-25 07:01:16 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Samstag000024, 24.08.2024 um 10:11 schrieb Mikko:
    On 2024-08-24 07:02:23 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 13:58 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    In Einstein's case, this was often necessary, because Einstein used
    very strange naming conventions.

    A very simple example would be the symbols for the four used coordinate >>>>> systems: K, k, K' and k'.

    These symbols are easy to remember: all are variants of K, which is
    the first letter of Koordinaten-system. The only difference is that
    K denotes the coordinate system K, k denotes the coordinate system k,
    K' denotes the coordinate syste K', and k' denotes the coordinate
    system k'. All coordinate systems are intertial, and much else is
    not said about them so needn'd be remembered.


    Well, but no.

    The symbols K, k, K' and k' use two variations:
    a) small and large letters
    b) primed and not primed letters

    Now 'small' means 'moving' (of k along the x-axis of K)

    Of those that are used at the same time, everyone is moving relative
    to every other.

    But 'primed' means what????

    Nothing by itself. It is used to create a symbol that is different
    but not too different from an earlier symbol.

    Yes, but I have critized this, because any symbol used should have a meaning.

    The meaning "yet another coordinate system" is a meaning.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 25 11:10:16 2024
    Le 25/08/2024 à 11:03, Mikko a écrit :
    On 2024-08-25 07:01:16 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Samstag000024, 24.08.2024 um 10:11 schrieb Mikko:
    On 2024-08-24 07:02:23 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 13:58 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    In Einstein's case, this was often necessary, because Einstein
    used very strange naming conventions.

    A very simple example would be the symbols for the four used
    coordinate systems: K, k, K' and k'.

    These symbols are easy to remember: all are variants of K, which is
    the first letter of Koordinaten-system. The only difference is that
    K denotes the coordinate system K, k denotes the coordinate system k, >>>>> K' denotes the coordinate syste K', and k' denotes the coordinate
    system k'. All coordinate systems are intertial, and much else is
    not said about them so needn'd be remembered.


    Well, but no.

    The symbols K, k, K' and k' use two variations:
    a) small and large letters
    b) primed and not primed letters

    Now 'small' means 'moving' (of k along the x-axis of K)

    Of those that are used at the same time, everyone is moving relative
    to every other.

    But 'primed' means what????

    Nothing by itself. It is used to create a symbol that is different
    but not too different from an earlier symbol.

    Yes, but I have critized this, because any symbol used should have a
    meaning.

    The meaning "yet another coordinate system" is a meaning.

    Thomas argument is of the kind: "Well this recipe show how to cook one
    apple pie but I have a problem now: I want to cook two pies.".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 07:47:49 2024
    Am Sonntag000025, 25.08.2024 um 09:01 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am Samstag000024, 24.08.2024 um 10:11 schrieb Mikko:
    On 2024-08-24 07:02:23 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 13:58 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    In Einstein's case, this was often necessary, because Einstein used
    very strange naming conventions.

    A very simple example would be the symbols for the four used
    coordinate systems: K, k, K' and k'.

    These symbols are easy to remember: all are variants of K, which is
    the first letter of Koordinaten-system. The only difference is that
    K denotes the coordinate system K, k denotes the coordinate system k,
    K' denotes the coordinate syste K', and k' denotes the coordinate
    system k'. All coordinate systems are intertial, and much else is
    not said about them so needn'd be remembered.


    Well, but no.

    The symbols K, k, K' and k' use two variations:
    a) small and large letters
    b) primed and not primed letters

    Now 'small' means 'moving' (of k along the x-axis of K)

    Of those that are used at the same time, everyone is moving relative
    to every other.

    But 'primed' means what????

    Nothing by itself. It is used to create a symbol that is different
    but not too different from an earlier symbol.


    To illustrate the problem of Einstein's naming conventions, I write now,
    what these names actually meant:


    K is a cartesian coordinate system, assumed to be at rest, non-rotating
    and unaccelerated in an Euclidean space, which is assumed to 'flat' and
    force free.

    The orientations of the axes (of x, y and z) were not mentioned, but I
    use this setting:
    x points right
    y points 'inside' (if x and z define a two-dimensional plane, like the
    one you draw on)
    z points up (because z is usually used for hight)


    k is an equally normed coordinate system, which moves with velocity v
    along the x-axis of K 'to the right'. The coordinates had Greek letters
    as names (xsi, eta, zeta).


    K' is a coordinate system with the same features as K, but which moves
    from the center of k along the xsi-axis of k 'to the left' with velocity -v


    k' is the same, but moving to the left with velocity -w along the
    xsi-axis of k. (the difference between K' and k' is a diffent velocity w
    in case of k').


    But how could possibly anybody interpret the names K, k, K' and k' in
    this way?

    It required careful investigations to find out, what was actually meant.

    And the used names themselves gave absolutely no hints, about how these
    symbols shall be interpreted.

    In short: it is a very obscure system to name things!

    Usually you need to find a way, by which things get names in a
    consistent manner, which the reader could eventually remember.


    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 08:05:50 2024
    Am Sonntag000025, 25.08.2024 um 09:21 schrieb Python:
    Le 24/08/2024 à 08:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 08:27 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too. >>>>>>>> x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from >>>>>>> the center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B
    in the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x. >>>>>>
    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was >>>>>> placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k"
    is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article. >>>>>
    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire
    paper, unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
    part I.3.

    Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

    I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the
    author states otherwise.



    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later
    'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover
    neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form
    part 1.3 on page 3.

    That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.

    SORRY!

    This was wrong.

    Me culpa!

    page 3 belongs to §1.1. and not to § 1.3.

    § 1.1 had not used two different coordinate systems in relative
    motion. Those were intruduced in the next chapter § 1.2.

    (Sorry, but I make errors, too.)

    Good to hear. Now you may consider that you've made a LOT of errors. Including below:

    In § 1.1. we have a different setting:

    assumed is a single coordinate system, where Newton's equations are
    valid and an euclidan space, in which that coordinate system is
    stationary.


    This setting is slightly different to the ones in the subsequent
    chapters.

    This setting is what allows to make sense of sytems k, K, etc. later.

    In fact Einstein assumed here some forcefree 'flat' Euclidean space,
    in which one single coordinate system would be considered.

    This setting is more or less motionless, hence different to the
    setting in the following chapters.

    Nothing prevent considering several coordinate systems of the same kind,
    in relative motion wrt each others. This is actually what he's doing
    there.


    Sure, but that wasn't the point in our dispute.

    You insisted on the realm of validity of definitions to be after the introdutcion of a term only.

    I hold the proposition, that definitions should not alter within a
    paper, hence any defined term actaually acts 'backwards', too.

    E.g. if a certain symbol like eg. 'µ' is defined on the last page of a
    paper, this definition is also valid on the first page.

    You wrote, that definitions are only valid after the definition.
    Therefor you would allow changes of definitions, while I don't.


    I personally had sorted the mentioned variables in a certain way,
    which was actually different than Einstein's.

    Again adding stuff that is asinine and unrelated to what Einstein
    actually wrote?

    For me such a single coordinate system in a forcefree euclidean space
    would allow only one single time measure, which is valid troughout
    this entire coordinate system.

    This is basically ok.

    Clocks could not be synchronised by light signals, however, because
    light needs time to travel.

    Einstein (following Poincaré's work) showed that it can be done, taking propagation time into account.


    You always say, that Einstein did take delay into accout, but failed to
    show me, where he did this.

    Some equations and staements can be interpreted, that he considered
    delay. But there are no equations or staments, that he would like to add
    that delay to a received timing signal by someone on the far side.

    This is actually the critical point, because Einstein's paper reads, as
    if he didn't want to do this and used uncorrected timing values.

    If you found hints, which suggest something else, you should quote the particular statement or equation here.

    What you have done sofar was to quote an equation, which would enable to calculate the delay. But we need an equation, where this value was
    actually used.

    btw: the usual cosmology is also based on this error, too, because
    cosmology deals with stars, which can be seen (usually in a telescope).

    But what we see belongs to the past, hence does not belong to what is
    called 'hyperplane of the present'.

    And you would not want to synchronize your clocks with events in the past.

    E.g. if you see a signal from Alpha Centaury, you would need to add
    roughly three years to the received time from the timing signal.

    Without such compensation you would regard as related, what belongs to different times in the past.


    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Mon Aug 26 10:12:19 2024
    On 2024-08-21 06:15:23 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    My point was, that 'AB' is not a valid symbol for 'distance from point
    A to point B'.

    If is, from a long geometric tradition. The notation AB, where A and B are points, is traditionally used both for the line segment AB and the distance between A and B.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Mon Aug 26 10:06:36 2024
    On 2024-08-18 09:57:35 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Samstag000017, 17.08.2024 um 14:52 schrieb Python:
    **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**

    *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*

    What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think
    you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to
    produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability to
    pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a perfectly
    well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve seen this
    before with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies, like
    atomic clocks in the receivers or synchronization with a clock
    infinitely far away in a fourth spatial dimension...

    This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure
    described by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place 17
    years ago and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and
    fr.sci.physique.

    https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ

    *Reminders on the Procedure:*

    Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other at
    a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within measurement
    accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the same rate."
    NOTHING more is assumed, especially regarding the time they display;
    the purpose is PRECISELY to adjust one of these clocks by applying a
    correction after a calculation involving the values indicated on these
    clocks during specific events, events that occur AT THE LOCATION OF
    EACH CLOCK.

    Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure but a
    method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main difference
    from Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven that Poincaré’s
    method leads to clocks synchronized in Einstein’s sense. You can also
    transform Einstein’s verification method into a synchronization
    procedure because it allows calculating the correction to apply to
    clock A.

    *Steps of Einstein's Method:*

    When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B.

    When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a light
    signal is sent from B back towards A.

    When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.

    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize
    clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you
    would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    No, it does not mutually symmetric methods. Such methods make the
    presentation of the theory easier but do not affect the theory.
    Einstein chose a symmetric method because otherwise his text would
    be harder to read and understand.

    But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme, because Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.

    So you say but cannot prove.

    If A and B are located at different places in the universe and maintain
    their distance (at least as long as the procedure lasts), then delay
    B) should be equal to delay(B->A).

    There is no should be. Einstein simply defined that if those delays are
    equal then the clocks are synchronous, otherwise they aren't.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 10:14:17 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 07:47, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    To illustrate the problem of Einstein's naming conventions, I write now,
    what these names actually meant:


    K is a cartesian coordinate system, assumed to be at rest, non-rotating
    and unaccelerated in an Euclidean space, which is assumed to 'flat' and
    force free.

    The orientations of the axes (of x, y and z) were not mentioned, but I
    use this setting:
    x points right
    y points 'inside' (if x and z define a two-dimensional plane, like the
    one you draw on)
    z points up (because z is usually used for hight)


    k is an equally normed coordinate system, which moves with velocity v
    along the x-axis of K 'to the right'. The coordinates had Greek letters
    as names (xsi, eta, zeta).


    K' is a coordinate system with the same features as K, but which moves
    from the center of k along the xsi-axis of k 'to the left' with velocity -v


    k' is the same, but moving to the left with velocity -w along the
    xsi-axis of k. (the difference between K' and k' is a diffent velocity w
    in case of k').


    But how could possibly anybody interpret the names K, k, K' and k' in
    this way?

    It required careful investigations to find out, what was actually meant.

    And the used names themselves gave absolutely no hints, about how these symbols shall be interpreted.

    In short: it is a very obscure system to name things!

    Usually you need to find a way, by which things get names in a
    consistent manner, which the reader could eventually remember

    What you say is very interesting.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 10:42:00 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 08:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    You always say, that Einstein did take delay into accout, but failed to
    show me, where he did this.

    Some equations and staements can be interpreted, that he considered
    delay. But there are no equations or staments, that he would like to add
    that delay to a received timing signal by someone on the far side.

    This is actually the critical point, because Einstein's paper reads, as
    if he didn't want to do this and used uncorrected timing values.

    If you found hints, which suggest something else, you should quote the particular statement or equation here.

    What you have done sofar was to quote an equation, which would enable to calculate the delay. But we need an equation, where this value was
    actually used.

    btw: the usual cosmology is also based on this error, too, because
    cosmology deals with stars, which can be seen (usually in a telescope).

    But what we see belongs to the past, hence does not belong to what is
    called 'hyperplane of the present'.

    And you would not want to synchronize your clocks with events in the past.

    E.g. if you see a signal from Alpha Centaury, you would need to add
    roughly three years to the received time from the timing signal.

    Without such compensation you would regard as related, what belongs to different times in the past.

    C'est cette idée que je critique.

    La notion d'hyperplan de temps absolu, de présent absolu, d'instant
    absolu est une notion qui est infuse à l'esprit humain. Mais c'est une
    notion abtraite, fausse, imaginaire.
    L'univers n'est pas fait "comme ça".

    L'hyperplan de temps présent, de simultanéité, dépend de la position
    de chaque observateur, dans chaque référentiel. Ce n'est pas une notion absolue.

    Il va donc falloir des correctifs pour synchroniser les choses.

    Cela va devenir pire si, de plus, un corps M voyage entre A et B
    statiques. Le corps A dans son hyperplan parfait, observe l'hyperplan de
    temps présent de B comme déformé en hypercône de temps présent. Et réciproquement.
    Le corps M va donc évoluer en quittant de plus en plus l'hyperplan
    temporel de A pour rejoindre l'hyperplan temporel de B. C'est simple à comprendre.
    Son temps va évoluer en prenant de plus en plus la notion de B et de
    moins en moins la notion de A, c'est à dire que progressivement devenir
    à la fois t'=(t-x/c) et t"=(t+ x/c). Les deux effets ne s'annulent pas,
    mais se multiplient. On va donc obstenir un nouveau temps t°²=t'²-t"²
    soit t°²=(t-x/c)(t+x). /c) avec x/c=vt/c et donc t°²=t²-t²(v²/c²)
    soit t°=t.sqrt(1-v²/c²) Pour le corps mobile apparaît cette fois un
    nouvel effet physique , une dilatation de sa chronotropie interne (effet réciproque) en PLUS du décalage horaire (anisochronie).

    Bref, il ne faut pas croire à l'idée de plan GENERAL, UNIVERSEL du temps présent (ou d'hyperplan 3D du temps présent).

    La façon dont j'appréhende le temps présent est purement locale, et
    purement individuelle.

    De plus, si je suis mobile par rapport à quelques choses va encore
    s'ajouter un problème, les montres qui déjà se désynchronisent pas changement de position, se désynchronisent encore plus dans le sens où
    même leur chronotropie INTERNE va se dérégler, ne battant même plus à
    la même vitesse.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 12:27:53 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 08:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000025, 25.08.2024 um 09:21 schrieb Python:
    Le 24/08/2024 à 08:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 08:27 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too. >>>>>>>>> x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
    general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance
    from the center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B >>>>>>>> in the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x. >>>>>>>
    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was >>>>>>> placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k" >>>>>>> is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article. >>>>>>
    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire
    paper, unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
    part I.3.

    Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

    I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the
    author states otherwise.



    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later
    'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover >>>>> neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form
    part 1.3 on page 3.

    That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.

    SORRY!

    This was wrong.

    Me culpa!

    page 3 belongs to §1.1. and not to § 1.3.

    § 1.1 had not used two different coordinate systems in relative
    motion. Those were intruduced in the next chapter § 1.2.

    (Sorry, but I make errors, too.)

    Good to hear. Now you may consider that you've made a LOT of errors.
    Including below:

    In § 1.1. we have a different setting:

    assumed is a single coordinate system, where Newton's equations are
    valid and an euclidan space, in which that coordinate system is
    stationary.


    This setting is slightly different to the ones in the subsequent
    chapters.

    This setting is what allows to make sense of sytems k, K, etc. later.

    In fact Einstein assumed here some forcefree 'flat' Euclidean space,
    in which one single coordinate system would be considered.

    This setting is more or less motionless, hence different to the
    setting in the following chapters.

    Nothing prevent considering several coordinate systems of the same kind,
    in relative motion wrt each others. This is actually what he's doing
    there.


    Sure, but that wasn't the point in our dispute.

    You insisted on the realm of validity of definitions to be after the introdutcion of a term only.

    I hold the proposition, that definitions should not alter within a
    paper, hence any defined term actaually acts 'backwards', too.

    E.g. if a certain symbol like eg. 'µ' is defined on the last page of a paper, this definition is also valid on the first page.

    You wrote, that definitions are only valid after the definition.
    Therefor you would allow changes of definitions, while I don't.

    This reminds me this old joke:

    https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/476677941782239946/

    "Just a darn minute! — Yesterday you said that X equals two!"

    I personally had sorted the mentioned variables in a certain way,
    which was actually different than Einstein's.

    Again adding stuff that is asinine and unrelated to what Einstein
    actually wrote?

    For me such a single coordinate system in a forcefree euclidean space
    would allow only one single time measure, which is valid troughout
    this entire coordinate system.

    This is basically ok.

    Clocks could not be synchronised by light signals, however, because
    light needs time to travel.

    Einstein (following Poincaré's work) showed that it can be done, taking
    propagation time into account.


    You always say, that Einstein did take delay into accout, but failed to
    show me, where he did this.

    I did numerous time

    Some equations and staements can be interpreted, that he considered
    delay. But there are no equations or staments, that he would like to add
    that delay to a received timing signal by someone on the far side.

    This is actually the critical point, because Einstein's paper reads, as
    if he didn't want to do this and used uncorrected timing values.

    This is a silly interpretation on your part.

    If you found hints, which suggest something else, you should quote the particular statement or equation here.

    I did, numerous time.

    What you have done sofar was to quote an equation, which would enable to calculate the delay. But we need an equation, where this value was
    actually used.

    I've shown you what the delay is, where it appears in the equations and
    how it is used.

    btw: the usual cosmology is also based on this error, too, because
    cosmology deals with stars, which can be seen (usually in a telescope).

    This is untrue. For instance maps of the Universe that has been
    published by cosmologists actually take light propagation time
    into account to be computed.

    Stop making up stupid stuff out of nowhere when you fail to check facts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 10:43:40 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 12:27, Python a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 08:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000025, 25.08.2024 um 09:21 schrieb Python:
    Le 24/08/2024 à 08:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 08:27 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too. >>>>>>>>>> x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in >>>>>>>>>> general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance >>>>>>>>> from the center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B >>>>>>>>> in the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x. >>>>>>>>
    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was >>>>>>>> placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k" >>>>>>>> is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article. >>>>>>>
    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire
    paper, unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
    part I.3.

    Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

    I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the >>>>> author states otherwise.



    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later
    'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover >>>>>> neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form
    part 1.3 on page 3.

    That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.

    SORRY!

    This was wrong.

    Me culpa!

    page 3 belongs to §1.1. and not to § 1.3.

    § 1.1 had not used two different coordinate systems in relative
    motion. Those were intruduced in the next chapter § 1.2.

    (Sorry, but I make errors, too.)

    Good to hear. Now you may consider that you've made a LOT of errors.
    Including below:

    In § 1.1. we have a different setting:

    assumed is a single coordinate system, where Newton's equations are
    valid and an euclidan space, in which that coordinate system is
    stationary.


    This setting is slightly different to the ones in the subsequent
    chapters.

    This setting is what allows to make sense of sytems k, K, etc. later.

    In fact Einstein assumed here some forcefree 'flat' Euclidean space,
    in which one single coordinate system would be considered.

    This setting is more or less motionless, hence different to the
    setting in the following chapters.

    Nothing prevent considering several coordinate systems of the same kind, >>> in relative motion wrt each others. This is actually what he's doing
    there.


    Sure, but that wasn't the point in our dispute.

    You insisted on the realm of validity of definitions to be after the
    introdutcion of a term only.

    I hold the proposition, that definitions should not alter within a
    paper, hence any defined term actaually acts 'backwards', too.

    E.g. if a certain symbol like eg. 'µ' is defined on the last page of a
    paper, this definition is also valid on the first page.

    You wrote, that definitions are only valid after the definition.
    Therefor you would allow changes of definitions, while I don't.

    This reminds me this old joke:

    https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/476677941782239946/

    "Just a darn minute! — Yesterday you said that X equals two!"

    I personally had sorted the mentioned variables in a certain way,
    which was actually different than Einstein's.

    Again adding stuff that is asinine and unrelated to what Einstein
    actually wrote?

    For me such a single coordinate system in a forcefree euclidean space
    would allow only one single time measure, which is valid troughout
    this entire coordinate system.

    This is basically ok.

    Clocks could not be synchronised by light signals, however, because
    light needs time to travel.

    Einstein (following Poincaré's work) showed that it can be done, taking >>> propagation time into account.


    You always say, that Einstein did take delay into accout, but failed to
    show me, where he did this.

    I did numerous time

    Some equations and staements can be interpreted, that he considered
    delay. But there are no equations or staments, that he would like to add
    that delay to a received timing signal by someone on the far side.

    This is actually the critical point, because Einstein's paper reads, as
    if he didn't want to do this and used uncorrected timing values.

    This is a silly interpretation on your part.

    If you found hints, which suggest something else, you should quote the
    particular statement or equation here.

    I did, numerous time.

    What you have done sofar was to quote an equation, which would enable to
    calculate the delay. But we need an equation, where this value was
    actually used.

    I've shown you what the delay is, where it appears in the equations and
    how it is used.

    btw: the usual cosmology is also based on this error, too, because
    cosmology deals with stars, which can be seen (usually in a telescope).

    This is untrue. For instance maps of the Universe that has been
    published by cosmologists actually take light propagation time
    into account to be computed.

    Stop making up stupid stuff out of nowhere when you fail to check facts.

    Mais laisse Thomas Heger parler.

    Il dit des choses plus intelligentes que toi.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 12:51:51 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 12:43, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 12:27, Python a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 08:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000025, 25.08.2024 um 09:21 schrieb Python:
    Le 24/08/2024 à 08:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 08:27 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
    Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:

    Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too. >>>>>>>>>>> x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in >>>>>>>>>>> general, the distance between origins of K and k.

    'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance >>>>>>>>>> from the center of K to a point on the x-axis.

    Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and >>>>>>>>>> B in the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually >>>>>>>>>> be x.

    Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system >>>>>>>>> k was
    placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k" >>>>>>>>> is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E.
    article.

    Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire
    paper, unless stated otherwise.

    Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in >>>>>>> part I.3.

    Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

    I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless
    the author states otherwise.



    If an author defines some variable or other setting and later
    'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

    And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER,
    moreover
    neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

    Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form >>>>>> part 1.3 on page 3.

    That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.

    SORRY!

    This was wrong.

    Me culpa!

    page 3 belongs to §1.1. and not to § 1.3.

    § 1.1 had not used two different coordinate systems in relative
    motion. Those were intruduced in the next chapter § 1.2.

    (Sorry, but I make errors, too.)

    Good to hear. Now you may consider that you've made a LOT of errors.
    Including below:

    In § 1.1. we have a different setting:

    assumed is a single coordinate system, where Newton's equations are
    valid and an euclidan space, in which that coordinate system is
    stationary.


    This setting is slightly different to the ones in the subsequent
    chapters.

    This setting is what allows to make sense of sytems k, K, etc. later.

    In fact Einstein assumed here some forcefree 'flat' Euclidean
    space, in which one single coordinate system would be considered.

    This setting is more or less motionless, hence different to the
    setting in the following chapters.

    Nothing prevent considering several coordinate systems of the same
    kind,
    in relative motion wrt each others. This is actually what he's doing
    there.


    Sure, but that wasn't the point in our dispute.

    You insisted on the realm of validity of definitions to be after the
    introdutcion of a term only.

    I hold the proposition, that definitions should not alter within a
    paper, hence any defined term actaually acts 'backwards', too.

    E.g. if a certain symbol like eg. 'µ' is defined on the last page of
    a paper, this definition is also valid on the first page.

    You wrote, that definitions are only valid after the definition.
    Therefor you would allow changes of definitions, while I don't.

    This reminds me this old joke:

    https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/476677941782239946/

    "Just a darn minute! — Yesterday you said that X equals two!"

    I personally had sorted the mentioned variables in a certain way,
    which was actually different than Einstein's.

    Again adding stuff that is asinine and unrelated to what Einstein
    actually wrote?

    For me such a single coordinate system in a forcefree euclidean
    space would allow only one single time measure, which is valid
    troughout this entire coordinate system.

    This is basically ok.

    Clocks could not be synchronised by light signals, however, because
    light needs time to travel.

    Einstein (following Poincaré's work) showed that it can be done, taking >>>> propagation time into account.


    You always say, that Einstein did take delay into accout, but failed
    to show me, where he did this.

    I did numerous time

    Some equations and staements can be interpreted, that he considered
    delay. But there are no equations or staments, that he would like to
    add that delay to a received timing signal by someone on the far side.

    This is actually the critical point, because Einstein's paper reads,
    as if he didn't want to do this and used uncorrected timing values.

    This is a silly interpretation on your part.

    If you found hints, which suggest something else, you should quote
    the particular statement or equation here.

    I did, numerous time.

    What you have done sofar was to quote an equation, which would enable
    to calculate the delay. But we need an equation, where this value was
    actually used.

    I've shown you what the delay is, where it appears in the equations and
    how it is used.

    btw: the usual cosmology is also based on this error, too, because
    cosmology deals with stars, which can be seen (usually in a telescope).

    This is untrue. For instance maps of the Universe that has been
    published by cosmologists actually take light propagation time
    into account to be computed.

    Stop making up stupid stuff out of nowhere when you fail to check facts.

    Mais laisse Thomas Heger parler.

    Objecting to obvious LIES is in no way "not letting someone speak".

    Why are you cranks always whining that getting reactions to your lies
    and idiocies are censorship? What a bunch of snowflakes!

    Il dit des choses plus intelligentes que toi.

    I'm not surprised you find "lies" to be "interesting things".

    After all, 50% of your own "production" is lies, the remaining
    50% being nonsense and contradiction.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 13:02:48 2024
    W dniu 26.08.2024 o 12:51, Python pisze:

    Why are you cranks always whining that getting reactions to your lies
    and idiocies are censorship?


    They're just provoking relativistic
    stinkers to slander about bottles
    of vodka or nurses. No censorship,
    of course.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 13:12:38 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.08.2024 o 12:51, Python pisze:

    Why are you cranks always whining that getting reactions to your lies
    and idiocies are censorship?


    They're just provoking relativistic
    stinkers to slander about  bottles
    of vodka or nurses. No censorship,
    of course.

    Given that you cranks are inaccessible to rational thinking and
    sound arguments it makes sense, and is definitely not censorship.

    Moreover you are claiming that your claims do not deserve a book.

    That one "the best logician Humanity ever add" does not consider that
    refuting most of physics as a political like religious propaganda
    should not be taken seriously by at least publishing a book is a big
    incentive not to take you seriously (even if we did).

    Meanwhile I hope that nurses will let you drink this whole bottle
    of Vodka, at least you will enjoy the day Maciej.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 13:22:59 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.08.2024 o 13:12, Python pisze:
    ...
    , and is definitely not censorship.

    Of course it's not.

    Glad to see we agree.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 13:21:40 2024
    W dniu 26.08.2024 o 13:12, Python pisze:
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.08.2024 o 12:51, Python pisze:

    Why are you cranks always whining that getting reactions to your lies
    and idiocies are censorship?


    They're just provoking relativistic
    stinkers to slander about  bottles
    of vodka or nurses. No censorship,
    of course.

    Given that you cranks are inaccessible to rational thinking and
    sound arguments it makes sense

    Given that relativistic stinkers are inaccessible
    to rational thinking and sound arguments it
    definitely makes sense. That's what your
    church is training you for, besides.


    , and is definitely not censorship.

    Of course it's not.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 13:23:53 2024
    Den 26.08.2024 12:27, skrev Python:
    This reminds me this old joke:

    https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/476677941782239946/

    "Just a darn minute! — Yesterday you said that X equals two!"


    THANKS!

    I saw this joke several years ago, and have been looking
    for it on the net several times because it is so darn good!

    Now I have got it on my web site!

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Dilbert.pdf

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 14:13:09 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:23, Python a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.08.2024 o 13:12, Python pisze:
    ...
    , and is definitely not censorship.

    Of course it's not.

    Glad to see we agree.

    Bon, tu nous raconteras tes conneries plus tard.

    J'aimerais t'entendre davantage sur les procédures de synchronisation.

    Je te signale que Paul B. Andersen fait des efforts d'explication, et pas
    toi.

    Il m'a expliqué pourquoi lorsque je regarde une horloge sur la lune, je
    la voyais pas marquer la même heure que la mienne (00:00'07" au lieu de 00:00'08").

    Pendant que monsieur se branlait à parler de corsenships potatoes.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 16:14:53 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 16:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:23, Python a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.08.2024 o 13:12, Python pisze:
    ...
    , and is definitely not censorship.

    Of course it's not.

    Glad to see we agree.

    Bon, tu nous raconteras tes conneries plus tard.

    J'aimerais t'entendre davantage sur les procédures de synchronisation.


    https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/dissonance_lengrand.pdf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 14:22:56 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 16:14, Python a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 16:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:23, Python a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.08.2024 o 13:12, Python pisze:
    ...
    , and is definitely not censorship.

    Of course it's not.

    Glad to see we agree.

    Bon, tu nous raconteras tes conneries plus tard.

    J'aimerais t'entendre davantage sur les procédures de synchronisation.



    https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/dissonance_lengrand.pdf

    Non, ça c'est des conneries de crétin agressif.

    C'est pas du tout scientifique, et c'est bourré de faussetés
    relativistes et de mensonges diffamatoires.

    Aucun intérêt (je te l'ai déjà dit la semaine dernière).

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 16:21:12 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 16:13, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:23, Python a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.08.2024 o 13:12, Python pisze:
    ...
    , and is definitely not censorship.

    Of course it's not.

    Glad to see we agree.

    Bon, tu nous raconteras tes conneries plus tard.

    J'aimerais t'entendre davantage sur les procédures de synchronisation.

    Je te signale que Paul B. Andersen fait des efforts d'explication, et
    pas toi.

    Il m'a expliqué pourquoi lorsque je regarde une horloge sur la lune, je
    la voyais pas marquer la même heure que la mienne (00:00'07" au lieu de 00:00'08").

    Using Einstein's synchronization checking procedure :

    at t_A = 00:00:08 send a light beam to the clock on the Moon.

    It will record t_B = 00:00:09 at reception time and send you back
    another light beam

    You will record t'_A = 00:00:10 at reception time

    t_B - t_A = 00:00:01
    t'_A - t_B = 00:00:01

    same values.

    By *definition* both clocks are synchronized.

    So what was the time of the event corresponding to the image
    you've seen on your telescope "00:00:07" ? It was, according
    to everyone at rest in your frame when your clock was showing
    00:00:08, one second in the past.

    And guess what ? 8 - 1 = 7 ! Hooora!

    Another question, doc?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 16:35:17 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 16:22, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 16:14, Python a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 16:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:23, Python a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.08.2024 o 13:12, Python pisze:
    ...
    , and is definitely not censorship.

    Of course it's not.

    Glad to see we agree.

    Bon, tu nous raconteras tes conneries plus tard.

    J'aimerais t'entendre davantage sur les procédures de synchronisation.



    https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/dissonance_lengrand.pdf

    Non, ça c'est des conneries de crétin agressif.

    Pas du tout.

    C'est pas du tout scientifique, et c'est bourré de faussetés
    relativistes et de mensonges diffamatoires.

    Absolument pas.

    Aucun intérêt (je te l'ai déjà dit la semaine dernière).

    Tu sais très bien que l'article est très intéressant. C'est ce
    qui t'embête d'ailleurs :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 14:34:44 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 16:21, Python a écrit :

    Using Einstein's synchronization checking procedure :

    at t_A = 00:00:08 send a light beam to the clock on the Moon.

    Good.

    I am here.

    I note tA(e1)=00:00'08"

    It will record t_B = 00:00:09 at reception time and send you back
    another light beam

    Ha? Et comment tu as fait pour synchroniser la montre B lunaire?

    Plus précisément (il faut dire les choses, il faut être clair,
    scientifique ; plus c'est clair et évident, plus c'est beau).

    I note tA(e1)=00:00'08", I understand.

    tB(e2)=00:00'09', I don't understant (je suis très bête).

    tA(e3)=00:00'10", I understand.



    You will record t'_A = 00:00:10 at reception time

    t_B - t_A = 00:00:01
    t'_A - t_B = 00:00:01

    Tu m'emmerdes avec tes conneries.

    Putain, elle va être belle la marine française quand il va falloir débloquer le blocus du détroit de Gibraltar par la marine algérienne
    (menace de guerre possible).



    And guess what ? 8 - 1 = 7 ! Hooora!

    C'est bien ce que je pensais, on est dans la merde... Ils vont rappeler n'importe qui...

    Another question, doc?

    no... sniffff...

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 16:37:27 2024
    W dniu 26.08.2024 o 16:21, Python pisze:
    Le 26/08/2024 à 16:13, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:23, Python a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.08.2024 o 13:12, Python pisze:
    ...
    , and is definitely not censorship.

    Of course it's not.

    Glad to see we agree.

    Bon, tu nous raconteras tes conneries plus tard.

    J'aimerais t'entendre davantage sur les procédures de synchronisation.

    Je te signale que Paul B. Andersen fait des efforts d'explication, et
    pas toi.

    Il m'a expliqué pourquoi lorsque je regarde une horloge sur la lune,
    je la voyais pas marquer la même heure que la mienne (00:00'07" au
    lieu de 00:00'08").

    Using Einstein's synchronization checking procedure :

    at t_A = 00:00:08 send a light beam to the clock on the Moon.


    The Holiest Procedure's requirements -
    comoving in an inertial frame - are
    utterly riddiculous and would make it
    totally useless even if it didn't
    lead to dilating time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 14:58:13 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 16:37, Python a écrit :

    at t_A = 00:00:08 send a light beam to the clock on the Moon.

    Good.

    I am here.
    I note tA(e1)=00:00'08"

    It will record t_B = 00:00:09 at reception time and send you back
    another light beam

    Ha? Et comment tu as fait pour synchroniser la montre B lunaire?

    You've said that the clock has been accorded to clock A when
    both were close on Earth and then moved slowly to the Moon. I assume it
    was slow enough to preserve synchronization in the limits of an
    acceptable precision.

    Ah oui, c'est vrai merde.

    Là, tu m'en coupe les bras, je te savais pas si inquisiteur et précis.

    J'ai donné une procédure de synchronisation : on synchronise
    préalablement sur terre (c'est à dire AU MEME ENDROIT). C'est à dire
    une synchronisation de type A.

    Tu as raison. Je l'ai fait.

    Oh mon Dieu, il m'a vu le faire, et je ne puis point nier.

    On va donc avoir par cette procédure (tu as encore raison) :
    tA(e1)=8
    tB(e2)=9
    tA(e3)=10

    Tu n'es donc pas aussi stupide que je ne le pensais.

    Voilà où même MA procédure de synchronisation.

    Another question doc?

    Evidemment.

    tB(e1)=?
    tA(e2)=?
    tB(e3)=?

    N.B. Continue sur ta lancée, je te trouve très bon aujourd'hui.
    N.B.B. Mais je crois pas que ça va continuer...

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 26 16:37:59 2024
    Le 26/08/2024 à 16:34, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 26/08/2024 à 16:21, Python a écrit :

    Using Einstein's synchronization checking procedure :

    at t_A = 00:00:08 send a light beam to the clock on the Moon.

    Good.

    I am here.
    I note tA(e1)=00:00'08"

    It will record t_B = 00:00:09 at reception time and send you back
    another light beam

    Ha? Et comment tu as fait pour synchroniser la montre B lunaire?

    You've said that the clock has been accorded to clock A when
    both were close on Earth and then moved slowly to the Moon. I assume it
    was slow enough to preserve synchronization in the limits of an
    acceptable precision.

    Another question doc?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 27 07:32:16 2024
    Am Montag000026, 26.08.2024 um 09:06 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize
    clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you
    would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    No, it does not mutually symmetric methods. Such methods make the presentation of the theory easier but do not affect the theory.
    Einstein chose a symmetric method because otherwise his text would
    be harder to read and understand.

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    This goes like this:

    you stand there, I stand here and I see you.

    Now the opposite should also be possible, but from your perspective.

    This means: you see me, while you would call yourself 'I', your own
    location 'here' and mine 'there'.

    This would give:

    you stand there, I stand here and I see you (but said by you and from
    your point of view).


    Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
    views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.

    But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme, because
    Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.

    So you say but cannot prove.

    Negative statements are difficult to prove.

    But I can ask you, to prove the opposite and prove, that you failed.

    So: where exactly did Einstein take delay into consideration in his 1905 paper??


    ...

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 27 07:41:30 2024
    Am Montag000026, 26.08.2024 um 12:14 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 26/08/2024 à 07:47, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    To illustrate the problem of Einstein's naming conventions, I write
    now, what these names actually meant:


    K is a cartesian coordinate system, assumed to be at rest,
    non-rotating and unaccelerated in an Euclidean space, which is assumed
    to 'flat' and force free.

    The orientations of the axes (of x, y and z) were not mentioned, but I
    use this setting:
    x points right
    y points 'inside' (if x and z define a two-dimensional plane, like the
    one you draw on)
    z points up (because z is usually used for hight)


    k is an equally normed coordinate system, which moves with velocity v
    along the x-axis of K 'to the right'. The coordinates had Greek
    letters as names (xsi, eta, zeta).


    K' is a coordinate system with the same features as K, but which moves
    from the center of k along the xsi-axis of k 'to the left' with
    velocity -v


    k' is the same, but moving to the left with velocity -w along the
    xsi-axis of k. (the difference between K' and k' is a diffent velocity
    w in case of k').


    But how could possibly anybody interpret the names K, k, K' and k' in
    this way?

    It required careful investigations to find out, what was actually meant.

    And the used names themselves gave absolutely no hints, about how
    these symbols shall be interpreted.

    In short: it is a very obscure system to name things!

    Usually you need to find a way, by which things get names in a
    consistent manner, which the reader could eventually remember

    What you say is very interesting.

    Well, thanks.

    But this isn't such a nice story at all.

    In a way this problem with naming coordinate systems was just the 'tip
    of the iceberg'.

    But the reuse of symbols or -for instance- to define something one way,
    but not sticking to this definition, are also observable.

    Especially annoying were the reuse of the letter A and the symbol x'.

    There were actually eight different uses for the tall latin 'A' in this
    paper.

    But how could any reader keep track of the intended meaning in a certain context?



    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 27 10:48:25 2024
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:41, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000026, 26.08.2024 um 12:14 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 26/08/2024 à 07:47, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    To illustrate the problem of Einstein's naming conventions, I write
    now, what these names actually meant:


    K is a cartesian coordinate system, assumed to be at rest,
    non-rotating and unaccelerated in an Euclidean space, which is
    assumed to 'flat' and force free.

    The orientations of the axes (of x, y and z) were not mentioned, but
    I use this setting:
    x points right
    y points 'inside' (if x and z define a two-dimensional plane, like
    the one you draw on)
    z points up (because z is usually used for hight)


    k is an equally normed coordinate system, which moves with velocity v
    along the x-axis of K 'to the right'. The coordinates had Greek
    letters as names (xsi, eta, zeta).


    K' is a coordinate system with the same features as K, but which
    moves from the center of k along the xsi-axis of k 'to the left' with
    velocity -v


    k' is the same, but moving to the left with velocity -w along the
    xsi-axis of k. (the difference between K' and k' is a diffent
    velocity w in case of k').


    But how could possibly anybody interpret the names K, k, K' and k' in
    this way?

    It required careful investigations to find out, what was actually meant. >>>
    And the used names themselves gave absolutely no hints, about how
    these symbols shall be interpreted.

    In short: it is a very obscure system to name things!

    Usually you need to find a way, by which things get names in a
    consistent manner, which the reader could eventually remember

    What you say is very interesting.

    Well, thanks.

    But this isn't such a nice story at all.

    In a way this problem with naming coordinate systems was just the 'tip
    of the iceberg'.

    But the reuse of symbols or -for instance- to define something one way,
    but not sticking to this definition, are also observable.

    Especially annoying were the reuse of the letter A and the symbol x'.

    There were actually eight different uses for the tall latin 'A' in this paper.

    But how could any reader keep track of the intended meaning in a certain context?

    You certainly couldn't. But you are far below average.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 27 11:58:35 2024
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:32, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000026, 26.08.2024 um 09:06 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize
    clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you
    would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    No, it does not mutually symmetric methods. Such methods make the
    presentation of the theory easier but do not affect the theory.
    Einstein chose a symmetric method because otherwise his text would
    be harder to read and understand.

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    This goes like this:

    you stand there, I stand here and I see you.

    Now the opposite should also be possible, but from your perspective.

    This means: you see me, while you would call yourself 'I', your own
    location 'here' and mine 'there'.

    This would give:

    you stand there, I stand here and I see you (but said by you and from
    your point of view).


    Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
    views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.

    But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme, because
    Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.

    So you say but cannot prove.

    Negative statements are difficult to prove.

    But I can ask you, to prove the opposite and prove, that you failed.

    So: where exactly did Einstein take delay into consideration in his 1905 paper??

    In paragraph I.1 in Einstein's 1905 article you can read :

    (*) 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
    (**) t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

    In a setup with two mutually at rest clocks at position A and B in
    a given system of reference. --> and <-- represents a light signal emission/reception, all time values are recorded by both clocks at
    time or receptions/re-emission:

    Step 1:
    B
    t_A

    Step 2:
    A -->B
    t_B
    A <--B

    Step 3:
    A<-- B
    t'_A

    So if you read the only equations in paragraph I.1,
    assuming clocks are synchronized (which is the point of
    this paragraph: state what it MEANS to be synchronized):

    (*) 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
    (**) t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

    t_B - t_A is a *delay* (between emission at A and reception at B)

    t_'A - t_B is a *delay* (between emission at B and reception at A)

    t'A - t_A is a *delay* (round trip time *delay* for a light signal
    going from A to B bounced back to A)

    From (*) you can get : t'_A - t_A = 2AB/c so another way to
    describe the same *delay* : twice the distance AB divided by c.

    Clearly such a *delay* is present in paragraph I.1. THREE times
    as a term in an equation and ONCE as a term you can obtain by
    ONE step of basic algebra.

    It is difficult to believe you've "overlooked" this and continue
    to do so for YEARS.

    You are acting like a fool in a shop who'd rob some merchandise
    which had a price marked on it on the ground that it is nowhere
    written explicitly that you have to *pay* for it.

    At first it could have been a symptom of your complete inability
    to understand a single sentence of the article (i.e. sheer stupidity),
    since you've published your idiotic comments and got some clues from
    numerous people here it is definitely a symptom of your dishonesty
    Thomas.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 27 10:25:18 2024
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:31, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Absolutely.

    Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
    views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Magnifico! Wunderschön !!!

    TH

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 27 10:40:59 2024
    Le 27/08/2024 à 11:58, Python a écrit :
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:32, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000026, 26.08.2024 um 09:06 schrieb Mikko:

    In paragraph I.1 in Einstein's 1905 article you can read :

    (*) 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c

    Tautologie

    (**) t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

    Mensonge par amalgame raciste.

    Pas d'amalgame, putain!

    Oh que je sens qu'une petite délation à Pharaon va peut-être se
    faire...

    In a setup with two mutually at rest clocks at position A and B in
    a given system of reference. --> and <-- represents a light signal emission/reception, all time values are recorded by both clocks at
    time or receptions/re-emission:

    Step 1:
    B
    t_A

    Step 2:
    A -->B
    t_B
    A <--B

    Step 3:
    A<-- B
    t'_A

    So if you read the only equations in paragraph I.1,
    assuming clocks are synchronized (which is the point of
    this paragraph: state what it MEANS to be synchronized):

    (*) 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
    (**) t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

    t_B - t_A is a *delay* (between emission at A and reception at B)

    t_'A - t_B is a *delay* (between emission at B and reception at A)

    t'A - t_A is a *delay* (round trip time *delay* for a light signal
    going from A to B bounced back to A)

    From (*) you can get : t'_A - t_A = 2AB/c so another way to
    describe the same *delay* : twice the distance AB divided by c.

    Clearly such a *delay* is present in paragraph I.1. THREE times
    as a term in an equation and ONCE as a term you can obtain by
    ONE step of basic algebra.

    It is difficult to believe you've "overlooked" this and continue
    to do so for YEARS.

    You are acting like a fool in a shop who'd rob some merchandise
    which had a price marked on it on the ground that it is nowhere
    written explicitly that you have to *pay* for it.

    At first it could have been a symptom of your complete inability
    to understand a single sentence of the article (i.e. sheer stupidity),
    since you've published your idiotic comments and got some clues from
    numerous people here it is definitely a symptom of your dishonesty
    Thomas.

    Python le bouffon n'a toujours pas compris la base même de la
    relativité, alors qu'il me lit depuis 30 ans, putain mais merde!

    Il n'a toujours pas compris que tAB=tBA n'est vrai que s'il n'y a pas d'anisochronie à prendre en jeu.

    Bref que sa connerie abyssale de croire que la lumière (l'interaction électromagnétique) se fait à la vitesse c dans toutes les directions,
    sans prise en charge (MAIS PUTAIN MERDE, JE M'ENERVE) de la POSITION
    de l'observateur et de la REALITE PERSONNELLE de son hyperplan de temps présent est une connerie abyssale.

    Putain, je sais pas comment il faut enseigner ça à ce bouffon, ce
    guignol.

    Il faudrait peut-être pratiquer l'éducation violente comme au Japon...

    Il pourrait alors apprendre le doute méthodique : "Qu'est ce qui me
    prouve que la vitesse de la lumière, de l'information est la même dans
    toutes les direction, si je suis basé sur un hyperplan de temps présent,

    et par le même que celui de l'émetteur?

    N'est-il pas cependant évident que dans tous les cas de figure, la
    vitesse transversale de la lumière
    sera égale à c, dans tous les sens d'un plan frontal?

    Et que la synchronisation d'Einstein, finalement, revenait à dire cela?
    MAIS UNIQUEMENT cela.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 27 14:06:59 2024
    Den 27.08.2024 10:48, skrev Python:
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:41, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Especially annoying were the reuse of the letter A and the symbol x'.

    There were actually eight different uses for the tall latin 'A' in
    this paper.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Dilbert.pdf


    But how could any reader keep track of the intended meaning in a
    certain context?

    You certainly couldn't. But you are far below average.




    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Tue Aug 27 15:39:04 2024
    On 2024-08-27 05:32:16 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Montag000026, 26.08.2024 um 09:06 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize
    clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you
    would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    No, it does not mutually symmetric methods. Such methods make the
    presentation of the theory easier but do not affect the theory.
    Einstein chose a symmetric method because otherwise his text would
    be harder to read and understand.

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Not in any context where that word is not used.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 27 20:11:02 2024
    Den 27.08.2024 12:40, skrev Richard Hachel:

    In short, its abysmal bullshit to believe that light
    (electromagnetic interaction) occurs at speed c in all
    directions, without taking into account the POSITION of
    the observer and the PERSONAL REALITY of his hyperplane
    of present time is abysmal bullshit.

    What proves to me that the speed of light,
    of information, is the same in all directions,
    if I am based on a hyperplane of present time,
    and by the same as that of the transmitter?
    However, is it not obvious that in all cases,
    the transverse speed of light will be equal to c,
    in all directions of a frontal plane?


    Well said, Richard!

    One can but be impressed of your ability to clearly explain
    your genial theory.

    ----------------

    Remember this?

    Den 24.08.2024 14:24, skrev Richard Hachel:

    What happens if I set two identical watches on my table
    and I slowly move one of them towards the moon.
    (let's say in three weeks to avoid a v²/c² ratio very different from 1)?

    We agreed that the watch on your table and the lunar watch
    still would be synchronous.

    Den 24.08.2024 14:24, skrev Richard Hachel:

    I notice in my telescope that when my watch marks
    00:00'08" the lunar clock is desynchronized and
    marks 00:00'07".

    When I asked why this mean that the clocks are
    desynchronised, you explained:

    Den 25.08.2024 14:34, skrev Richard Hachel:

    The beautiful thing is to say that "photons move at c".
    The genius is to say that transactions are instantaneous,
    and that it is men's ignorance of the correct space-time
    that creates this illusion.
    It is really 00:00'07" over there, at the very moment
    when it is 00:00'08" here.
    This made me ask:

    Considering that transactions are instantaneous,
    why do you say that the picture you see in the telescope
    is 00:00'07", when it obviously should be 00:00'08"?

    Den 26.08.2024 13:02, skrev Richard Hachel:

    Ah, but here is my explanation! Thank you sir!
    There is a one-second time difference between 00:00:08 and 00:00:07",
    between my watch and the watch on the moon.
    This is because of the speed of light, which is quite slow,
    and takes at least a second to reach me.
    And so that explains everything.
    It's magnificent, I understand better.


    So we can sum it up:

    Since the speed of light is slow (c), the light will use 1 second
    to go from the Moon to Richards telescope.
    So the picture of the watch in the telescope will show 00:00'07"
    when the lunar watch shows 00:00'08".

    But since the speed of light is infinite and the picture of
    the watch in the telescope show 00:00'07", the lunar watch
    is really 00:00'07" at the very moment when the watch on
    Richard's table is 00:00'08".

    Well explained, Richard!

    It is all clear when we take into account the POSITION of
    the observer and the PERSONAL REALITY of his hyperplane
    of present time.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 28 08:10:46 2024
    Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 10:48 schrieb Python:
    ..
    What you say is very interesting.

    Well, thanks.

    But this isn't such a nice story at all.

    In a way this problem with naming coordinate systems was just the 'tip
    of the iceberg'.

    But the reuse of symbols or -for instance- to define something one
    way, but not sticking to this definition, are also observable.

    Especially annoying were the reuse of the letter A and the symbol x'.

    There were actually eight different uses for the tall latin 'A' in
    this paper.

    But how could any reader keep track of the intended meaning in a
    certain context?

    You certainly couldn't. But you are far below average.

    Well, possibly, possibly not.

    But this wasn't the question, because I spent a lot of time and can
    assure you, that I have found out, what was written in this paper.

    But usually a scientific text should be comprehendable at least for
    specialists in that particular field.

    And such readers do not have infinite time to spent on a single paper.

    Therefore any scientific author is requested to write in a comprehensive
    way, where readers can possibly understand, what the author wants to say.


    The reader is in no way responsible for the content of a text and also
    not per se a friend of the author.

    Therefore the reader cannot read the mind of the author, hence can only
    take, what the author has actually written.

    If this is ambigous or hard to interpret, the paper flies into the
    dustbin and end of the story.



    TH



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 28 08:22:57 2024
    Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 11:58 schrieb Python:
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:32, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000026, 26.08.2024 um 09:06 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize
    clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you
    would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    No, it does not mutually symmetric methods. Such methods make the
    presentation of the theory easier but do not affect the theory.
    Einstein chose a symmetric method because otherwise his text would
    be harder to read and understand.

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    This goes like this:

    you stand there, I stand here and I see you.

    Now the opposite should also be possible, but from your perspective.

    This means: you see me, while you would call yourself 'I', your own
    location 'here' and mine 'there'.

    This would give:

    you stand there, I stand here and I see you (but said by you and from
    your point of view).


    Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
    views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.

    But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme,
    because Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.

    So you say but cannot prove.

    Negative statements are difficult to prove.

    But I can ask you, to prove the opposite and prove, that you failed.

    So: where exactly did Einstein take delay into consideration in his
    1905 paper??

    In paragraph I.1 in Einstein's 1905 article you can read :

    (*)   2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
    (**)  t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

    In a setup with two mutually  at rest clocks at position A and B in
    a given system of reference. --> and <-- represents a light signal emission/reception, all time values are recorded by both clocks at
    time or receptions/re-emission:

    Step 1:
                   B
    t_A

    Step 2:
    A               -->B
                     t_B
    A               <--B

    Step 3:
    A<--               B
    t'_A

    So if you read the only equations in paragraph I.1,
    assuming clocks are synchronized (which is the point of
    this paragraph: state what it MEANS to be synchronized):

    (*)   2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
    (**)  t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

    t_B - t_A is a *delay* (between emission at A and reception at B)

    t_'A - t_B is a *delay* (between emission at B and reception at A)

    t'A - t_A is a *delay* (round trip time *delay* for a light signal
    going from A to B bounced back to A)

    From (*) you can get : t'_A - t_A = 2AB/c so another way to
    describe the same *delay* : twice the distance AB divided by c.

    Clearly such a *delay* is present in paragraph I.1. THREE times
    as a term in an equation and ONCE as a term you can obtain by
    ONE step of basic algebra.

    That was all not under dispute.

    Sure, these equation would allow tro calculate the delay.

    (despite t_B and t_A' would be unknown at the remote side 'B')

    But anyhow..

    The problem was, that Einstein never used this value of the delay to
    compensate the timing value at the local side.

    If you - for instance - peep through a large telescope and look at a
    large clock on the Moon and see the clock show e.g. 12:00:00:00 GMT,
    then you would see a time too early, because your own clock would show 12:00:01:00 GMT.

    Now both clocks are actually in synch, even if the received view of the
    remote clock shows a different time then the local clock on Earth.

    But Einstein failed to mention the required correction of the remote
    signal by adding the delay to the received time value.

    This can only be interpreted, as if he didn't wanted to do that and
    leave the timing signal as received (what was wrong!!!).

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 28 11:25:41 2024
    Le 28/08/2024 à 08:10, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 10:48 schrieb Python:
    ..
    What you say is very interesting.

    Well, thanks.

    But this isn't such a nice story at all.

    In a way this problem with naming coordinate systems was just the
    'tip of the iceberg'.

    But the reuse of symbols or -for instance- to define something one
    way, but not sticking to this definition, are also observable.

    Especially annoying were the reuse of the letter A and the symbol x'.

    There were actually eight different uses for the tall latin 'A' in
    this paper.

    But how could any reader keep track of the intended meaning in a
    certain context?

    You certainly couldn't. But you are far below average.

    Well, possibly, possibly not.

    But this wasn't the question, because I spent a lot of time and can
    assure you, that I have found out, what was written in this paper.

    I can assure you that you haven't.

    But usually a scientific text should be comprehendable at least for specialists in that particular field.

    And such readers do not have infinite time to spent on a single paper.

    Therefore any scientific author is requested to write in a comprehensive
    way, where readers can possibly understand, what the author wants to say.

    Up to now there are no such issues with the article we are talking
    about. Scientists understood it in 1905 and since then. It is also
    read by numerous students and amateur since then without readibility
    issues.


    The reader is in no way responsible for the content of a text and also
    not per se a friend of the author.

    Therefore the reader cannot read the mind of the author, hence can only
    take, what the author has actually written.

    If this is ambigous or hard to interpret, the paper flies into the
    dustbin and end of the story.

    There is NOTHING ambiguous in Einstein's paper.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 28 11:41:13 2024
    Le 28/08/2024 à 08:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 11:58 schrieb Python:
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:32, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Montag000026, 26.08.2024 um 09:06 schrieb Mikko:
    ...
    Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you
    synchronize clock B with clock A, this must come to the same
    result, as if you would synchronize clock A with clock B.

    No, it does not mutually symmetric methods. Such methods make the
    presentation of the theory easier but do not affect the theory.
    Einstein chose a symmetric method because otherwise his text would
    be harder to read and understand.

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    This goes like this:

    you stand there, I stand here and I see you.

    Now the opposite should also be possible, but from your perspective.

    This means: you see me, while you would call yourself 'I', your own
    location 'here' and mine 'there'.

    This would give:

    you stand there, I stand here and I see you (but said by you and from
    your point of view).


    Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
    views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.

    But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme,
    because Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.

    So you say but cannot prove.

    Negative statements are difficult to prove.

    But I can ask you, to prove the opposite and prove, that you failed.

    So: where exactly did Einstein take delay into consideration in his
    1905 paper??

    In paragraph I.1 in Einstein's 1905 article you can read :

    (*)   2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
    (**)  t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

    In a setup with two mutually  at rest clocks at position A and B in
    a given system of reference. --> and <-- represents a light signal
    emission/reception, all time values are recorded by both clocks at
    time or receptions/re-emission:

    Step 1:
                   B
    t_A

    Step 2:
    A               -->B
                      t_B
    A               <--B

    Step 3:
    A<--               B
    t'_A

    So if you read the only equations in paragraph I.1,
    assuming clocks are synchronized (which is the point of
    this paragraph: state what it MEANS to be synchronized):

    (*)   2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
    (**)  t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

    t_B - t_A is a *delay* (between emission at A and reception at B)

    t_'A - t_B is a *delay* (between emission at B and reception at A)

    t'A - t_A is a *delay* (round trip time *delay* for a light signal
    going from A to B bounced back to A)

     From (*) you can get : t'_A - t_A = 2AB/c so another way to
    describe the same *delay* : twice the distance AB divided by c.

    Clearly such a *delay* is present in paragraph I.1. THREE times
    as a term in an equation and ONCE as a term you can obtain by
    ONE step of basic algebra.

    That was all not under dispute.

    This is EXACTLY what is "under dispute".

    Sure, these equation would allow tro calculate the delay.

    (despite t_B and t_A' would be unknown at the remote side 'B')

    Absolutely not. As soon as t_A, t_B and t'_A are recorded their
    values can be communicated to anyone. What do you think could
    prevent that?

    But anyhow..

    The problem was, that Einstein never used this value of the delay to compensate the timing value at the local side.

    It is a clear consequence of Einstein's method. If you apply it to
    real clocks, as it is a synchronization checking method you will
    end up with two possibilities :

    * t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is true. Well clocks are synchronized,
    there is nothing to do
    * t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is false. Then you can apply an offset
    to either clock A or clock B (not both !), this offset being:
    - t_B - (t'_A - t_A)/2 - t_A for clock A
    - (t'_A + t_A)/2 - t_b for clock B
    [note : this are formulas implied by (*) and (**) from A.E. paper]
    Details : https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/dissonance_lengrand.pdf
    (pp. 3, 4)

    THEN you could play the procedure again and notice that (**) is now
    true.

    I am in the process of writing a client-side Web application
    demonstrating all of this. Stay tuned.

    There is ONE complaint that you could have made about this part of
    Einstein's paper: Einstein only describes a synchronization checking
    procedure, not a synchronization procedure. Such a procedure can
    be derived unambiguously (as I explain in my pdf) from the checking
    procedure but Einstein did not mention it.

    Einstein supposed that the audience of the article would understand
    that at first sight. As a matter of fact, as a student, it took
    be about two minutes to get it. This is scandalous, isn't it?


    If you - for instance - peep through a large telescope and look at a
    large clock on the Moon and see the clock show e.g. 12:00:00:00 GMT,
    then you would see a time too early, because your own clock would show 12:00:01:00 GMT.

    Now both clocks are actually in synch, even if the received view of the remote clock shows a different time then the local clock on Earth.

    This is completely unrelated to Einstein's procedure. There is no
    mention AT ALL of using the value one could see through a telescope
    or any optical mean whatsoever.

    But Einstein failed to mention the required correction of the remote
    signal by adding the delay to the received time value.

    When you turn the checking procedure into a synchronization procedure
    such a delay appears in the offset to apply to one of the clocks.

    If one mentions that x - 1 = 2 either he/she later mentions OR NOT
    that x - 2 = 1, it is nevertheless true.

    This can only be interpreted, as if he didn't wanted to do that and
    leave the timing signal as received (what was wrong!!!).

    This *would* be wrong, right. But you're interpretation is in direct contradiction with the actual equations present in the articles that
    IMPLY that the delay induced by light propagation speed is taken
    into account. This is more than an interpretation: THIS IS A FACT.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 28 11:13:14 2024
    Le 28/08/2024 à 11:25, Python a écrit :
    Le 28/08/2024 à 08:10, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    There is NOTHING ambiguous in Einstein's paper.

    Un crétin reste un crétin.

    Ton Dieu Einstein n'était qu'un moine copiste qui ne comprenait pas ce
    qu'il recopiait.

    Et toi, tu es aussi stupide qu'un paulinien récitant que le p'tit Jésus
    est mort à sa place ; ou qu'un mahométan qui raconte qu'il va se taper
    72 vierges, et qu'il va mettre trois slip pour préserver son trilili
    quand il ira se faire sauter pour avoir la bénédiction de Aôôôllah.

    Ton comportement ridicule ne sert qu'à maintenir la chappe de plomb sur
    la connerie humaine, et faire qu'elle ne s'enlève jamais.

    Saint Paul a dit que... Saint Muhammad a dit que...Saint Einstein a écrit que...

    C'est la guerre intellectuelle sournoise et larvée de Jean-Pierre contre l'humanité, et surtout contre ceux qui veulent dresser de nouvelles
    tables moins ridicules ou étouffantes (Nietzsche).

    C'est débile.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 28 11:04:12 2024
    Le 28/08/2024 à 08:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    That was all not under dispute.

    Sure, these equation would allow tro calculate the delay.

    (despite t_B and t_A' would be unknown at the remote side 'B')

    But anyhow..

    The problem was, that Einstein never used this value of the delay to compensate the timing value at the local side.

    If you - for instance - peep through a large telescope and look at a
    large clock on the Moon and see the clock show e.g. 12:00:00:00 GMT,
    then you would see a time too early, because your own clock would show 12:00:01:00 GMT.

    Now both clocks are actually in synch, even if the received view of the remote clock shows a different time then the local clock on Earth.

    But Einstein failed to mention the required correction of the remote
    signal by adding the delay to the received time value.

    This can only be interpreted, as if he didn't wanted to do that and
    leave the timing signal as received (what was wrong!!!).

    TH

    What is absolutely essential is to re-explain things, with precise, simple terms.
    How can we describe the spatio-temporal universe that surrounds us?
    What is this "apparent delay"?
    Why do two extremely well-synchronized watches show two different times?
    Why, once joined, will they start to show the same time again?
    How could Römer have been stupid enough not to understand right away what extraterrestrial civilizations might have understood, and what Richard
    Hachel understood in a few seconds forty years ago, already?
    How can we explain that the hyperplane of the present time of an
    individual (Romeo on his bench, Juliet on this other one) is not that of another individual placed elsewhere?
    How to explain that this horse in this meadow, this moon in this sky, this galaxy in this telescope, I perceive them live-directly, and that all this
    is an integral part of my hyperplane of present time, of my universe of personal simultaneity? But that this is not reciprocal (and that the
    notion of relativistic reciprocity is that for the other observer, who
    also sees me in HIS live-directly, does not see me "now" but there is
    dt=2AB/c?
    We must put this on paper clearly.
    As the wonderfull Alexandrians say:
    "Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement,
    et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément".
    "What is well conceived is clearly stated,
    and the words to say it come easily".
    It is a correctly written pdf, and very well readable (otherwise not
    everyone will understand) that is necessary.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 29 08:10:54 2024
    Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:31, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Absolutely.

    Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
    views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Magnifico! Wunderschön !!!

    Thanks.

    But this is obvious and certainly not disputed.

    But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of clock synchronization.

    Instead he used something, one could call 'external time' (kind of 'true time').

    But there exists no such thing as true time and time is only local.

    This would mean, that a clock at point A would shows the local 'A-time'
    and clocks at point B show B-time.

    This would not necessarily allow to synchronize clocks at all, if A-time
    does not run at the same tick rate as B-time.

    But supposed you have a clock from A, bring that to B and synchronize
    this by technical means with A-time-clocks at A.

    Now: what would you need to do, to synchronize these clocks?

    It needs to be a way, which could also be applyed at B and would give
    the same result.

    Since we need some sort of operators at both sides, we need to assume,
    that at both locations are some kind of itelligent beings and these able
    to read messages and operate a clock.

    These 'observers' get also names and we could them 'A' and 'B' for
    simplicity.

    The operator A would send out a signal, which gets sent back by B, once
    it arrives at B.

    'A' would measure the delay for the round trip, cuts that value in half
    and send the value to the far side B, together with a coded time message.

    The observer B would decode the message and adjusts the clock in
    question aappropriately.

    Now B could do the same and would gain the same result.

    This is therefore a valid method to synchronize clocks.

    The method used by Einstein is not valid, because actually ONLY 'A-time'
    was used and no operator at the far side was mentionend.

    Another method, which is often used in textbooks about relativity
    requires a 'man in the middle' (called 'M', for instance).

    This is a possible way to synchronize clocks, too.

    But this method had the disadvantage, that synchronization would depend
    on the position and state of motion of the observer 'M'.

    This method would also only allow to synchronize two clocks, while synchronization should be valid throughout an entire frame of reference.

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 29 08:21:21 2024
    Am Mittwoch000028, 28.08.2024 um 13:04 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 28/08/2024 à 08:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    That was all not under dispute.

    Sure, these equation would allow tro calculate the delay.

    (despite t_B and t_A' would be unknown at the remote side 'B')

    But anyhow..

    The problem was, that Einstein never used this value of the delay to
    compensate the timing value at the local side.

    If you - for instance - peep through a large telescope and look at a
    large clock on the Moon and see the clock show e.g. 12:00:00:00 GMT,
    then you would see a time too early, because your own clock would show
    12:00:01:00 GMT.

    Now both clocks are actually in synch, even if the received view of
    the remote clock shows a different time then the local clock on Earth.

    But Einstein failed to mention the required correction of the remote
    signal by adding the delay to the received time value.

    This can only be interpreted, as if he didn't wanted to do that and
    leave the timing signal as received (what was wrong!!!).

    TH

    What is absolutely essential is to re-explain things, with precise,
    simple terms.
    How can we describe the spatio-temporal universe that surrounds us?
    What is this "apparent delay"?
    Why do two extremely well-synchronized watches show two different times?
    Why, once joined, will they start to show the same time again?

    I use 'spacetime' as reference to GR and in a way desribed by Minkowski.

    This is kind of four-dimensional construct, where time is is meant as
    spatial dimension.

    But I interpret time as imaginary scalar and space as real and come to something similar to a quaternion.

    This 'quaternion' (actually the signature is wrong here) is the local interpretation of some background (or: 'real spacetime'), which has the
    odd property to allow different directions of time.

    So: an 'anti-world' could exist, where time runs backwards.

    In that antiworld the local perspective would also have time and space,
    but as kind of 'anti-quaternion' in our view.

    We could now add both views and come to a construct known as
    'biquaternions', which would describe and overlay of foreward and
    backwards time (and everything inbetween).

    My 'theory' is actually based on this idea and can be found here:

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing


    TH
    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Aug 29 09:39:36 2024
    On 2024-08-29 06:10:54 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 27/08/2024 07:31, Thomas Heger a crit :

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Absolutely.

    Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
    views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Magnifico! Wunderschn !!!

    Thanks.

    But this is obvious and certainly not disputed.

    But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of
    clock synchronization.

    Another of your lies, I suppose. When you write "Einstein" you don't
    mean Einstein but some other person. Have you tried reading what
    Einstein actually wrote? Not too difficult, I suppose, for a German
    speaker. I've been reluctant to put you at the same level of
    crackpottery as Wozzie, "Dr" Hachel*, or Ken Seto, but at some point
    one has to accept the evidence.

    *The quotation marks are not necessary for Dr Lengrand, as long as we
    agree that Dr Lengrand has no qualifications in physics, but for "Dr"
    Hachel they are, unless he tells us which university awarded him his
    relevant doctorate. It would be nice to know the title of his thesis as
    well. Maybe he could provide some evidence of his three Nobel prizes,
    while he's at it.

    Instead he used something, one could call 'external time' (kind of
    'true time').

    But there exists no such thing as true time and time is only local.

    This would mean, that a clock at point A would shows the local 'A-time'
    and clocks at point B show B-time.

    This would not necessarily allow to synchronize clocks at all, if
    A-time does not run at the same tick rate as B-time.

    But supposed you have a clock from A, bring that to B and synchronize
    this by technical means with A-time-clocks at A.

    Now: what would you need to do, to synchronize these clocks?

    It needs to be a way, which could also be applyed at B and would give
    the same result.

    Since we need some sort of operators at both sides, we need to assume,
    that at both locations are some kind of itelligent beings and these
    able to read messages and operate a clock.

    These 'observers' get also names and we could them 'A' and 'B' for simplicity.

    The operator A would send out a signal, which gets sent back by B, once
    it arrives at B.

    'A' would measure the delay for the round trip, cuts that value in half
    and send the value to the far side B, together with a coded time
    message.

    The observer B would decode the message and adjusts the clock in
    question aappropriately.

    Now B could do the same and would gain the same result.

    This is therefore a valid method to synchronize clocks.

    The method used by Einstein is not valid, because actually ONLY
    'A-time' was used and no operator at the far side was mentionend.

    Another method, which is often used in textbooks about relativity
    requires a 'man in the middle' (called 'M', for instance).

    This is a possible way to synchronize clocks, too.

    But this method had the disadvantage, that synchronization would depend
    on the position and state of motion of the observer 'M'.

    This method would also only allow to synchronize two clocks, while synchronization should be valid throughout an entire frame of reference.

    TH


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 29 10:57:24 2024
    Le 29/08/2024 à 08:10, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:31, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Absolutely.

    Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
    views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Magnifico! Wunderschön !!!

    Thanks.

    But this is obvious and certainly not disputed.

    But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of clock synchronization.

    Liar!

    « We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
    contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
    following relations are universally valid:

    1. *If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at
    A synchronizes with the clock at B*.

    2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with
    the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
    »

    What is point 1. if not *symmetry*?

    Instead he used something, one could call 'external time' (kind of 'true time').

    Definitely NOT!

    [snip nonsense]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Aug 29 13:10:14 2024
    On 2024-08-29 06:10:54 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:31, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Absolutely.

    Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
    views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Magnifico! Wunderschön !!!

    Thanks.

    But this is obvious and certainly not disputed.

    But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of
    clock synchronization.

    If clock A is synchronized to clock B according to Einstein's creterion
    the clock B is synchronized to clock A. Although the procedure is not
    quite symmetric the synchronity defined by it is.

    Instead he used something, one could call 'external time' (kind of
    'true time').

    He ded not use what cannot be used.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 07:53:33 2024
    Am Donnerstag000029, 29.08.2024 um 10:57 schrieb Python:
    Le 29/08/2024 à 08:10, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:31, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Absolutely.

    Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
    views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Magnifico! Wunderschön !!!

    Thanks.

    But this is obvious and certainly not disputed.

    But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of
    clock synchronization.

    Liar!

    « We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
    contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
    following relations are universally valid:

    1.    *If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at
    A synchronizes with the clock at B*.

    2.    If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with
    the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
    »

    What is point 1. if not *symmetry*?

    See here for instance:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCGuhcrb-qM

    This is a video in German about Einstein's simultaneity , but you will certainly find something equivalent in English.

    The trick of Einstein's method was an extra-observer in the middle
    between the two ends of a longish train.

    Now this system would not require to correct the delay 'by hand'.

    And this method was apparently meant by Einstein himself.

    But this method is, of course, wrong, because it s based on the position
    and state of movement of the observer in the middle.


    The error: there is no such thing as a man in the middle, if we have
    only two systems A and B. And even if there were somebody, this would be entirely irrelevant for A or B or clocks there.

    TH

    ..

    Instead he used something, one could call 'external time' (kind of
    'true time').

    Definitely NOT!

    [snip nonsense]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 07:41:55 2024
    Am Donnerstag000029, 29.08.2024 um 09:39 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2024-08-29 06:10:54 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:31, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Absolutely.

    Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
    views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Magnifico! Wunderschön !!!

    Thanks.

    But this is obvious and certainly not disputed.

    But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of
    clock synchronization.

    Another of your lies, I suppose. When you write "Einstein" you don't
    mean Einstein but some other person. Have you tried reading what
    Einstein actually wrote? Not too difficult, I suppose, for a German
    speaker. I've been reluctant to put you at the same level of
    crackpottery as Wozzie, "Dr" Hachel*, or Ken Seto, but at some point one
    has to accept the evidence.


    In a way you are right, because I didn't comment Einstein's text, but
    the most common English translation of 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper'.

    Sure, this is NOT what Einstein himself had written, but a translation.

    But the translations are generally quite good and contain only very few
    errors.

    The main difference was not the translation of the text, but the change
    of the content by the publisher.

    E.g. the variables were renamed, to free the letter 'c' for 'speed of
    light in vacuum'.

    Also 'Kugel' was tranlated with 'sphere', while it should be 'ball'.

    But in almost all cases the translation was quite good.


    One (funny) translation error was

    'mitteilen' was translated with 'communicated'.

    The error: 'mitteleilen' means usually communication, but was here used
    with the side-meaning 'to influence'.


    Also 'wave-train' for 'Wellenzug' was questionable, because 'Zug' means
    'train' in German, but only 'train' in conncection to railways.

    Other meanings of the German 'Zug' are e.g.

    to move a chess piece
    movement of air in a room
    drag
    to draw a line while drawing

    Now only 'to draw a line' would make some sense here.

    German allows to create new words by 'glueing' old ones together.

    So 'Wellenzug' is composed of 'Wellen' and 'Zug', hence a wavy line and
    has nopt connection to trains.


    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Aug 30 10:07:19 2024
    On 2024-08-30 05:41:55 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
    [ … ]

    But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of
    clock synchronization.

    Another of your lies, I suppose. When you write "Einstein" you don't
    mean Einstein but some other person. Have you tried reading what
    Einstein actually wrote? Not too difficult, I suppose, for a German
    speaker. I've been reluctant to put you at the same level of
    crackpottery as Wozzie, "Dr" Hachel*, or Ken Seto, but at some point
    one has to accept the evidence.


    In a way you are right, because I didn't comment Einstein's text, but
    the most common English translation of 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
    Körper'.

    Sure, this is NOT what Einstein himself had written, but a translation.

    So in future you need to stop lying about it.


    --
    Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
    in England until 1987.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 12:24:34 2024
    Le 30/08/2024 à 07:41, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Donnerstag000029, 29.08.2024 um 09:39 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2024-08-29 06:10:54 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 27/08/2024 à 07:31, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Absolutely.

    Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
    views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.

    Magnifico! Wunderschön !!!

    Thanks.

    But this is obvious and certainly not disputed.

    But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of
    clock synchronization.

    Another of your lies, I suppose. When you write "Einstein" you don't
    mean Einstein but some other person. Have you tried reading what
    Einstein actually wrote? Not too difficult, I suppose, for a German
    speaker. I've been reluctant to put you at the same level of
    crackpottery as Wozzie, "Dr" Hachel*, or Ken Seto, but at some point
    one has to accept the evidence.


    In a way you are right, because I didn't comment Einstein's text, but
    the most common English translation of 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
    Körper'.

    Sure, this is NOT what Einstein himself had written, but a translation.

    But the translations are generally quite good and contain only very few errors.

    The main difference was not the translation of the text, but the change
    of the content by the publisher.

    E.g. the variables were renamed, to free the letter 'c' for 'speed of
    light in vacuum'.

    Also 'Kugel' was tranlated with 'sphere', while it should be 'ball'.

    But in almost all cases the translation was quite good.


    One (funny) translation error was

    'mitteilen' was translated with 'communicated'.

    This is what Google Translate also says. This is also one
    of the translation proposed by several German-French or
    German-English dictionaries. Chat GPT agrees with that.

    The error: 'mitteleilen' means usually communication, but was here used
    with the side-meaning 'to influence'.

    You are wrong in assuming this side-meaning when it comes to
    Einstein's paper. We're not bothered by this considering the level of misunderstanding you're at.

    Also 'wave-train' for 'Wellenzug' was questionable, because 'Zug' means 'train' in German, but only 'train' in conncection to railways.

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket

    Ein Wellenpaket, eine Wellengruppe oder ein Wellenzug ist eine
    räumlich oder zeitlich begrenzte Welle. Mathematisch kann ein
    Wellenpaket als zusammengesetztes System einfacherer Wellen
    aufgefasst werden. Insbesondere kann ein Wellenpaket durch
    Superposition (Addition) mehrerer ebener Wellen dargestellt werden.
    Diese Zerlegung des Wellenpakets nach Frequenzkomponenten ist durch
    die Fouriertransformation motiviert und kann experimentell mit einem
    Spektrometer bestimmt werden. Die Geschwindigkeit, mit der sich die
    Hüllkurve eines Wellenpakets fortbewegt, heißt
    Gruppengeschwindigkeit.

    translation:

    A wave packet, a wave group, or a wave train is a wave that is
    spatially or temporally limited. Mathematically, a wave packet can be
    considered as a composite system of simpler waves. In particular, a
    wave packet can be represented by the superposition (addition) of
    several plane waves. This decomposition of the wave packet according
    to frequency components is motivated by Fourier transformation and
    can be experimentally determined with a spectrometer. The speed at
    which the envelope of a wave packet moves is called the group
    velocity.

    Seems like you are lying again or that you are not that good in
    mastering you native tongue Thomas.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 12:45:15 2024
    Le 30/08/2024 à 12:38, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 30/08/2024 à 12:16, Python a écrit :
    I.1.

    Paragraph I.1. describes a procedure that looks non symmetric at
    first sight: clocks A and B are not treated exactly the same way
    (two measures for A, one for B for instance), nevertheless at the
    end of the day one can *prove* that the results are symmetric and
    that inverting A and B would lead to the same result.

    Your thing looks like Scientology.
    It's not by constantly repeating the same blunder that it becomes a truth.

    This is hard mathematical facts Richard. Something beyond your head.

    [snip nonsense]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 10:38:09 2024
    Le 30/08/2024 à 12:16, Python a écrit :
    I.1.

    Paragraph I.1. describes a procedure that looks non symmetric at
    first sight: clocks A and B are not treated exactly the same way
    (two measures for A, one for B for instance), nevertheless at the
    end of the day one can *prove* that the results are symmetric and
    that inverting A and B would lead to the same result.

    Your thing looks like Scientology.
    It's not by constantly repeating the same blunder that it becomes a truth.

    There is a symmetry, and a reciprocity in relativistic physics (there is
    no ether, no privileged frame of reference, and no privileged point
    either, the reciprocity of effects is total).

    But you confuse the forward speed of light, and the return speed of light.
    You think that reciprocity and symmetry are there.

    That light moves at the same speed for A as for B regardless of the
    direction of approach or flight.

    This is forgetting the notion of anisochrony, which Einstein sweeps in
    front of his door, without even glancing at it.

    The reciprocity is that it flees A in the same way that on the way back it flees B, then it approaches A in the same way that on the way out it
    approached B.

    But to affirm that the speed is the same in both directions is false. It
    is only partially true for an observer placed far away, and on a
    perpendicular.

    Perpendicular which will change angle by change of reference frame
    (Lorentz transformations).

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 12:16:05 2024
    Le 30/08/2024 à 07:53, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Donnerstag000029, 29.08.2024 um 10:57 schrieb Python:
    ...
    But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of
    clock synchronization.

    Liar!

    « We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
    contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
    following relations are universally valid:

    1.    *If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock
    at A synchronizes with the clock at B*.

    2.    If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with
    the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
    »

    What is point 1. if not *symmetry*?

    See here for instance:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCGuhcrb-qM

    This is a video in German about Einstein's simultaneity , but you will certainly find something equivalent in English.

    The trick of Einstein's method was an extra-observer in the middle
    between the two ends of a longish train.

    Now this system would not require to correct the delay 'by hand'.

    And this method was apparently meant by Einstein himself.

    This video is in NO WAY describing a synchronization procedure ! It
    actually assumes that clocks (both on train and platform) has been synchronized. This video is illustrating the relativity of simultaneity.

    But this method is, of course, wrong, because it s based on the position
    and state of movement of the observer in the middle.


    The error: there is no such thing as a man in the middle, if we have
    only two systems A and B. And even if there were somebody, this would be entirely irrelevant for A or B or clocks there.

    Moreover we are talking about what is ACTUALLY written in Einstein's
    article, stay focused please. There is no "extra-observer in the
    middle" involved in any part of the article, especially NOT in paragraph
    I.1.

    Paragraph I.1. describes a procedure that looks non symmetric at
    first sight: clocks A and B are not treated exactly the same way
    (two measures for A, one for B for instance), nevertheless at the
    end of the day one can *prove* that the results are symmetric and
    that inverting A and B would lead to the same result.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 13:44:15 2024
    W dniu 30.08.2024 o 12:45, Python pisze:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 12:38, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 30/08/2024 à 12:16, Python a écrit :
    I.1.

    Paragraph I.1. describes a procedure that looks non symmetric at
    first sight: clocks A and B are not treated exactly the same way
    (two measures for A, one for B for instance), nevertheless at the
    end of the day one can *prove* that the results are symmetric and
    that inverting A and B would lead to the same result.

    Your thing looks like Scientology.
    It's not by constantly repeating the same blunder that it becomes a
    truth.

    This is hard mathematical facts

    A lie, as expected from a piece of relativistic shit.
    No theory of mathematics include clocks.
    And, speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
    that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest, very
    important and successful part false, as it didn't want to
    cooperate with your madness.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 13:41:58 2024
    W dniu 30.08.2024 o 12:16, Python pisze:

    This video is in NO WAY describing a synchronization procedure ! It
    actually assumes that clocks (both on train and platform) has been synchronized. This video is illustrating the relativity of simultaneity.

    Fortunately, we have GPS now so anyone can
    check that outside of your mystical gedanken
    delusions there is no such thing.

    And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 12:12:35 2024
    XPost: fr.sci.physique

    Le 30/08/2024 à 12:45, Python a écrit :

    Your thing looks like Scientology.
    It's not by constantly repeating the same blunder that it becomes a truth.

    This is hard mathematical facts Richard. Something beyond your head.

    Well, let's see!
    (Eric Zemmour copyrights).

    Bon, t'en est où des développements ta synchronisation?

    On en est resté (avec toi) à tA(e3)-tA(e1)=2AB/c

    puis à tM(e3)-tM(e1)=2AB/c ce que tu as validé.

    Après?

    J'ai pris ta notation des événements (e1,e2,e3)

    On cherche pour commencer tB(e2), puis ensuite, on cherchera (c'est plus délicat, ne rigole pas,
    je fais pas dans les hyperplans de simultanéité globale) tA(e2), et
    tB(e1 et e3)

    Suivi où tu veux.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 17:09:29 2024
    Le 30/08/2024 à 13:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    No theory of mathematics include clocks.

    Sure! But a model of clocks can appear in a mathematical
    theory.

    Such a model of "clocks" is a family of functions from R to R^R (the
    set of functions from R to R) defined by :

    f_{\delta}: t_0 -> [ t -> t + t_0 + \delta ]

    For a given \delta > 0 f_{\delta} is a function taking the
    "initial value of the clock" as an argument and returning
    a family of clocks "running at the same rate" F_{t_0},
    which are function from R to R.

    Values showed by a specific clock F = F_{t_0} can be obtained
    by evaluation of F(0), F(F(0)), F(F(F(0))), etc.

    This can actually be implemented in a program for, for
    instance, illustrate the Einstein-Poincaré synchronization
    procedure. Using a "pure" functional language could be
    nice. You could try.

    [snip boring lie]

    piece of shit

    Nice signature Wozniak! Again, unfortunately in the middle
    of your post!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 30 20:03:22 2024
    W dniu 30.08.2024 o 17:09, Python pisze:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 13:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    No theory of mathematics include clocks.

    Sure! But a model of clocks can appear in a mathematical
    theory.

    It can, and, what's more important - a
    relativistic idiot like to invoke
    the auyhority of mathematics for
    excusing his mad claims.
    BTW - is Pythagorean theorem a
    "hard mathematical fact"?
    Yes or not?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 31 08:03:20 2024
    Am Freitag000030, 30.08.2024 um 12:16 schrieb Python:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 07:53, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Donnerstag000029, 29.08.2024 um 10:57 schrieb Python:
    ...
    But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of
    clock synchronization.

    Liar!

    « We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
    contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
    following relations are universally valid:

    1.    *If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock
    at A synchronizes with the clock at B*.

    2.    If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also
    with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each
    other.
    »

    What is point 1. if not *symmetry*?

    See here for instance:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCGuhcrb-qM

    This is a video in German about Einstein's simultaneity , but you will
    certainly find something equivalent in English.

    The trick of Einstein's method was an extra-observer in the middle
    between the two ends of a longish train.

    Now this system would not require to correct the delay 'by hand'.

    And this method was apparently meant by Einstein himself.

    This video is in NO WAY describing a synchronization procedure ! It
    actually assumes that clocks (both on train and platform) has been synchronized. This video is illustrating the relativity of simultaneity.

    This 'relativity of simultaneity' is based on observations by an
    observer in the middle between A and B.

    So, Einstein used this setting and related time the observations of an
    observer in the middle.

    That observer (called 'M' for instance) would define, what is
    synchronous and what is not.

    BUT: M would not take part in a synchronization procedure, because that
    would be carried out by operators of the clocks at A and B, which
    therefore need to be observers, too.

    Now we could name those operators/observers 'A' and 'B', too (same as
    there position).

    Then A would send a signal to B, which B reads and send it back to A.

    Then the same process is initiated from B, who sends a ping to A. This
    is reflected back. B is then enabled to calculate the proper synch-time
    and dial his clock appropriately.

    Now both (A and B) have clocks in synch.

    What is not essential for their considerations, however, that is M and
    what M regards as time.


    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 31 06:40:43 2024
    Le 31/08/2024 à 08:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Freitag000030, 30.08.2024 um 12:16 schrieb Python:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 07:53, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Donnerstag000029, 29.08.2024 um 10:57 schrieb Python:
    ...
    But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of
    clock synchronization.

    Liar!

    « We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
    contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
    following relations are universally valid:

    1.    *If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock >>>> at A synchronizes with the clock at B*.

    2.    If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also
    with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each
    other.
    »

    What is point 1. if not *symmetry*?

    See here for instance:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCGuhcrb-qM

    This is a video in German about Einstein's simultaneity , but you will
    certainly find something equivalent in English.

    The trick of Einstein's method was an extra-observer in the middle
    between the two ends of a longish train.

    Now this system would not require to correct the delay 'by hand'.

    And this method was apparently meant by Einstein himself.

    This video is in NO WAY describing a synchronization procedure ! It
    actually assumes that clocks (both on train and platform) has been
    synchronized. This video is illustrating the relativity of simultaneity.

    This 'relativity of simultaneity' is based on observations by an
    observer in the middle between A and B.

    So, Einstein used this setting and related time the observations of an observer in the middle.

    That observer (called 'M' for instance) would define, what is
    synchronous and what is not.

    BUT: M would not take part in a synchronization procedure, because that
    would be carried out by operators of the clocks at A and B, which
    therefore need to be observers, too.

    Now we could name those operators/observers 'A' and 'B', too (same as
    there position).

    Then A would send a signal to B, which B reads and send it back to A.

    Then the same process is initiated from B, who sends a ping to A. This
    is reflected back. B is then enabled to calculate the proper synch-time
    and dial his clock appropriately.

    Now both (A and B) have clocks in synch.

    What is not essential for their considerations, however, that is M and
    what M regards as time.


    ...


    TH

    "All consciousness is consciousness of something."
    Edmund Husserl.
    There is no consciousness that is consciousness of anything.
    All distance is distance from something. "You will find the train station
    12 km from the gas station".
    The same is true in relativity, all synchronization is done in relation to something, and on something.
    This something is this tiny, punctiform little being that we call a point,
    a coordinate of space.
    It is only on it that a synchronization procedure is based.
    How does the synchronization of universal time so dear to Paul B. Andersen rest?
    If a tiny little point that sets the tone.
    In our universe, where is this point?
    It must be equidistant from all the points of the universe, but in 3D,
    this is not possible.
    So we must imagine it. It is therefore an imaginary point placed
    perpendicular to the entire universe that Richard Hachel calls point M. It
    is this point, abstract and imaginary, but useful, which triggers all the watches during a synchronization procedure.
    This artifice is obviously very useful. The problem then becomes human stupidity, which is very great.
    Human beings, like poor monkeys eating their banana, believe that the
    universe has then become a kind of vast hyperplane of common and
    reciprocal present time, and that all the watches are in tune with each
    other.
    NO.
    They are all in tune with only ONE point, and one can always only be in
    tune with ONE point which sets the tone.
    Here, the point of agreement, of tone, is not even part of the visible universe? It is just virtual, imaginary, abstract.
    Do you understand these things?

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sat Aug 31 09:44:11 2024
    On 2024-08-31 06:03:20 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ … ]

    This 'relativity of simultaneity' is based on observations by an
    observer in the middle between A and B.

    So, Einstein used this setting

    One of your lies?

    and related time the observations of an observer in the middle.


    [ … ]

    --
    Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
    in England until 1987.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 31 12:30:07 2024
    Le 31/08/2024 à 08:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Freitag000030, 30.08.2024 um 12:16 schrieb Python:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 07:53, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Donnerstag000029, 29.08.2024 um 10:57 schrieb Python:
    ...
    But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of
    clock synchronization.

    Liar!

    « We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
    contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
    following relations are universally valid:

    1.    *If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock >>>> at A synchronizes with the clock at B*.

    2.    If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also
    with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with
    each other.
    »

    What is point 1. if not *symmetry*?

    See here for instance:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCGuhcrb-qM

    This is a video in German about Einstein's simultaneity , but you
    will certainly find something equivalent in English.

    The trick of Einstein's method was an extra-observer in the middle
    between the two ends of a longish train.

    Now this system would not require to correct the delay 'by hand'.

    And this method was apparently meant by Einstein himself.

    This video is in NO WAY describing a synchronization procedure ! It
    actually assumes that clocks (both on train and platform) has been
    synchronized. This video is illustrating the relativity of simultaneity.

    This 'relativity of simultaneity' is based on observations by an
    observer in the middle between A and B.

    So, Einstein used this setting and related time the observations of an observer in the middle.

    This. is. a. plain. LIE.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 31 14:19:58 2024
    Le 30/08/2024 à 20:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 30.08.2024 o 17:09, Python pisze:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 13:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    No theory of mathematics include clocks.

    Sure! But a model of clocks can appear in a mathematical
    theory.

    It can

    Good to know. We agree then.

    and, what's more important - a
    relativistic idiot like to invoke
    the auyhority of mathematics for
    excusing his mad claims.
    BTW - is Pythagorean theorem a
    "hard mathematical fact"?
    Yes or not?

    The hard mathematical fact is: Euclid's Axioms => Pythagorean theorem.

    Another question?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 31 15:05:21 2024
    W dniu 31.08.2024 o 14:19, Python pisze:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 20:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 30.08.2024 o 17:09, Python pisze:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 13:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    No theory of mathematics include clocks.

    Sure! But a model of clocks can appear in a mathematical
    theory.

    It can

    Good to know. We agree then.

    and, what's more important - a
    relativistic idiot like to invoke
    the auyhority of mathematics for
    excusing his mad claims.
    BTW - is Pythagorean theorem a
    "hard mathematical fact"?
    Yes or not?

    The hard mathematical fact is: Euclid's Axioms => Pythagorean theorem.

    Another question?

    Here it comes, poor stinker:
    Quoting:
    Paragraph I.1. describes a procedure that looks non symmetric at
    first sight: clocks A and B are not treated exactly the same way
    (two measures for A, one for B for instance), nevertheless at the
    end of the day one can *prove* that the results are symmetric and
    that inverting A and B would lead to the same result.

    This is hard mathematical facts Richard. Something beyond your head.
    End of quoting.

    No axioms now implying that? Just a hard
    mathematical fact?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 31 15:22:08 2024
    Le 31/08/2024 à 15:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 31.08.2024 o 14:19, Python pisze:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 20:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 30.08.2024 o 17:09, Python pisze:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 13:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    No theory of mathematics include clocks.

    Sure! But a model of clocks can appear in a mathematical
    theory.

    It can

    Good to know. We agree then.

    and, what's more important - a
    relativistic idiot like to invoke
    the auyhority of mathematics for
    excusing his mad claims.
    BTW - is Pythagorean theorem a
    "hard mathematical fact"?
    Yes or not?

    The hard mathematical fact is: Euclid's Axioms => Pythagorean theorem.

    Another question?

    Here it comes:
    Quoting:
    Paragraph I.1. describes a procedure that looks non symmetric at
    first sight: clocks A and B are not treated exactly the same way
    (two measures for A, one for B for instance), nevertheless at the
    end of the day one can *prove* that the results are symmetric and
    that inverting A and B would lead to the same result.

    This is hard mathematical facts Richard. Something beyond your head.
    End of quoting.

    No axioms now implying that?

    We basically need a archimedian complete ordered field. i.e. R.

    Let's pick ZFC + Peano, and R (for values of the "clocks") defined as
    the set of Cauchy sequences on Q or Dedekind's cuts. You may know the definition of Q, N, and Peano's axioms that I won't repeat here.

    Just a hard mathematical fact?

    Definitely.

    --
    poor stinker

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 31 15:32:59 2024
    W dniu 31.08.2024 o 15:22, Python pisze:
    Le 31/08/2024 à 15:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 31.08.2024 o 14:19, Python pisze:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 20:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 30.08.2024 o 17:09, Python pisze:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 13:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    No theory of mathematics include clocks.

    Sure! But a model of clocks can appear in a mathematical
    theory.

    It can

    Good to know. We agree then.

    and, what's more important - a
    relativistic idiot like to invoke
    the auyhority of mathematics for
    excusing his mad claims.
    BTW - is Pythagorean theorem a
    "hard mathematical fact"?
    Yes or not?

    The hard mathematical fact is: Euclid's Axioms => Pythagorean theorem.

    Another question?

    Here it comes:
    Quoting:
    Paragraph I.1. describes a procedure that looks non symmetric at
    first sight: clocks A and B are not treated exactly the same way
    (two measures for A, one for B for instance), nevertheless at the
    end of the day one can *prove* that the results are symmetric and
    that inverting A and B would lead to the same result.
    ;
    This is hard mathematical facts Richard. Something beyond your head.
    End of quoting.

    No axioms now implying that?

    We basically need a archimedian complete ordered field. i.e. R.

    Let's pick ZFC + Peano, and R (for values of the "clocks") defined as
    the set of Cauchy sequences on Q or Dedekind's cuts.

    I see: a cow and a cow gives a rhino.
    What a hard mathematical fact it is -
    just take Peano's and define a cow
    as 1 and a rhino as 2.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 31 15:36:00 2024
    Le 31/08/2024 à 15:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 31.08.2024 o 15:22, Python pisze:
    Le 31/08/2024 à 15:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 31.08.2024 o 14:19, Python pisze:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 20:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 30.08.2024 o 17:09, Python pisze:
    Le 30/08/2024 à 13:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    ...
    No theory of mathematics include clocks.

    Sure! But a model of clocks can appear in a mathematical
    theory.

    It can

    Good to know. We agree then.

    and, what's more important - a
    relativistic idiot like to invoke
    the auyhority of mathematics for
    excusing his mad claims.
    BTW - is Pythagorean theorem a
    "hard mathematical fact"?
    Yes or not?

    The hard mathematical fact is: Euclid's Axioms => Pythagorean theorem. >>>>
    Another question?

    Here it comes:
    Quoting:
    Paragraph I.1. describes a procedure that looks non symmetric at
    first sight: clocks A and B are not treated exactly the same way
    (two measures for A, one for B for instance), nevertheless at the
    end of the day one can *prove* that the results are symmetric and
    that inverting A and B would lead to the same result.
    ;
    This is hard mathematical facts Richard. Something beyond your head.
    End of quoting.

    No axioms now implying that?

    We basically need a archimedian complete ordered field. i.e. R.

    Let's pick ZFC + Peano, and R (for values of the "clocks") defined as
    the set of Cauchy sequences on Q or Dedekind's cuts.

    I see: a cow and a cow gives a rhino.
    What a hard mathematical fact it is -
    just take Peano's and define a cow
    as 1 and  a rhino as 2.

    Sure, you can.

    More precisely you could name S(0) "cow" and S(S(0)) "rhino", as
    long as your audience is aware of that. What's your problem Maciej?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 1 08:47:05 2024
    Am Samstag000031, 31.08.2024 um 09:44 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2024-08-31 06:03:20 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ … ]

    This 'relativity of simultaneity' is based on observations by an
    observer in the middle between A and B.

    So, Einstein used this setting

    One of your lies?

     and related time the observations of an observer in the middle.

    No, not really...

    Many textbooks about relativity use the picture of a train with one
    observer on the banks of the track and one within the train.

    These observers are usually placed in the middle between two
    simultaneous events at both ends of the train.

    Now the man on the bank has kind of special mirror, which allow him to
    see both flashes at the same time.

    Then relativity of simultaneity is explained as different observations
    on the bank and in the train.

    But I would require to remove the delay, caused by the finite speed of
    light, what would make both observations equal.

    And as far as I call tell, Einstein used the picture from above, because
    he made no attempts to remove the delay.

    His concept would allow to synchronize clocks, too, but only two clocks
    at a time.

    In contrast I would use a different concept and use a hypothetical
    signal with infinite velocity to define simultaneity.

    To make light usuable I would measure the delay and add that to the
    observed time value (seen at the remote clock).

    This would allow a time measure, which is valid for the entire frame of reference.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 1 10:37:42 2024
    Le 01/09/2024 à 08:46, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    No, not really...

    Many textbooks about relativity use the picture of a train with one
    observer on the banks of the track and one within the train.

    These observers are usually placed in the middle between two
    simultaneous events at both ends of the train.

    Now the man on the bank has kind of special mirror, which allow him to
    see both flashes at the same time.

    Then relativity of simultaneity is explained as different observations
    on the bank and in the train.

    But I would require to remove the delay, caused by the finite speed of
    light, what would make both observations equal.

    And as far as I call tell, Einstein used the picture from above, because
    he made no attempts to remove the delay.

    His concept would allow to synchronize clocks, too, but only two clocks
    at a time.

    In contrast I would use a different concept and use a hypothetical
    signal with infinite velocity to define simultaneity.

    To make light usuable I would measure the delay and add that to the
    observed time value (seen at the remote clock).

    This would allow a time measure, which is valid for the entire frame of reference.


    TH

    No, that is the relativity of chronotropy, not of simultaneity.

    If two men are in the same place, we call that a joint event; and we will
    take the example of a man sitting in a train (or a rocket) and who passes
    in front of a man on the platform (or on the earth).

    In this very specific case, the two men, even in relative speed of Uo=0.6c
    or Vo=0.8c, have EXACTLY the same simultaneity of universes. It is
    extremely simple to understand, but extremely difficult to teach.

    For example, one observes the explosion of a supernova and receives a
    burst of neutrinos and photons; the other will observe it and receive them
    too.

    It is so obvious that any attempt to deny the fact will quickly drift into
    the grotesque and the absurd.

    This means that, for both observers, the visible universe is simultaneous
    (with Lorentz deformations on x).

    x'=(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
    y'=y
    z'=z
    t'=t
    To'=(To+x.Vo/c²)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

    We therefore have a relativity of the internal chronotropy of the watches
    of the two observers (they do not beat at the same speed, and each one
    turns faster than the other, which is not a paradox once the theory is understood and the notion of anisochrony integrated into the whole description), but at this very precise moment, they mark the same time (it
    will not last long), exist in the same present moment, and observe an absolutely identical present universe.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 1 14:33:34 2024
    Le 01/09/2024 à 08:47, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Samstag000031, 31.08.2024 um 09:44 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2024-08-31 06:03:20 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ … ]

    This 'relativity of simultaneity' is based on observations by an
    observer in the middle between A and B.

    So, Einstein used this setting

    One of your lies?

     and related time the observations of an observer in the middle.

    No, not really...

    Many textbooks about relativity use the picture of a train with one
    observer on the banks of the track and one within the train.

    These observers are usually placed in the middle between two
    simultaneous events at both ends of the train.

    Now the man on the bank has kind of special mirror, which allow him to
    see both flashes at the same time.

    Then relativity of simultaneity is explained as different observations
    on the bank and in the train.

    Right (somewhat). So, definitely, this scheme is about illustrating the relativity of simultaneity, NOT clocks synchronization.

    But I would require to remove the delay, caused by the finite speed of
    light, what would make both observations equal.

    And as far as I call tell, Einstein used the picture from above, because
    he made no attempts to remove the delay.

    NO ! As far as YOU can tell (if you were an honest person) YOU KNOW that
    the delay is taken into account : t_B = t'_A - (AB)/c (it *is* removed).

    His concept would allow to synchronize clocks, too, but only two clocks
    at a time.

    NO. Einstein wrote EXPLICITLY that the relation "being synchronized" is symmetric, reflexive and transitive. This means that it can be
    generalized to an arbitrary number of clocks.

    STOP LYING THOMAS!


    [snip demented nonsense]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 1 15:37:26 2024
    W dniu 01.09.2024 o 14:33, Python pisze:
    Le 01/09/2024 à 08:47, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Samstag000031, 31.08.2024 um 09:44 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2024-08-31 06:03:20 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ … ]

    This 'relativity of simultaneity' is based on observations by an
    observer in the middle between A and B.

    So, Einstein used this setting

    One of your lies?

     and related time the observations of an observer in the middle.

    No, not really...

    Many textbooks about relativity use the picture of a train with one
    observer on the banks of the track and one within the train.

    These observers are usually placed in the middle between two
    simultaneous events at both ends of the train.

    Now the man on the bank has kind of special mirror, which allow him to
    see both flashes at the same time.

    Then relativity of simultaneity is explained as different observations
    on the bank and in the train.

    Right (somewhat). So, definitely, this scheme is about illustrating the relativity of simultaneity, NOT clocks synchronization.

    But I would require to remove the delay, caused by the finite speed of
    light, what would make both observations equal.

    And as far as I call tell, Einstein used the picture from above,
    because he made no attempts to remove the delay.

    NO ! As far as YOU can tell (if you were an honest person) YOU KNOW that
    the delay is taken into account : t_B = t'_A - (AB)/c (it *is* removed).

    His concept would allow to synchronize clocks, too, but only two
    clocks at a time.

    NO. Einstein wrote EXPLICITLY that the relation "being synchronized" is symmetric, reflexive and transitive.

    So what that he wrote? The mumble of the idiot
    was not consistent, I've proven that.

    And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)