**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)
t_A + 2(AB)/c = 2*t_B - t_A
2*t_A = 2( t_B - (AB)/c )
t_A = t_B - (AB)/c
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.
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.
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
Poor stinker, bullshit as usual.
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
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.
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
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
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.
Le 17/08/2024 à 16:02, Python a écrit :slander
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
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.
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?
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
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 (sic) is allegedly
a part od (sic) a pendulum clock,
poor stinker.
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.
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.
Le 17/08/2024 à 16:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :Don't give a damn to.
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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
Wozniak is in the second group because he has NEVER proven any
inconsistency in relativity. So the question is: is he a liar,
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.
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.
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
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.
**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.
B) should be equal to delay(B->A).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods.
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.
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,
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.
On 8/17/2024 8:56 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.08.2024 o 14:52, Python pisze:Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the moon,
**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.
wouldn't even be close to functioning identically.
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."
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,
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.
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.
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.
just like everyone in your moronic church.
Not just me, but everyone that disagrees with his unproven assertions.
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.
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:Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the moon,
**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.
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 :-)
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:Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the moon,
**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.
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]
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:Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the moon,
**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.
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.
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:Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the
**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.
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?
...
Still, your "logic" of
"identical clocks"=>"identical functioning
(within measurement accuracy)" is kind of
absurd.
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.
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:Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the
**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.
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".
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:Wrong. Two identical pendulum clocks, one on Earth, one on the
**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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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:
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.
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 [snip profanities]
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.
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,
poor trash.
And I did, dosens of times.
If this were true, I surely would have seen it and remembered.
And you did.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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"
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.
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'.
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...) ?
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.
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.
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
...
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.
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.
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).
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 ?
What he had actually written was
r_AB/(c-v)
This is in paragraph 3. We are dealing with paragraph 2 here.
"... 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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 toyou?.."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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'.
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.
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.
[snip more idiocies]
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.
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.
You cannot pretend to be a professor, even hypothetical, when dealing
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. >>>
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.
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????
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.
Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 08:27 schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:SORRY!
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.
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).
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
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:SORRY!
Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:
Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entireSystems 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"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. >>>>>>
is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article. >>>>>
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.
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
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:SORRY!
Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:
Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entireSystems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k >>>>>>>> wasAddendum : "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. >>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>
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.
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
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:SORRY!
Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:
Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entireSystems 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. >>>>>>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. >>>>>>>
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.
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]
Am Samstag000024, 24.08.2024 um 10:11 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-08-24 07:02:23 +0000, Thomas Heger said:Yes, but I have critized this, because any symbol used should have a meaning.
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.
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:Yes, but I have critized this, because any symbol used should have a
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.
meaning.
The meaning "yet another coordinate system" is a meaning.
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.
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:SORRY!
Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:
Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entireSystems 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"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. >>>>>>
is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article. >>>>>
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.
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.
My point was, that 'AB' is not a valid symbol for 'distance from point
A to point B'.
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).
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
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.
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:SORRY!
Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:
Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entireSystems 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. >>>>>>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. >>>>>>>
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.
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).
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:SORRY!
Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:
Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entireSystems 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. >>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>>
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.
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.
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:SORRY!
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.
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.
Why are you cranks always whining that getting reactions to your lies
and idiocies are censorship?
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.
W dniu 26.08.2024 o 13:12, Python pisze:...
, and is definitely not censorship.
Of course it's not.
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.
This reminds me this old joke:
https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/476677941782239946/
"Just a darn minute! — Yesterday you said that X equals two!"
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.
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.
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
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").
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).
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
And guess what ? 8 - 1 = 7 ! Hooora!
Another question, doc?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Am Montag000026, 26.08.2024 um 12:14 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 26/08/2024 à 07:47, Thomas Heger a écrit :Well, thanks.
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.
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?
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??
Bt_A
The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.
Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both
views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.
TH
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
(**) 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:
Bt_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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)?
I notice in my telescope that when my watch marks
00:00'08" the lunar clock is desynchronized and
marks 00:00'07".
The beautiful thing is to say that "photons move at c".This made me ask:
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.
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.
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.
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:
Bt_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.
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.
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:
Bt_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!!!).
Le 28/08/2024 à 08:10, Thomas Heger a écrit :
There is NOTHING ambiguous in Einstein's paper.
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
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 !!!
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?
Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 27/08/2024 07:31, Thomas Heger a crit :Thanks.
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 !!!
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
Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 27/08/2024 à 07:31, Thomas Heger a écrit :Thanks.
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 !!!
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').
[snip nonsense]
Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 27/08/2024 à 07:31, Thomas Heger a écrit :Thanks.
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 !!!
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').
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 :Thanks.
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 !!!
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]
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 :Thanks.
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 !!!
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.
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.
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 :Thanks.
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 !!!
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.
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.
[snip nonsense]
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
No theory of mathematics include clocks.
[snip boring lie]
piece of shit
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.
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.
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
[ … ]
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.
[ … ]
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
Just a hard mathematical fact?
--
poor stinker
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:
This is hard mathematical facts Richard. Something beyond your head.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.
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.
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:
This is hard mathematical facts Richard. Something beyond your head.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.
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.
On 2024-08-31 06:03:20 +0000, Thomas Heger said:No, not really...
[ … ]
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
Am Samstag000031, 31.08.2024 um 09:44 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-08-31 06:03:20 +0000, Thomas Heger said:No, not really...
[ … ]
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.
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.
[snip demented nonsense]
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:No, not really...
[ … ]
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.
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 07:06:15 |
Calls: | 7,826 |
Calls today: | 9 |
Files: | 12,930 |
Messages: | 5,769,253 |
Posted today: | 1 |