On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 00:47:53 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 1:16:14 PM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:22:12 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <fil...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> I you go to this webpage http://www.faculty.luther.edu/~macdonal/
>> >> there is a short paper on Clock Synchonization which it is claimed
>> >> fixes things.
>> >
>> >He just states Einstein's definition I quoted above. He does not address
>> >the transitivity requirement which Einstein left unsaid but is necessary
>> >for the scheme to be consistent (meaning, the equation tB - tA = tA' - tB
>> >never leads to a situation in which one clock is assigned two *different*
>> >times).
>> >
>> He claims to address transitivity on pgs 2 and 3 with the assumption
>> going around the triangle in either direction yields the same result.
>> And he references a laser experiment for justification of that
>> assumption. Is he wrong? Einstein does state transitivity holds but
>> doesn't offer a proof.
>
>I don't see any mention of transitivity in either Einstein or Alan Macdonald's
>paper you've referenced above.

Einstein: pg 127 in Stachel ed - Einstein's Miraculous Year
2. If the clock at A runs synchronously with the clock at B as well as
with the clock at C, then the clocks at B and C also run synchronously
relative to each other.

Macdonald: pg 2 - Clock synchronization etc.
We now show that (ii) is a necessary and sufficient condition that
clocks at nodes P and Q are synchronized with each other once they are
both synchronized with the clock at O.

They didn't use the word but that is what they were talking about.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 9:28:28 AM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 00:47:53 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <fil...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 1:16:14 PM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:22:12 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <fil...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> I you go to this webpage http://www.faculty.luther.edu/~macdonal/
> >> >> there is a short paper on Clock Synchonization which it is claimed
> >> >> fixes things.
> >> >
> >> >He just states Einstein's definition I quoted above. He does not address
> >> >the transitivity requirement which Einstein left unsaid but

Let's assume that Lorentz invariant works, then What? Lorentz (1899) uses the invariant to reverse the negative result of Michelson experiment to justify the ether, composed of matter, and, Einstein (1917) uses the reversal of MMX to justify the ether yet vacuum proves the ether does not exist. Also, both Lorentz and Einstein use relativity (coordinate system transformation) to justify Maxwell theory but Maxwell equations are derived using Faraday induction effect that is not luminous. Using mumble jumble mathematical gymnastics cannot be used to justify the wave theory of light and modern theoretical physics (QM, QED, string theory, QFT,......etc. etc. that are based on the gauge since an electromagnetic wave (quantized or not) is based on a wave formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter, where the physical structure (ether) has predencence before any abstract mathematical formulation.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 9:28:28 AM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 00:47:53 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <fil...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 1:16:14 PM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:22:12 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <fil...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> I you go to this webpage http://www.faculty.luther.edu/~macdonal/
> >> >> there is a short paper on Clock Synchonization which it is claimed
> >> >> fixes things.
> >> >
> >> >He just states Einstein's definition I quoted above. He does not address
> >> >the transitivity requirement which Einstein left unsaid but is necessary
> >> >for the scheme to be consistent (meaning, the equation tB - tA = tA' - tB
> >> >never leads to a situation in which one clock is assigned two *different*
> >> >times).
> >> >
> >> He claims to address transitivity on pgs 2 and 3 with the assumption
> >> going around the triangle in either direction yields the same result.
> >> And he references a laser experiment for justification of that
> >> assumption. Is he wrong? Einstein does state transitivity holds but
> >> doesn't offer a proof.
> >
> >I don't see any mention of transitivity in either Einstein or Alan Macdonald's
> >paper you've referenced above.
> Einstein: pg 127 in Stachel ed - Einstein's Miraculous Year
> 2. If the clock at A runs synchronously with the clock at B as well as
> with the clock at C, then the clocks at B and C also run synchronously
> relative to each other.

Yes, that's the point. But Einstein himself did not say this, he just
said we assume this definition is free of contradictions (since he
knew the reader would be able to supply the proof without difficulty).

> Macdonald: pg 2 - Clock synchronization etc.
> We now show that (ii) is a necessary and sufficient condition that
> clocks at nodes P and Q are synchronized with each other once they are
> both synchronized with the clock at O.
>
> They didn't use the word but that is what they were talking about.

OK.

--
Jan

Ricardo Jimenez wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 00:47:53 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 1:16:14 PM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>>> He claims to address transitivity on pgs 2 and 3 with the assumption
>>> going around the triangle in either direction yields the same result.
>>> And he references a laser experiment for justification of that
>>> assumption. Is he wrong? Einstein does state transitivity holds but
>>> doesn't offer a proof.
>>
>>I don't see any mention of transitivity in either Einstein or Alan
>>Macdonald's paper you've referenced above.
>
> Einstein: pg 127 in Stachel ed - Einstein's Miraculous Year
> 2. If the clock at A runs synchronously with the clock at B as well as
> with the clock at C, then the clocks at B and C also run synchronously
> relative to each other.

This is a rewording of what Einstein writes in 1905 paper.
Which apparently you have *still* not read. Hopeless.

The triangles clearly exist merely in your fantasy.
> Macdonald: pg 2 - Clock synchronization etc.
> We now show that (ii) is a necessary and sufficient condition that
> clocks at nodes P and Q are synchronized with each other once they are
> both synchronized with the clock at O.

No triangles either there.
> They didn't use the word but that is what they were talking about.

It is NOT what you claimed they would be talking about.

PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 2:09:04 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > >I don't see any mention of transitivity in either Einstein or Alan Macdonald's
> > >paper you've referenced above.
> > Einstein: pg 127 in Stachel ed - Einstein's Miraculous Year
> > 2. If the clock at A runs synchronously with the clock at B as well as
> > with the clock at C, then the clocks at B and C also run synchronously
> > relative to each other.
>
> Yes, that's the point. But Einstein himself did not say this, he just
> said we assume this definition is free of contradictions...

Stachel's translation of Einstein's paper actually *does* say that, talking about "running",etc. A better translation in Einstein's collected papers says

"We assume that it is possible for this definition of synchronism to be free of contradictions, and to be so for arbitrarily many points; and that the following relations are therefore generally valid:
1. If the clock in B is synchronous with the clock in A, then the clock in A is synchronous with the clock in B.
2. If the clock in A is synchronous with the clock in B as well as with the clock in C, then the clocks in B and C are also synchronous relative to each other."

This is better because Stachel's use of "running" can mislead people into thinking he is talking about rates.

> he knew the reader would be able to supply the proof without difficulty.

Well, the reader certainly understands that the consistency of this all relies on the existence of a system of coordinates in terms of which light propagates isotropically in vacuum at speed c independent of the speed of the source. One of the shortcomings of the paper, in retrospect, is that most of the propositions are actually smuggled in via the definitions.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> Nobody says they're in the same reference frame, poor halfbrain;
> still, they're measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did,
> and anyone can observe that.

“[…] The SV [space vehicle; the ed.] carrier frequency and clock rates –
as they would appear to an observer located in the SV – are offset to
compensate for relativistic effects. […]”

GPS Interface Specification (2021). “3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan.”
<https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200M.pdf>

Linked from <https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/>.

Which part of “offset” and “compensate” did you not get?

PointedEars
--
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> In the meantime in the real world, however, an observer MUST
> observe GPS clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> always did.

“[…] The SV [space vehicle; the ed.] carrier frequency and clock rates –
as they would appear to an observer located in the SV – are offset to
compensate for relativistic effects. […]”

GPS Interface Specification (2021). “3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan.”
<https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200M.pdf>

Linked from <https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/>.

Which part of “offset” and “compensate” did you not get?

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> And note that in the meantime in the real world,
> "impossibly" synchronized GPS clocks keep
> measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
> did.

“[…] The SV [space vehicle; the ed.] carrier frequency and clock rates –
as they would appear to an observer located in the SV – are offset to
compensate for relativistic effects. […]”

GPS Interface Specification (2021). “3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan.”
<https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200M.pdf>

Linked from <https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/>.

Which part of “offset” and “compensate” did you not get?

PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 16:59:22 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
>> Anyway, to prove that there is no contradiction there, it suffices to
>> demonstrate that the "sync relation" between clocks is an equivalence
>> relation, i.e., reflexive, symmetric, and transitive
>
> No, it doesn't.

How eloquent :->

PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

Townes Olson wrote:

> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 2:09:04 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> > >I don't see any mention of transitivity in either Einstein or Alan
>> > >Macdonald's paper you've referenced above.
>> > Einstein: pg 127 in Stachel ed - Einstein's Miraculous Year
>> > 2. If the clock at A runs synchronously with the clock at B as well as
>> > with the clock at C, then the clocks at B and C also run synchronously
>> > relative to each other.
>>
>> Yes, that's the point. But Einstein himself did not say this, he just
>> said we assume this definition is free of contradictions...
>
> Stachel's translation of Einstein's paper […]

… is not the official translation, therefore quite irrelevant.
The official translation can be found here instead:

<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>

PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven

On 10/15/2021 7:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
>> Nobody says they're in the same reference frame, poor halfbrain;
>> still, they're measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did,
>> and anyone can observe that.
>
> “[…] The SV [space vehicle; the ed.] carrier frequency and clock rates –
> as they would appear to an observer located in the SV – are offset to
> compensate for relativistic effects. […]”
>
> GPS Interface Specification (2021). “3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan.”
> <https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200M.pdf>
>
> Linked from <https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/>.
>
>
> Which part of “offset” and “compensate” did you not get?
>
He doesn't "get" any of that. He's just some broken record player,
autisticly repeating "In the meantime in the real world, however,
synchronized GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did." <click> "In the meantime in the real world, however,
synchronized GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did." <click> "In the meantime in the real world, however,
synchronized GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did." <click> ...

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> > Einstein: pg 127 in Stachel ed - Einstein's Miraculous Year
> >> > 2. If the clock at A runs synchronously with the clock at B as well as
> >> > with the clock at C, then the clocks at B and C also run synchronously
> >> > relative to each other.
> >>
> >> Yes, that's the point. But Einstein himself did not say this, he just
> >> said we assume this definition is free of contradictions...
> >
> > Stachel's translation of Einstein's paper actually *does* say that, talking about
> > "running", etc. A better translation in Einstein's collected papers says
> >
> > "We assume that it is possible for this definition of synchronism to be free of
> > contradictions, and to be so for arbitrarily many points; and that the following
> > relations are therefore generally valid:
> > 1. If the clock in B is synchronous with the clock in A, then the clock in A is
> > synchronous with the clock in B.
> > 2. If the clock in A is synchronous with the clock in B as well as with the clock
> > in C, then the clocks in B and C are also synchronous relative to each other."
> >
> > This is better because Stachel's use of "running" can mislead people into thinking
> > he is talking about rates.
>
> … is not the official translation, therefore quite irrelevant.
> The official translation can be found here instead:
> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>

You are confused. The translation I quoted in my message was the one from the Einstein Collected Papers, and I explained why it is more clear than Stachel's translation. I accept your apology. Jan mistakenly thought Einstein didn't write that (and not just because of the slight translational variations). Also, it's dumb for you to talk about an "official" translation, in a sophomoric appeal to authority, rather than someone interested in the truth. If you do a straight literal translation from the original German, you can find justification for Stachel's choice of the word "run" rather than the Collected Paper's "is". Einstein used the German "lauft", which does indeed mean run. Here's a simplistic literal translation:

"We assume that this definition of synchronism is possible in a non-contradicting manner, and that for any number of points, so that the following relationships generally apply: 1. If the clock in B runs synchronously with the clock in A, then the clock in A runs synchronous with the clock in B. 2. If the clock in A runs synchronously with both the clock in B and the clock in C, the clocks in B and C also run synchronously relative to one another.."

So, does this agree better with Stachel, or with CPAE? Miller gives another translation, in which he renders 2 as "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". So he avoids using either "runs" or "is".

Jan wrote:
> he knew the reader would be able to supply the proof without difficulty.

Well, the reader certainly understands that the consistency of this all relies on the existence of a system of coordinates in terms of which light propagates isotropically in vacuum at speed c independent of the speed of the source. One of the shortcomings of the paper, in retrospect, is that most of the propositions are actually smuggled in via the definitions.

Townes Olson wrote:

> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> >> > Einstein: pg 127 in Stachel ed - Einstein's Miraculous Year
>> >> > 2. If the clock at A runs synchronously with the clock at B as well
>> >> > as with the clock at C, then the clocks at B and C also run
>> >> > synchronously relative to each other.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that's the point. But Einstein himself did not say this, he just
>> >> said we assume this definition is free of contradictions...
>> >
>> > Stachel's translation of Einstein's paper actually *does* say that,
>> > talking about "running", etc. A better translation in Einstein's
>> > collected papers says
>> >
>> > "We assume that it is possible for this definition of synchronism to be
>> > free of contradictions, and to be so for arbitrarily many points; and
>> > that the following relations are therefore generally valid:
>> > 1. If the clock in B is synchronous with the clock in A, then the clock
>> > in A is synchronous with the clock in B.
>> > 2. If the clock in A is synchronous with the clock in B as well as with
>> > the clock in C, then the clocks in B and C are also synchronous
>> > relative to each other."
>> >
>> > This is better because Stachel's use of "running" can mislead people
>> > into thinking he is talking about rates.
>>
>> … is not the official translation, therefore quite irrelevant.
>> The official translation can be found here instead:
>> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>
>
> You are confused. The translation I quoted in my message was the one from
> the Einstein Collected Papers, and I explained why it is more clear than
> Stachel's translation.

I see.

> I accept your apology.

LOL, the arrogance.

> Jan mistakenly thought Einstein didn't write that (and not just because of
> the slight translational variations).

OK.

> Also, it's dumb for you to talk about an "official" translation, in a
> sophomoric appeal to authority,

Bullshit. If you had read what you are quoting, you would know that it *is*
the official translation:

<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/11>

> rather than someone interested in the truth. If you do a straight literal
> translation from the original German, you can find justification for
> Stachel's choice of the word "run" rather than the Collected Paper's "is".
> Einstein used the German "lauft",

LOL, the arrogance again.

The word *would be* „läuft“, with an a-umlaut character, the declensed form
of the verb „laufen“ (to go, run, etc.). My native language is German
because I was born in Germany. And I have read the paper in the original
German, too. So I really do not need to be lectured by you about German.

Also, the translator of the papers into English, Dr. Anna Beck, is both a
native German speaker and trained in science. It is the peak of arrogance
on your part to assume that she understood German less well than you, or
Stachel who is not a native speaker either. There is a reason why in the
1989 an new, official translation was being published by Princeton
University Press.

> which does indeed mean run.

Like many words in many languages, it has many meanings in German, you
wannabe.

> Here's a simplistic literal translation: […]

LOL. If you had any clue about translations, you would know that such a
translation hardly reflects the original meaning.

PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:12:21 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> >> > Einstein: pg 127 in Stachel ed - Einstein's Miraculous Year
> >> >> > 2. If the clock at A runs synchronously with the clock at B as well
> >> >> > as with the clock at C, then the clocks at B and C also run
> >> >> > synchronously relative to each other.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, that's the point. But Einstein himself did not say this, he just
> >> >> said we assume this definition is free of contradictions...
> >> >
> >> > Stachel's translation of Einstein's paper actually *does* say that,
> >> > talking about "running", etc. A better translation in Einstein's
> >> > collected papers says
> >> >
> >> > "We assume that it is possible for this definition of synchronism to be
> >> > free of contradictions, and to be so for arbitrarily many points; and
> >> > that the following relations are therefore generally valid:
> >> > 1. If the clock in B is synchronous with the clock in A, then the clock
> >> > in A is synchronous with the clock in B.
> >> > 2. If the clock in A is synchronous with the clock in B as well as with
> >> > the clock in C, then the clocks in B and C are also synchronous
> >> > relative to each other."
> >> >
> >> > This is better because Stachel's use of "running" can mislead people
> >> > into thinking he is talking about rates.
> >>
> >> … is not the official translation, therefore quite irrelevant.
> >> The official translation can be found here instead:
> >> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>
> >
> > You are confused. The translation I quoted in my message was the one from
> > the Einstein Collected Papers, and I explained why it is more clear than
> > Stachel's translation.
>
> I see.

Good. I accept your apology.

> > Jan mistakenly thought Einstein didn't write that (and not just because of
> > the slight translational variations).
>
> OK.

Good. I accept your apology.

> > Also, it's dumb for you to talk about an "official" translation, in a
> > sophomoric appeal to authority,
>
> If you had read what you are quoting, you would know that it *is*
> the official translation:

There is no such thing as an "official" translation. Sheesh.

> > rather than someone interested in the truth. If you do a straight literal
> > translation from the original German, you can find justification for
> > Stachel's choice of the word "run" rather than the Collected Paper's "is".
> > Einstein used the German "lauft",
>
> LOL, the arrogance again.

You seem to be having a mental breakdown. There is nothing "arrogant" about stating the relevant fact that Einstein used the German word "lauft" (no, I'm not interested in rendering the umlaut in ASCII text... speaking of pomposity), which Stachel translated as "run" whereas Beck translated it as "is"... and Miller avoided it entirely.

> > Here's a simplistic literal translation: […]
>
> LOL. If you had any clue about translations, you would know that such a
> translation hardly reflects the original meaning.

Again, you seem to be suffering a severe mental breakdown. The four quoted translations are all virtually identical, differing only in the use of "run" (in two translations) versus "is" (in one translation), and neither (in one translation). For you to claim that one or more of those four nearly identical translations "hardly reflects the original meaning" is simply bizarre.

On 10/15/21 9:12 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> The official translation can be found here instead:
> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>

[That's an English translation of the paper in question.]

> If you had read what you are quoting, you would know that it *is*
> the official translation:
> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/11>

[That's the introduction to the translations of volume 2.
Nowhere does it claim to be "Official".]

This is neither a legal nor a diplomatic document. There is no such
thing as an "official translation", because there is no organization to
grant such status. The only person or organization that could possibly
confer such status on a particular translation is Einstein himself, and
he did not do so. There are multiple translations of this paper, of
varying faithfulness to the original, and varying conformance to
standard English style for physics papers; different translations are
favored by different people.

The only version of this paper that has any claim to being "official" is
the original German. After all, that is what Einstein actually wrote.
Even so, "official" is the wrong word -- "original" is much more
appropriate.

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, 16 October 2021 at 01:23:03 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > Nobody says they're in the same reference frame, poor halfbrain;
> > still, they're measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did,
> > and anyone can observe that.
>
> “[…] The SV [space vehicle; the ed.] carrier frequency and clock rates –
> as they would appear to an observer located in the SV – are offset to
> compensate for relativistic effects. […]”

Who cares what would maybe appear to an imagined
person? It's the measuremant result that matters, and
it is t'=t. Just like always.
Or maybe you're trying to convince me that the result
is invalid because the measurement equipment was
calibrated. Are you?

On Saturday, 16 October 2021 at 02:34:44 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/15/2021 7:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> >> Nobody says they're in the same reference frame, poor halfbrain;
> >> still, they're measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did,
> >> and anyone can observe that.
> >
> > “[…] The SV [space vehicle; the ed.] carrier frequency and clock rates –
> > as they would appear to an observer located in the SV – are offset to
> > compensate for relativistic effects. […]”
> >
> > GPS Interface Specification (2021). “3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan.”
> > <https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200M.pdf>
> >
> > Linked from <https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/>.
> >
> >
> > Which part of “offset” and “compensate” did you not get?
> >
> He doesn't "get" any of that. He's just some broken record player,
> autisticly repeating "In the meantime in the real world, however,

See, stupid Mike: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity
ever had and you're just a poor religious crank of an insane
ideology. You can't discuss against me, of course, all you can
do is barking, spitting and slandering. But you will do what
you can for The Shit.

Someone wrote (the only attribution I could find was garbled):

> > > Jan mistakenly thought Einstein didn't write that (and not just because of
> > > the slight translational variations).

Yes, my bad. It wasn't the differences in translations, it was my forgetfulness.

--
Jan

On 10/15/2021 10:31 PM, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:12:21 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> LOL, the arrogance again.
>
> You seem to be having a mental breakdown. There is nothing "arrogant" about stating the relevant fact that Einstein used the German word "lauft" (no, I'm not interested in rendering the umlaut in ASCII text... speaking of pomposity),

In German the umlaut changes the pronunciation and often the meaning.
There are some word pairs in German where two words are spelled the same
other than one having an umlaut while the other does not, and they have
completely different and unrelated meanings.

My high school German cannot remember any such word pairs, or whether
the umlauted and un-umlauted letters are considered different letters in
the alphabet or not.

The rest of your post is rather arrogant.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 7:49:10 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> In German...

Here is the original German sentence (E):
Wenn die Uhr in A sowohl mit der Uhr in B als auch mit der Uhr in C synchron läuft, so laufen auch die Uhren in B und C synchron relativ zueinander.

As you can see, Einstein uses both läuft and laufen. Now, here are five widely available translations of this sentence into English, two of which render as "run/runs":

Translation 1 (G):
If the clock in A runs synchronously with both the clock in B and the clock in C, the clocks in B and C also run synchronously relative to one another..

Translation 2 (PJ):
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.

Translation 3 (S):
If the clock at A runs synchronously with the clock at B as well as with the clock at C, then the clocks at B and C also run synchronously relative to each other.

Translation 4 (B):
If the clock in A is synchronous with the clock in B as well as with the clock in C, then the clocks in B and C are also synchronous relative to each other.

Translation 5 (M):
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.

So, to be clear, which of these translations -- G, PJ, S, B, or M -- do you claim most accurately renders E into English? Mind you, I'm not asking which of them you think more clearly expresses what you think E *should* have said. I'm asking, purely linguistically, which of the translations is a more accurate and literal rendition of E.

> The rest of your post is rather arrogant.

Can you explain what motivated you to type that sentence?

Let's assume that Lorentz invariant works, then What? Lorentz (1899) uses the invariant to reverse the negative result of Michelson experiment to justify the ether, composed of matter, and, Einstein (1917) uses the reversal of MMX to justify the ether yet vacuum proves the ether does not exist. Also, both Lorentz and Einstein use relativity (coordinate system transformation) to justify Maxwell theory but Maxwell equations are derived using Faraday induction effect that is not luminous. Using mumble jumble mathematical gymnastics cannot be used to justify the wave theory of light and modern theoretical physics (QM, QED, string theory, QFT,......etc. etc. that are based on the gauge since an electromagnetic wave (quantized or not) is based on a wave formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter, where the physical structure (ether) has precedence before any abstract mathematical formulation.

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> The rest of your post is rather arrogant.
>
> Can you explain what motivated you to type that sentence?
>

I took it as an observation, one that does not require a defense or a
motivation.

You have received that observation from a number of people on this group,
and I suspect you therefore have received it in other contexts as well.

It may be that you are aware of this criticism but intend to do nothing
about it. It may also be that you are keenly aware of yourself having this
trait, but you’d prefer that it not be brought up in interactions. It may
also be that you are unaware of this criticism, having ignored it and
pushed it out of your mind every time it is raised to you.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:07:21 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

The normalization of Schrodinger wave equation eliminates the atomic nucleus yet Schrodinger wave equation is used to derive the equations of the atomic orbitals. The box normalization eliminates the nucleus and depicts an electromagnetic wave that is oscillating within a hypothetic box. The electromagnetic wave resonating within a box does not require a nuclear charge and the nucleus is not part of Schrodinger wave equation. Also, Schrodinger resonating electromagnetic wave is replaced with an electron probability wave where the superpositioning (interference) of probability waves are used to form the equations of atomic orbitals but a position probability of an electron can only represent a positive value or zero and cannot depict a negative value that is required in representing destructive wave interference used to construct the atomic orbitals. Schrödinger complex conjugate is used to represent destructive wave interference of the electron probability waves (Schrödinger, p. 1066) but the result of the complex conjugate is the cancellation of positive vectors which is mathematically invalid and nullifies the derivation of the equations of the atomic orbitals.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:31:25 PM UTC-7, Townes Olson wrote:
> (no, I'm not interested in rendering the umlaut in ASCII text... speaking of pomposity),

You can add an "e" after the letter instead of the Umlaut. It's commonly
done in German when the diacritics are not available.

--
Jan

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:10:16 PM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
>
> The normalization of Schrodinger

Schroedinger.

--
Jan