On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 08:29:07 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.03.2023 um 19:39 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In other words,
> >>> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands
> >>> the content.
> >>
> >> This is actually true.
> >>
> >> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.
> >
> > Wrong analogy. What you are doing is like putting your swimsuit on and
> > complaining about food there and how badly the waiters swims.
> This was about the worst analogy I have ever heard.

Jan is a knight of The Shit!!! Suggesting, that his analogies
may not be perfect is simply ridiculous.

On 2023-03-31 06:27:18 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 30.03.2023 um 19:30 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> On 2023-03-30 17:03:57 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am 29.03.2023 um 08:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>> ...
>>>>> But Phoenicians had left (allegedly) traces of their appearance in
>>>>> South America already earlier than 2000 B.C.
>>>>
>>>> Who says? Where is this published?
>>>
>>> https://www.phoeniciansbeforecolumbus.com/
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCxGXyitu2o
>>
>> Are these really the best evidence you have? Where are the publications
>> in serious academic journals?
>
> If you are interested in history and want to write a scientific article
> about the early travels of the Phoenicians to South America, than feel
> free to do so.
>
> I'm personally not involved in such research, hence feel no urge to
> read such journals.

So why do you pretend to have serious sources when you have none?

--
athel - not a mathematician, though with an Erdös number of 3

Am 31.03.2023 um 10:27 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2023-03-31 06:27:18 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 30.03.2023 um 19:30 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>> On 2023-03-30 17:03:57 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>> Am 29.03.2023 um 08:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> But Phoenicians had left (allegedly) traces of their appearance in
>>>>>> South America already earlier than 2000 B.C.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who says? Where is this published?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.phoeniciansbeforecolumbus.com/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCxGXyitu2o
>>>
>>> Are these really the best evidence you have? Where are the publications
>>> in serious academic journals?
>>
>> If you are interested in history and want to write a scientific
>> article about the early travels of the Phoenicians to South America,
>> than feel free to do so.
>>
>> I'm personally not involved in such research, hence feel no urge to
>> read such journals.
>
> So why do you pretend to have serious sources when you have none?
>

I have not pretended to be a historian. I have actually written, that I
am not.

I case you are interested in the subject, you should simply ask google
and type 'pre-columbian Phoenicians south-america ' into the google
search mask.

This will certainly give you enough to read.

TH

On 2023-04-01 07:36:39 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 31.03.2023 um 10:27 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> On 2023-03-31 06:27:18 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am 30.03.2023 um 19:30 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>> On 2023-03-30 17:03:57 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 29.03.2023 um 08:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> But Phoenicians had left (allegedly) traces of their appearance in
>>>>>>> South America already earlier than 2000 B.C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who says? Where is this published?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.phoeniciansbeforecolumbus.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCxGXyitu2o
>>>>
>>>> Are these really the best evidence you have? Where are the publications
>>>> in serious academic journals?
>>>
>>> If you are interested in history and want to write a scientific
>>> article about the early travels of the Phoenicians to South America,
>>> than feel free to do so.
>>>
>>> I'm personally not involved in such research, hence feel no urge to
>>> read such journals.
>>
>> So why do you pretend to have serious sources when you have none?
>>
>
> I have not pretended to be a historian. I have actually written, that I am not.
>
> I case you are interested in the subject, you should simply ask google
> and type 'pre-columbian Phoenicians south-america ' into the google
> search mask.
>
>
> This will certainly give you enough to read.

Serious sources? You have none.

Besides, I'm not the one making wild claims, it's you. I'm just trying
to find out if you have any serious evidence for what you say. It's
pretty obvious that you have none.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Am 01.04.2023 um 10:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2023-04-01 07:36:39 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 31.03.2023 um 10:27 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>> On 2023-03-31 06:27:18 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>> Am 30.03.2023 um 19:30 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>>> On 2023-03-30 17:03:57 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 29.03.2023 um 08:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> But Phoenicians had left (allegedly) traces of their appearance in
>>>>>>>> South America already earlier than 2000 B.C.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who says? Where is this published?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.phoeniciansbeforecolumbus.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCxGXyitu2o
>>>>>
>>>>> Are these really the best evidence you have? Where are the
>>>>> publications
>>>>> in serious academic journals?
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested in history and want to write a scientific
>>>> article about the early travels of the Phoenicians to South America,
>>>> than feel free to do so.
>>>>
>>>> I'm personally not involved in such research, hence feel no urge to
>>>> read such journals.
>>>
>>> So why do you pretend to have serious sources when you have none?
>>>
>>
>> I have not pretended to be a historian. I have actually written, that
>> I am not.
>>
>> I case you are interested in the subject, you should simply ask google
>> and type 'pre-columbian Phoenicians south-america ' into the google
>> search mask.
>>
>>
>> This will certainly give you enough to read.
>
> Serious sources? You have none.
>
> Besides, I'm not the one making wild claims, it's you. I'm just trying
> to find out if you have any serious evidence for what you say. It's
> pretty obvious that you have none.

Apparently you want to discuss the validity of claims, that Phoenicians
were in South America in 2000 B.C.

Sure, you can do this, but not with me, since these claims do not stem
from me.

I have only quoted such claims.

This was not really a quote, but simply a search phrase for Google,
which would provide you with tons of links, where such claims were made.

In case you like to reject the content of these websites, than you could
do this. But you need to send your complaints to the authors of these
sites and not to me.

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 01.04.2023 um 10:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> > On 2023-04-01 07:36:39 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> >
> >> Am 31.03.2023 um 10:27 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> >>> On 2023-03-31 06:27:18 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> >>>
> >>>> Am 30.03.2023 um 19:30 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> >>>>> On 2023-03-30 17:03:57 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 29.03.2023 um 08:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> But Phoenicians had left (allegedly) traces of their appearance in
> >>>>>>>> South America already earlier than 2000 B.C.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Who says? Where is this published?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.phoeniciansbeforecolumbus.com/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCxGXyitu2o
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are these really the best evidence you have? Where are the
> >>>>> publications
> >>>>> in serious academic journals?
> >>>>
> >>>> If you are interested in history and want to write a scientific
> >>>> article about the early travels of the Phoenicians to South America,
> >>>> than feel free to do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm personally not involved in such research, hence feel no urge to
> >>>> read such journals.
> >>>
> >>> So why do you pretend to have serious sources when you have none?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have not pretended to be a historian. I have actually written, that
> >> I am not.
> >>
> >> I case you are interested in the subject, you should simply ask google
> >> and type 'pre-columbian Phoenicians south-america ' into the google
> >> search mask.
> >>
> >>
> >> This will certainly give you enough to read.
> >
> > Serious sources? You have none.
> >
> > Besides, I'm not the one making wild claims, it's you. I'm just trying
> > to find out if you have any serious evidence for what you say. It's
> > pretty obvious that you have none.
>
>
> Apparently you want to discuss the validity of claims, that Phoenicians
> were in South America in 2000 B.C.
>
> Sure, you can do this, but not with me, since these claims do not stem
> from me.
>
> I have only quoted such claims.
>
> This was not really a quote, but simply a search phrase for Google,
> which would provide you with tons of links, where such claims were made.
>
> In case you like to reject the content of these websites, than you could
> do this. But you need to send your complaints to the authors of these
> sites and not to me.

Weaseling out, eh?

Jan

On 2023-04-02 05:58:22 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Apparently you want to discuss the validity of claims, that Phoenicians
> were in South America in 2000 B.C.
>
> Sure, you can do this, but not with me, since these claims do not stem from me.
>
> I have only quoted such claims.

So you are just another Pentcho Valev (as if one were not enough)
quoting stuff you haven't tried to understand. I'll know in future not
to bother.
>
> This was not really a quote, but simply a search phrase for Google,
> which would provide you with tons of links, where such claims were made.
>
> In case you like to reject the content of these websites, than you
> could do this. But you need to send your complaints to the authors of
> these sites and not to me.
>
>
> TH

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Am 02.04.2023 um 10:38 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2023-04-02 05:58:22 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Apparently you want to discuss the validity of claims, that
>> Phoenicians were in South America in 2000 B.C.
>>
>> Sure, you can do this, but not with me, since these claims do not stem
>> from me.
>>
>> I have only quoted such claims.
>
> So you are just another Pentcho Valev (as if one were not enough)
> quoting stuff you haven't tried to understand. I'll know in future not
> to bother.

Actually I have spent a lot of time with the topic of pre-columbian
travels to south america.

As I see it, there has been a lot of evidence, that Phoenicians had in
fact sailed to that region long before the journey of Columbus.

But I cannot proove this hypothesis, because I'm not a historian and had
never been in south-america myself or had access to archives.

So, in case you are interested in this topic and like to discuss this
question, than you are free to do so. But you need to contact real
historians and people with direct access to evidence.

Unfortunately I cannot helpt here, because I don't have.

....

TH

Am 14.03.2023 um 18:31 schrieb JanPB:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:17:00 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
>> Demented Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 13.03.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Python:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 12.03.2023 um 15:36 schrieb Python:
>>>>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 12/03/2023 à 13:34, Python a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have written my annotations entirely myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> found something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>> or at
>>>>>>>>>>>> best irrelevant. You ignore that and come back with "I wish
>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> would tell me where errors were found in my annotations".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You were told in detail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be
>>>>>>>>> found here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of the most outrageous blunders you've made is this comment on
>>>>>>>> page 2 :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If Einstein had added the delay of the timed signal, this
>>>>>>>>> disadvantage would disappear.
>>>>>>>>> But he took the actual reading of the remote clock as time at the
>>>>>>>>> clock's location.
>>>>>>>>> That made it difficult to relocate the clock, while maintaining the
>>>>>>>>> same time.
>>>>>>>>> It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to add
>>>>>>>>> the delay or not,
>>>>>>>>> because no statement about that can be found in this text.
>>>>>>>>> But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because that
>>>>>>>>> would solve
>>>>>>>>> this problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've shown to you repeatedly that the synchronization described on
>>>>>>>> page 3 is exactly "taking the delay into account". He didn't describe
>>>>>>>> it with the exact wording you wanted for a good reason: separating
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> is conventional in this procedure and what is not. This procedure can
>>>>>>>> be shown to be strictly equivalent to what Poincaré proposed before.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the context of page 3, these two equations:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>>>>>>>> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> implies:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i.e. time for clock at B for the event taking place at clock A is
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> for clock A + delay of propagation of light from B to A.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This *precisely* means "taking the delay into account". And if
>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>> for everyone with minimal mathematical ability.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, obviously yes.
>>>>
>>>>> After carefull reading of the entire text and searching for any
>>>>> possible hint, that Einstein din't want to use the actually reading of
>>>>> the remote clock as time at the location of the remote clock and
>>>>> finding no hint whatsoever, that he wanted to add the delay,
>>>>
>>>> You didn't read carefully enough, or you have not the mathematical basic
>>>> ability to notice that the two equation in part I.1.:
>>>>
>>>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>>>> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>>>>
>>>> implies:
>>>>
>>>> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c

This arithmatic for second graders, but does not prove, that Einstein
had the intention to add the delay to a timed signal from a remote location.

In fact a simple relation like delay = distance /c cannot be found
anywhere in Einstein's paper.

This would fit to other results, where Einstein seemingly wanted to make
time dependent on location.

btw: The equations above are actually valid only if the distance between
A and B does not change, while the light signal is on its way.

But this requirement is violating the very purpose of Einstein's text,
which was about relative motion.

>>>
>>> It is conceptually difficult to combine values from different systems of
>>> reference in one equation.
>>>
>>> t_B is the local time at place B, which is a remote location, that
>>> maintains an own timing system.
>>>
>>> E.g. think about B as a place on the Moon or on a planet near Alpha
>>> Centaury, where smarts critters live, which also have clocks.
>>>
>>> Now you cannot use their time values together with Earth time values,
>>> unless you convert their measures into ours.
>>>
>>> But supposed you have a telesope capable of seeing the clocks at such
>>> remote locations, you could actually see, what clocks there would show.
>>>
>>> That would be the value 't_B'.
>>>
>>> Now you could figuere out the distance to that place and assume a
>>> constant signal velocity and estimate, when the own signal would arrive
>>> there and when a reply would be expected.
>>>
>>> This reply would be here as expected, when our own clocks would show t_B
>>> according to your equation.
>>>
>>> But now we have a discrepancy between the deifinitions of t_B, because
>>> the different uses require diffent the units of time.
>>>
>>> The critters near Alpha Centaury will most likely not use hours and
>>> seconds and we will most likely not understand their units.
>>>
>>> Therefore, t_B must be measured in Earth time units, while t_B should
>>> actually be measured in units of those critters.
>> 100% of your post above is pure NONSENSE and is completely unrelated
>> to part I.1. in Einstein's article.
>>
>> t_A, t_B, t'_A are precisely defined by Einstein there, it has noting
>> to do with your fantasies about time on Alpha Centaury or the Moon.

Am 14.03.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Python:
> Demented Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 13.03.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Python:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 12.03.2023 um 15:36 schrieb Python:
>>>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
>>>>>> Le 12/03/2023 à 13:34, Python a écrit :
>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have written my annotations entirely myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations
>>>>>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>>>>> errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> found something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> or at
>>>>>>>>>>> best irrelevant. You ignore that and come back with "I wish
>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>> would tell me where errors were found in my annotations".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You were told in detail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be
>>>>>>>> found here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the most outrageous blunders you've made is this comment on
>>>>>>> page 2 :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If Einstein had added the delay of the timed signal, this
>>>>>>>> disadvantage would disappear.
>>>>>>>> But he took the actual reading of the remote clock as time at the
>>>>>>>> clock's location.
>>>>>>>> That made it difficult to relocate the clock, while maintaining the
>>>>>>>> same time.
>>>>>>>> It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to
>>>>>>>> add
>>>>>>>> the delay or not,
>>>>>>>> because no statement about that can be found in this text.
>>>>>>>> But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> would solve
>>>>>>>> this problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've shown to you repeatedly that the synchronization described on
>>>>>>> page 3 is exactly "taking the delay into account". He didn't
>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>> it with the exact wording you wanted for a good reason: separating
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> is conventional in this procedure and what is not. This procedure
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> be shown to be strictly equivalent to what Poincaré proposed before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the context of page 3, these two equations:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>>>>>>> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> implies:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i.e. time for clock at B for the event taking place at clock A is
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> for clock A + delay of propagation of light from B to A.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This *precisely* means "taking the delay into account". And if
>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>> for everyone with minimal mathematical ability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Yes, obviously yes.
>>>
>>>> After carefull reading of the entire text and searching for any
>>>> possible hint, that Einstein din't want to use the actually reading of
>>>> the remote clock as time at the location of the remote clock and
>>>> finding no hint whatsoever, that he wanted to add the delay,
>>>
>>> You didn't read carefully enough, or you have not the mathematical basic
>>> ability to notice that the two equation in part I.1.:
>>>
>>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>>> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>>>
>>> implies:
>>>
>>> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
>>
>> It is conceptually difficult to combine values from different systems
>> of reference in one equation.
>>
>> t_B is the local time at place B, which is a remote location, that
>> maintains an own timing system.
>>
>> E.g. think about B as a place on the Moon or on a planet near Alpha
>> Centaury, where smarts critters live, which also have clocks.
>>
>> Now you cannot use their time values together with Earth time values,
>> unless you convert their measures into ours.
>>
>> But supposed you have a telesope capable of seeing the clocks at such
>> remote locations, you could actually see, what clocks there would show.
>>
>> That would be the value 't_B'.
>>
>> Now you could figuere out the distance to that place and assume a
>> constant signal velocity and estimate, when the own signal would
>> arrive there and when a reply would be expected.
>>
>> This reply would be here as expected, when our own clocks would show
>> t_B according to your equation.
>>
>> But now we have a discrepancy between the deifinitions of t_B, because
>> the different uses require diffent the units of time.
>>
>> The critters near Alpha Centaury will most likely not use hours and
>> seconds and we will most likely not understand their units.
>>
>> Therefore, t_B must be measured in Earth time units, while t_B should
>> actually be measured in units of those critters.
>
> 100% of your post above is pure NONSENSE and is completely unrelated
> to part I.1. in Einstein's article.
>
> t_A, t_B, t'_A are precisely defined by Einstein there, it has noting
> to do with your fantasies about time on Alpha Centaury or the Moon.
>
> You are importing you own delusions, so of course the conclusions are
> absurd, but this absurdity is the own you brought in the first place.

I have found an easier example:

lets assume that Mars would be inhabited by Marsians and we would like
to communicate with them about time and synchronized clocks.

How could we do this???

Well, we could send a time signal there and tell them: we have now 12
o'clock at Greenwich and it's the 6th of April 2023.

Then the Marsians reply, that they have no idea, what we are talking about.

OK, we reply, we send you signal, which contains one 'beep' per second,
a longer beep per hour and two longer beeps per day.

OK, say the Marsians, we understand.

BUT: Mars moves in respect to Earth, hence the signals sent once per
second do not arrive there once per second.

Also the days on Mars have a different length and also the year has.

On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 08:31:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.03.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Python:
> > Demented Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 13.03.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Python:
> >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 12.03.2023 um 15:36 schrieb Python:
> >>>>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> >>>>>> Le 12/03/2023 à 13:34, Python a écrit :
> >>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have written my annotations entirely myself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations
> >>>>>>>>>>>> contain
> >>>>>>>>>>>> errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> found something wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong
> >>>>>>>>>>> or at
> >>>>>>>>>>> best irrelevant. You ignore that and come back with "I wish
> >>>>>>>>>>> someone
> >>>>>>>>>>> would tell me where errors were found in my annotations".
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You were told in detail.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sure.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be
> >>>>>>>> found here:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> One of the most outrageous blunders you've made is this comment on
> >>>>>>> page 2 :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If Einstein had added the delay of the timed signal, this
> >>>>>>>> disadvantage would disappear.
> >>>>>>>> But he took the actual reading of the remote clock as time at the
> >>>>>>>> clock's location.
> >>>>>>>> That made it difficult to relocate the clock, while maintaining the
> >>>>>>>> same time.
> >>>>>>>> It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to
> >>>>>>>> add
> >>>>>>>> the delay or not,
> >>>>>>>> because no statement about that can be found in this text.
> >>>>>>>> But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> would solve
> >>>>>>>> this problem.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've shown to you repeatedly that the synchronization described on
> >>>>>>> page 3 is exactly "taking the delay into account". He didn't
> >>>>>>> describe
> >>>>>>> it with the exact wording you wanted for a good reason: separating
> >>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>> is conventional in this procedure and what is not. This procedure
> >>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>> be shown to be strictly equivalent to what Poincaré proposed before.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In the context of page 3, these two equations:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
> >>>>>>> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> implies:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> i.e. time for clock at B for the event taking place at clock A is
> >>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>> for clock A + delay of propagation of light from B to A.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This *precisely* means "taking the delay into account". And if
> >>>>>>> obvious
> >>>>>>> for everyone with minimal mathematical ability.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, obviously yes.
> >>>
> >>>> After carefull reading of the entire text and searching for any
> >>>> possible hint, that Einstein din't want to use the actually reading of
> >>>> the remote clock as time at the location of the remote clock and
> >>>> finding no hint whatsoever, that he wanted to add the delay,
> >>>
> >>> You didn't read carefully enough, or you have not the mathematical basic
> >>> ability to notice that the two equation in part I.1.:
> >>>
> >>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
> >>> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
> >>>
> >>> implies:
> >>>
> >>> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
> >>
> >> It is conceptually difficult to combine values from different systems
> >> of reference in one equation.
> >>
> >> t_B is the local time at place B, which is a remote location, that
> >> maintains an own timing system.
> >>
> >> E.g. think about B as a place on the Moon or on a planet near Alpha
> >> Centaury, where smarts critters live, which also have clocks.
> >>
> >> Now you cannot use their time values together with Earth time values,
> >> unless you convert their measures into ours.
> >>
> >> But supposed you have a telesope capable of seeing the clocks at such
> >> remote locations, you could actually see, what clocks there would show..
> >>
> >> That would be the value 't_B'.
> >>
> >> Now you could figuere out the distance to that place and assume a
> >> constant signal velocity and estimate, when the own signal would
> >> arrive there and when a reply would be expected.
> >>
> >> This reply would be here as expected, when our own clocks would show
> >> t_B according to your equation.
> >>
> >> But now we have a discrepancy between the deifinitions of t_B, because
> >> the different uses require diffent the units of time.
> >>
> >> The critters near Alpha Centaury will most likely not use hours and
> >> seconds and we will most likely not understand their units.
> >>
> >> Therefore, t_B must be measured in Earth time units, while t_B should
> >> actually be measured in units of those critters.
> >
> > 100% of your post above is pure NONSENSE and is completely unrelated
> > to part I.1. in Einstein's article.
> >
> > t_A, t_B, t'_A are precisely defined by Einstein there, it has noting
> > to do with your fantasies about time on Alpha Centaury or the Moon.
> >
> > You are importing you own delusions, so of course the conclusions are
> > absurd, but this absurdity is the own you brought in the first place.
> I have found an easier example:
>
> lets assume that Mars would be inhabited by Marsians and we would like
> to communicate with them about time and synchronized clocks.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 14.03.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Python:

> > You are importing you own delusions, so of course the conclusions are
> > absurd, but this absurdity is the own you brought in the first place.
>
>
> I have found an easier example:

And onother delusion.

> lets assume that Mars would be inhabited by Marsians and we would like
> to communicate with them about time and synchronized clocks.
>
> How could we do this???
[verbiage]

The correct answer is that it cannot be done.
Clocks on Mars will run inherently faster that clocks on Earth.

The only thing that can be done about it
is to correct for the differences,
and to refer both to a common standard,
like for example TCB,

Jan

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.03.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Python:
>> Demented Thomas Heger wrote:
[...]
>>> Therefore, t_B must be measured in Earth time units, while t_B should
>>> actually be measured in units of those critters.
>>
>> 100% of your post above is pure NONSENSE and is completely unrelated
>> to part I.1. in Einstein's article.
>>
>> t_A, t_B, t'_A are precisely defined by Einstein there, it has noting
>> to do with your fantasies about time on Alpha Centaury or the Moon.
>>
>> You are importing you own delusions, so of course the conclusions are
>> absurd, but this absurdity is the own you brought in the first place.
>
>
> I have found an easier example:
>
> lets assume that Mars would be inhabited by Marsians and we would like
> to communicate with them about time and synchronized clocks.

Alpha Centauri or Mars that doesn't change anything about the
*fact* that you miss the point of part I.1. *completely*.

> How could we do this???
>
> Well, we could send a time signal there and tell them: we have now 12
> o'clock at Greenwich and it's the 6th of April 2023.
>
>
> Then the Marsians reply, that they have no idea, what we are talking about.
>
> OK, we reply, we send you signal, which contains one 'beep' per second,
> a longer beep per hour and two longer beeps per day.
>
> OK, say the Marsians, we understand.

This is gibberish, moreover irrelevant to Einstein writing.

Clocks to be consider in paragraph I.1 are identical to start with:

"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock
*in all respects* resembling the one at A" (emphasized by me)

> BUT: Mars moves in respect to Earth, hence the signals sent once per
> second do not arrive there once per second.

Irrelevant again : in part I.1. all clocks are co-moving (i.e. are
at rest in a given frame of reference).

> Also the days on Mars have a different length and also the year has.

Irrelevant, non-sequitur. Clocks at A and B are identical in all
respect, so they use the same unit which, as long as it is the
same one, can be anything (contrary to silly Wozniak claims).

> We have also a delay, hence the two beeps signal of midnight here is not
> received at the right time there.
>
> Now we could ask the Marsians to compensate this by the signal delay.
>
> But, unfortunately, the Marsians don't know the delay.
>
> So we need to measure the delay, subtract that from our local time (GMT
> in this case), encode the result into a signal and send that to Mars.
>
> Now the Marsians could used this time, but actually do not want, because
> it would fit to their clocks and to the features of their home planet.
>
> So, we send them one of our clocks, which they are willing to install
> and synchronize with our time.

All this is a bunch of irrelevancies you *add up* to Einstein's point.

When it comes to real experiments relevant clocks are devices set
up by the experimenter herself or himself, this the kind of
situation part I.1. is about, not about communicating about time
units, year length, whatever with alien on another planet.

Your levels of delusion and confusion are both stratospheric!

> Now the Marsians have a copy with our time, but it is still not really
> in synch. This is caused by relative motion between Earth and Mars,
> which not very fast, but significant enough to make the Marsians unhappy.

Irrelevant for the reason written above. Clock at A and clock at B
are in relative rest.

You're still missing the point, that's quite impressive how silly you
can be (it is not an insult, it is a fact).

It is an obvious fact that the equations in part I.1. :

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

implies!

t_B = t_A + (AB)/c

which is a way to express that the light propagation time is taken
into account when synchronizing clocks. (AB)/c is *exactly*
this very delay.

On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:15:53 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 14.03.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Python:
> >> Demented Thomas Heger wrote:
> [...]
> >>> Therefore, t_B must be measured in Earth time units, while t_B should
> >>> actually be measured in units of those critters.
> >>
> >> 100% of your post above is pure NONSENSE and is completely unrelated
> >> to part I.1. in Einstein's article.
> >>
> >> t_A, t_B, t'_A are precisely defined by Einstein there, it has noting
> >> to do with your fantasies about time on Alpha Centaury or the Moon.
> >>
> >> You are importing you own delusions, so of course the conclusions are
> >> absurd, but this absurdity is the own you brought in the first place.
> >
> >
> > I have found an easier example:
> >
> > lets assume that Mars would be inhabited by Marsians and we would like
> > to communicate with them about time and synchronized clocks.
> Alpha Centauri or Mars that doesn't change anything about the
> *fact* that you miss the point of part I.1. *completely*.
> > How could we do this???
> >
> > Well, we could send a time signal there and tell them: we have now 12
> > o'clock at Greenwich and it's the 6th of April 2023.
> >
> >
> > Then the Marsians reply, that they have no idea, what we are talking about.
> >
> > OK, we reply, we send you signal, which contains one 'beep' per second,
> > a longer beep per hour and two longer beeps per day.
> >
> > OK, say the Marsians, we understand.
> This is gibberish, moreover irrelevant to Einstein writing.
>
> Clocks to be consider in paragraph I.1 are identical to start with:
>
> "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
> determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
> by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
> these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock
> *in all respects* resembling the one at A" (emphasized by me)

Fortunately, we have GPS now, and even those
too stupid to realize that this moronic mumble is
inconsistent can check that it has nothing in
common with the real clocks.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:15:53 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 14.03.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Python:
>>>> Demented Thomas Heger wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> Therefore, t_B must be measured in Earth time units, while t_B should
>>>>> actually be measured in units of those critters.
>>>>
>>>> 100% of your post above is pure NONSENSE and is completely unrelated
>>>> to part I.1. in Einstein's article.
>>>>
>>>> t_A, t_B, t'_A are precisely defined by Einstein there, it has noting
>>>> to do with your fantasies about time on Alpha Centaury or the Moon.
>>>>
>>>> You are importing you own delusions, so of course the conclusions are
>>>> absurd, but this absurdity is the own you brought in the first place.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have found an easier example:
>>>
>>> lets assume that Mars would be inhabited by Marsians and we would like
>>> to communicate with them about time and synchronized clocks.
>> Alpha Centauri or Mars that doesn't change anything about the
>> *fact* that you miss the point of part I.1. *completely*.
>>> How could we do this???
>>>
>>> Well, we could send a time signal there and tell them: we have now 12
>>> o'clock at Greenwich and it's the 6th of April 2023.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then the Marsians reply, that they have no idea, what we are talking about.
>>>
>>> OK, we reply, we send you signal, which contains one 'beep' per second,
>>> a longer beep per hour and two longer beeps per day.
>>>
>>> OK, say the Marsians, we understand.
>> This is gibberish, moreover irrelevant to Einstein writing.
>>
>> Clocks to be consider in paragraph I.1 are identical to start with:
>>
>> "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
>> determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
>> by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
>> these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock
>> *in all respects* resembling the one at A" (emphasized by me)
>
> Fortunately, we have GPS now, and even those
> too stupid to realize that this moronic mumble is
> inconsistent can check that it has nothing in
> common with the real clocks.

Clocks on Earth and clocks in GPS satellite are in relative
rest? Brilliant! Richard "Hachel" Lengrand too assumed
something of that kind in fr.sci.physique recently. Maybe
he is, like you, "one of the best logician Humanity ever
had"?

You said once that Gdansk and Varsaw were in relative motion,
I wonder if, according to you, a pair of clocks, one in each
of these cities, are also at rest w.r.t GPS clocks...

You cranks (you, Richard, Thomas) definitely live in a
very strange alternative universe...

Le 06/04/2023 à 17:15, Python a écrit :
>
>> Now the Marsians have a copy with our time, but it is still not really
>> in synch. This is caused by relative motion between Earth and Mars,
>> which not very fast, but significant enough to make the Marsians unhappy.
>
> Irrelevant for the reason written above. Clock at A and clock at B
> are in relative rest.
>
> You're still missing the point, that's quite impressive how silly you
> can be (it is not an insult, it is a fact).
>
> It is an obvious fact that the equations in part I.1. :
>
> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>
> implies!
>
> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
>
> which is a way to express that the light propagation time is taken
> into account when synchronizing clocks. (AB)/c is *exactly*
> this very delay.

In this exposed two errors of YBM.

He does not understand that the previous speaker is talking to him about
chronotropy (i.e. the bathmotropy between Mars and the Earth, the clocks
of Mars rotating more slowly than the terrestrial clocks: the earth being
faster in its orbit) .

Moreover, the answer made beside the plate is false. Even by finding a way
to tune the BATHMOTROPY of the watches, that won't change anything.

The two watches will always be, even in perfect bathmotropy of their
mechanism (we adapt them), ahead of the other watch they will be watching.

Always, always, always will subsist a delta-T time shift equal to x/c.

Displacement (this is the huge slap that YBM has taken for two or three
decades by me, and that he will never admit) which is real, physical,
unavoidable. And not simply due to "the speed of light".

But we're going in circles.

You don't give water to a community of thirsty donkeys.

R.H.

On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:26:32 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:15:53 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 14.03.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Python:
> >>>> Demented Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>>> Therefore, t_B must be measured in Earth time units, while t_B should
> >>>>> actually be measured in units of those critters.
> >>>>
> >>>> 100% of your post above is pure NONSENSE and is completely unrelated
> >>>> to part I.1. in Einstein's article.
> >>>>
> >>>> t_A, t_B, t'_A are precisely defined by Einstein there, it has noting
> >>>> to do with your fantasies about time on Alpha Centaury or the Moon.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are importing you own delusions, so of course the conclusions are
> >>>> absurd, but this absurdity is the own you brought in the first place.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I have found an easier example:
> >>>
> >>> lets assume that Mars would be inhabited by Marsians and we would like
> >>> to communicate with them about time and synchronized clocks.
> >> Alpha Centauri or Mars that doesn't change anything about the
> >> *fact* that you miss the point of part I.1. *completely*.
> >>> How could we do this???
> >>>
> >>> Well, we could send a time signal there and tell them: we have now 12
> >>> o'clock at Greenwich and it's the 6th of April 2023.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Then the Marsians reply, that they have no idea, what we are talking about.
> >>>
> >>> OK, we reply, we send you signal, which contains one 'beep' per second,
> >>> a longer beep per hour and two longer beeps per day.
> >>>
> >>> OK, say the Marsians, we understand.
> >> This is gibberish, moreover irrelevant to Einstein writing.
> >>
> >> Clocks to be consider in paragraph I.1 are identical to start with:
> >>
> >> "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
> >> determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
> >> by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
> >> these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock
> >> *in all respects* resembling the one at A" (emphasized by me)
> >
> > Fortunately, we have GPS now, and even those
> > too stupid to realize that this moronic mumble is
> > inconsistent can check that it has nothing in
> > common with the real clocks.
> Clocks on Earth and clocks in GPS satellite are in relative
> rest?

No. Where did you get such a crazy idea?
Oh, I remember... you were the one insisting that
cities at Earth are at rest relative to themself, it should
be obvious for you that the geostationary satellites
are at rest relative to them as well. But GPS
satellites aren't geostationary, you know.

> You said once that Gdansk and Varsaw were in relative motion,

And you said they weren't. You're such an idiot...

Le 06/04/2023 à 17:15, Python a écrit :

> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>
> implies!
>
> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
>
> which is a way to express that the light propagation time is taken
> into account when synchronizing clocks. (AB)/c is *exactly*
> this very delay.

Un tel niveau de bêtise est surréaliste.

C'ets pu des petits pas de bébé qu'il faut...

Faudrait trouver un escargot.

Tu fais chier, YBM. T'es vraiment con.

R.H.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:26:32 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:15:53 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 14.03.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Python:
>>>>>> Demented Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Therefore, t_B must be measured in Earth time units, while t_B should
>>>>>>> actually be measured in units of those critters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 100% of your post above is pure NONSENSE and is completely unrelated
>>>>>> to part I.1. in Einstein's article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t_A, t_B, t'_A are precisely defined by Einstein there, it has noting
>>>>>> to do with your fantasies about time on Alpha Centaury or the Moon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are importing you own delusions, so of course the conclusions are
>>>>>> absurd, but this absurdity is the own you brought in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have found an easier example:
>>>>>
>>>>> lets assume that Mars would be inhabited by Marsians and we would like
>>>>> to communicate with them about time and synchronized clocks.
>>>> Alpha Centauri or Mars that doesn't change anything about the
>>>> *fact* that you miss the point of part I.1. *completely*.
>>>>> How could we do this???
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, we could send a time signal there and tell them: we have now 12
>>>>> o'clock at Greenwich and it's the 6th of April 2023.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the Marsians reply, that they have no idea, what we are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, we reply, we send you signal, which contains one 'beep' per second,
>>>>> a longer beep per hour and two longer beeps per day.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, say the Marsians, we understand.
>>>> This is gibberish, moreover irrelevant to Einstein writing.
>>>>
>>>> Clocks to be consider in paragraph I.1 are identical to start with:
>>>>
>>>> "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
>>>> determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
>>>> by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
>>>> these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock
>>>> *in all respects* resembling the one at A" (emphasized by me)
>>>
>>> Fortunately, we have GPS now, and even those
>>> too stupid to realize that this moronic mumble is
>>> inconsistent can check that it has nothing in
>>> common with the real clocks.
>> Clocks on Earth and clocks in GPS satellite are in relative
>> rest?
>
> No. Where did you get such a crazy idea?
> Oh, I remember... you were the one insisting that
> cities at Earth are at rest relative to themself, it should
> be obvious for you that the geostationary satellites
> are at rest relative to them as well. But GPS
> satellites aren't geostationary, you know.

Exactly, the are not geostationary but, still, according
to you in relative rest w.r.t. to any place on Earth.
Enough said!

>> You said once that Gdansk and Varsaw were in relative motion,
>
> And you said they weren't. You're such an idiot...

What is the relative velocity of Gdansk w.r.t Varsaw right
not, Maciej? Will it be the seam tomorrow?

M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> Le 06/04/2023 à 17:15, Python a écrit :
>>
>>> Now the Marsians have a copy with our time, but it is still not
>>> really in synch. This is caused by relative motion between Earth and
>>> Mars, which not very fast, but significant enough to make the
>>> Marsians unhappy.
>>
>> Irrelevant for the reason written above. Clock at A and clock at B
>> are in relative rest.
>>
>> You're still missing the point, that's quite impressive how silly you
>> can be (it is not an insult, it is a fact).
>>
>> It is an obvious fact that the equations in part I.1. :
>>
>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>>
>> implies!
>>
>> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
>>
>> which is a way to express that the light propagation time is taken
>> into account when synchronizing clocks. (AB)/c is *exactly*
>> this very delay.
>
> In this exposed two errors of YBM.
>
> He does not understand that the previous speaker is talking to him about
> chronotropy (i.e. the bathmotropy between Mars and the Earth, the clocks
> of Mars rotating more slowly than the terrestrial clocks: the earth
> being faster in its orbit) .

The original poster, Thomas Heger is surely not aware of any of your
personal nonsensical "chronotropy" and "bathmotropy", etc.

He pretends that Einstein, in 1905 article, is not considering
light propagation delays when time labeling remote events.

The funny part you missed is that, basically, Thomas accuses
Einstein to do what *you* propose with your "direct live"
concept.

Thomas considers also that it is bad to do that, which is
somewhat true, but Einstein did not commit this "mistake",
even you know that, even if you do not understand much
of part I.1. of 1905 article.

> [snip idiotic garbage]

On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:43:26 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:26:32 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:15:53 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>> Am 14.03.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Python:
> >>>>>> Demented Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>>> Therefore, t_B must be measured in Earth time units, while t_B should
> >>>>>>> actually be measured in units of those critters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 100% of your post above is pure NONSENSE and is completely unrelated
> >>>>>> to part I.1. in Einstein's article.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> t_A, t_B, t'_A are precisely defined by Einstein there, it has noting
> >>>>>> to do with your fantasies about time on Alpha Centaury or the Moon.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are importing you own delusions, so of course the conclusions are
> >>>>>> absurd, but this absurdity is the own you brought in the first place.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have found an easier example:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> lets assume that Mars would be inhabited by Marsians and we would like
> >>>>> to communicate with them about time and synchronized clocks.
> >>>> Alpha Centauri or Mars that doesn't change anything about the
> >>>> *fact* that you miss the point of part I.1. *completely*.
> >>>>> How could we do this???
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, we could send a time signal there and tell them: we have now 12
> >>>>> o'clock at Greenwich and it's the 6th of April 2023.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then the Marsians reply, that they have no idea, what we are talking about.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, we reply, we send you signal, which contains one 'beep' per second,
> >>>>> a longer beep per hour and two longer beeps per day.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, say the Marsians, we understand.
> >>>> This is gibberish, moreover irrelevant to Einstein writing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Clocks to be consider in paragraph I.1 are identical to start with:
> >>>>
> >>>> "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
> >>>> determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
> >>>> by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
> >>>> these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock
> >>>> *in all respects* resembling the one at A" (emphasized by me)
> >>>
> >>> Fortunately, we have GPS now, and even those
> >>> too stupid to realize that this moronic mumble is
> >>> inconsistent can check that it has nothing in
> >>> common with the real clocks.
> >> Clocks on Earth and clocks in GPS satellite are in relative
> >> rest?
> >
> > No. Where did you get such a crazy idea?
> > Oh, I remember... you were the one insisting that
> > cities at Earth are at rest relative to themself, it should
> > be obvious for you that the geostationary satellites
> > are at rest relative to them as well. But GPS
> > satellites aren't geostationary, you know.
> Exactly, the are not geostationary but, still, according
> to you in relative rest w.r.t. to any place on Earth.

A lie, of course, as expected from a relativistic
idiot in general and from Python in special.

> Enough said!
> >> You said once that Gdansk and Varsaw were in relative motion,
> >
> > And you said they weren't. You're such an idiot...
> What is the relative velocity of Gdansk w.r.t Varsaw right
> not, Maciej?

Don't have time to search for data and calculate it
right now, sorry.

> Will it be the seam tomorrow?

It's changing in a day cycle.

M.D. Richard "Hachel" wrote:
> Le 06/04/2023 à 17:15, Python a écrit :
>
>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>>
>> implies!
>>
>> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
>>
>> which is a way to express that the light propagation time is taken
>> into account when synchronizing clocks. (AB)/c is *exactly*
>> this very delay.
>
> Un tel niveau de bêtise est surréaliste.
>
> C'ets pu des petits pas de bébé qu'il faut...
>
> Faudrait trouver un escargot.
>
> Tu fais chier, YBM. T'es vraiment con.

Everyone know for 20 years or so that you don't understand part I.1.
of Einstein 1905 paper. You'd better ask for help than posting
infatuated crap in an English speaking group.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:43:26 UTC+2, Python wrote:
....
>> What is the relative velocity of Gdansk w.r.t Varsaw right
>> not, Maciej?
>
> Don't have time to search for data and calculate it
> right now, sorry.

Ah ah ah ah! Too bad Dirk's Immortal Fumbles list is not updated
anymore... This is a gem!

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:15:53 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 14.03.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Python:
> >>>> Demented Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>>> Therefore, t_B must be measured in Earth time units, while t_B should
> >>>>> actually be measured in units of those critters.
> >>>>
> >>>> 100% of your post above is pure NONSENSE and is completely unrelated
> >>>> to part I.1. in Einstein's article.
> >>>>
> >>>> t_A, t_B, t'_A are precisely defined by Einstein there, it has noting
> >>>> to do with your fantasies about time on Alpha Centaury or the Moon.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are importing you own delusions, so of course the conclusions are
> >>>> absurd, but this absurdity is the own you brought in the first place..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I have found an easier example:
> >>>
> >>> lets assume that Mars would be inhabited by Marsians and we would like
> >>> to communicate with them about time and synchronized clocks.
> >> Alpha Centauri or Mars that doesn't change anything about the
> >> *fact* that you miss the point of part I.1. *completely*.
> >>> How could we do this???
> >>>
> >>> Well, we could send a time signal there and tell them: we have now 12
> >>> o'clock at Greenwich and it's the 6th of April 2023.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Then the Marsians reply, that they have no idea, what we are talking about.
> >>>
> >>> OK, we reply, we send you signal, which contains one 'beep' per second,
> >>> a longer beep per hour and two longer beeps per day.
> >>>
> >>> OK, say the Marsians, we understand.
> >> This is gibberish, moreover irrelevant to Einstein writing.
> >>
> >> Clocks to be consider in paragraph I.1 are identical to start with:
> >>
> >> "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
> >> determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
> >> by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
> >> these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock
> >> *in all respects* resembling the one at A" (emphasized by me)
> >
> > Fortunately, we have GPS now, and even those
> > too stupid to realize that this moronic mumble is
> > inconsistent can check that it has nothing in
> > common with the real clocks.
> Clocks on Earth and clocks in GPS satellite are in relative
> rest? Brilliant! Richard "Hachel" Lengrand too assumed
> something of that kind in fr.sci.physique recently. Maybe
> he is, like you, "one of the best logician Humanity ever
> had"?
>
> You said once that Gdansk and Varsaw were in relative motion,
> I wonder if, according to you, a pair of clocks, one in each
> of these cities, are also at rest w.r.t GPS clocks...

From a visit to the Tower Clocks Museum in Gdańsk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFufIdDzEUQ
Sound is important (the first short sequence is silent).

I slowly climb to the carillon level, also an interesting piece
of work.

--
Jan

On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 18:45:17 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:15:53 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> > >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>> Am 14.03.2023 um 10:16 schrieb Python:
> > >>>> Demented Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >>>>> Therefore, t_B must be measured in Earth time units, while t_B should
> > >>>>> actually be measured in units of those critters.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 100% of your post above is pure NONSENSE and is completely unrelated
> > >>>> to part I.1. in Einstein's article.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> t_A, t_B, t'_A are precisely defined by Einstein there, it has noting
> > >>>> to do with your fantasies about time on Alpha Centaury or the Moon..
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You are importing you own delusions, so of course the conclusions are
> > >>>> absurd, but this absurdity is the own you brought in the first place.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I have found an easier example:
> > >>>
> > >>> lets assume that Mars would be inhabited by Marsians and we would like
> > >>> to communicate with them about time and synchronized clocks.
> > >> Alpha Centauri or Mars that doesn't change anything about the
> > >> *fact* that you miss the point of part I.1. *completely*.
> > >>> How could we do this???
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, we could send a time signal there and tell them: we have now 12
> > >>> o'clock at Greenwich and it's the 6th of April 2023.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Then the Marsians reply, that they have no idea, what we are talking about.
> > >>>
> > >>> OK, we reply, we send you signal, which contains one 'beep' per second,
> > >>> a longer beep per hour and two longer beeps per day.
> > >>>
> > >>> OK, say the Marsians, we understand.
> > >> This is gibberish, moreover irrelevant to Einstein writing.
> > >>
> > >> Clocks to be consider in paragraph I.1 are identical to start with:
> > >>
> > >> "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
> > >> determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
> > >> by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
> > >> these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock
> > >> *in all respects* resembling the one at A" (emphasized by me)
> > >
> > > Fortunately, we have GPS now, and even those
> > > too stupid to realize that this moronic mumble is
> > > inconsistent can check that it has nothing in
> > > common with the real clocks.
> > Clocks on Earth and clocks in GPS satellite are in relative
> > rest? Brilliant! Richard "Hachel" Lengrand too assumed
> > something of that kind in fr.sci.physique recently. Maybe
> > he is, like you, "one of the best logician Humanity ever
> > had"?
> >
> > You said once that Gdansk and Varsaw were in relative motion,
> > I wonder if, according to you, a pair of clocks, one in each
> > of these cities, are also at rest w.r.t GPS clocks...
> From a visit to the Tower Clocks Museum in Gdańsk:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFufIdDzEUQ
> Sound is important (the first short sequence is silent).
>
> I slowly climb to the carillon level, also an interesting piece
> of work.

And, well, does the film support somehow Python's
claim that Gdansk and Warsaw are at rest wrt each
other?
BTW, Python, if they are at rest wrt each other,
I guess their velocity wrt Earth center must be
the same?