On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:10:16 PM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
> >
> > The normalization of Schrodinger
> Schroedinger.
>
> --
> Jan

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 2:37:34 PM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:10:16 PM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
> > >
> > > The normalization of Schrodinger
> > Schroedinger.
> >
> > --
> > Jan

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 wrote:

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

There is, wannabe. It was organized by Princeton University and the NSF,
done by Anna Beck supported by Peter Havas, and published by Princeton
University Press in 1989, after Stachel had quit the job as editor.

| The purpose of the translation project, in accordance with the agreement
| between Princeton University Press and the National Science Foundation, is
| to provide “a careful, accurate translation that is as close to the
| German original as possible while still producing readable English.” This
| is, therefore, not a "literary" translation but should allow readers who
| are not fluent in German to make a scholarly evaluation of the content of
| the documents while also obtaining an appreciation of their flavor.

If only you could read.

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

Tom Roberts wrote:

> 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.]

No, it is the official translation into English.
>> 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".]

Yet another person who can’t read. As if it were not obvious from the
domain name:

<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/about>

<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol1-trans/11>
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/9>

> [non sequitur]

PointedEars
--
“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns
so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
of the entire tapestry.”
—Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)

JanPB wrote:

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

_Schrödinger_

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

(from: WolframAlpha)

JanPB wrote:

> 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.

It is linguistically wrong, though; „oe“, for example, is NOT equivalent to
„ö“. Not only are there names where the original name did not have an
umlaut character, but pronounced as if it were, for example „Goethe“.
Also, it is more likely then that the word is mispronounced with a glottal
stop between the „o“-sound and the „e“-sound. Finally, there are a few
words where the glottal stop is actually correct; e.g. „Tetraeder” which
must be pronounced very differently from the (non-existing) word „Teträder“
(in fact, „Räder“ [“wheels”] is an existing word, and the reader trained to
read „ae“ is if it were an umlaut would be more inclined to assume that this
would be, or example, a compositum or a misspelling of another existing word
„Treträder“¹). It is just a bad idea.

PointedEars
___________
¹ <https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tretrad>
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

JanPB wrote:

> 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.

It is NOT, and there is no reasonable circumstance in which the umlaut
characters are not available. Not even in Usenet: Windows-1252/ISO-5589-1
exists since time immemorial, and since RFC 5536 (November 2009) a working
newsreader must support Unicode as part of the requirement to support MIME.

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

(from: WolframAlpha)

JanPB wrote:

> 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.

It is NOT, and there is no reasonable circumstance in which the umlaut
characters are not available. Not even in Usenet: Windows-1252/ISO-8859-1
exists since time immemorial, and since RFC 5536 (November 2009) a working
newsreader must support Unicode as part of the requirement to support MIME.

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

(from: WolframAlpha)

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Bring clocks together to align them and then separate them and they will
> be synchronous

No, because in order to separate them, one of them has to be *moved*
relative to the other. Then less proper time τ elapses for one of the
clocks than for the other as the spatial displacement for the "moved" clock
is larger (sometimes popular-scientifically phrased as “the faster you move
through space, the slower you move through time”).

Lorentz transformation:
t' = γ (t − v/c² x) = (t − v/c² x)/√(1 − v²/c²)
v ≠ 0, x ≠ 0 ⇒ t' ≠ t. ∎

Minkowski metric (equivalentl):

ds² = c²dt² − dx² − dy² − dz².

dy = dz ≔ 0:

ds² = c²dt² − dx².

Clock at relative rest in a frame (dx = 0), measures proper time τ:

ds² = c²dτ².

⇒ ds² = c²dτ² = c²dt² − dx²
⇔ c² (dτ/dt)² = c² − (dx/dt)² = c² − v²
⇔ (dτ/dt)² = 1 − v²/c²
⇔ dτ/dt = √(1 − v²/c²)
⇔ dτ = dt √(1 − v²/c²) = dt/γ

v ≠ 0 ⇒ dτ < dt. ∎

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

carl eto wrote:

> GPS (Global Positioning System) is used to justify the measurement of the
> velocity of light

Not at all.

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

(from: WolframAlpha)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> See, stupid Mike: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity
> ever had […]

(sic!)

And what does your psychiatrist say about that, NUTCASE?

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 4:28:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> The purpose ... is to provide “a careful, accurate translation..."

Here's the original German sentence:
"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 5 widely available translations of this sentence into English, two of which render as "run/runs":

Translation 1:
"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:
"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:
"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:
"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:
"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 do you claim most accurately renders the original German into English? Bear in mind, I'm not asking which of them you think more clearly expresses what you think Einstein *should* have said. I'm asking, purely linguistically, which of the translations is a more accurate and literal rendition of the German sentence.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 4:35:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:10:16 PM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
> >> The normalization of Schrodinger
> >
> > Schroedinger.
> _Schrödinger_

Yes, that's why I said earlier "when the diacritics are not available".

--
Jan

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 4:47:03 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> > 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.
> It is linguistically wrong, though; „oe“, for example, is NOT equivalent to
> „ö“.

Yes, but it's used when the diacritics are not available.

> Not only are there names where the original name did not have an
> umlaut character, but pronounced as if it were, for example „Goethe“.

Or "Noether".

> Also, it is more likely then that the word is mispronounced with a glottal
> stop between the „o“-sound and the „e“-sound. Finally, there are a few
> words where the glottal stop is actually correct; e.g. „Tetraeder” which
> must be pronounced very differently from the (non-existing) word „Teträder“
> (in fact, „Räder“ [“wheels”] is an existing word, and the reader trained to
> read „ae“ is if it were an umlaut would be more inclined to assume that this
> would be, or example, a compositum or a misspelling of another existing word
> „Treträder“¹). It is just a bad idea.

Cool examples, thanks. Just came back from Switzerland where the German
acquires a whole new meaning :-)

--
Jan

On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 02:24:58 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Bring clocks together to align them and then separate them and they will
> > be synchronous
>
> No, because in order to separate them, one of them has to be *moved*
> relative to the other. Then less proper time τ elapses for one of the
> clocks than for the other as the spatial displacement for the "moved" clock
> is larger (sometimes popular-scientifically phrased as “the faster you move
> through space, the slower you move through time”).

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like serious clocks always did.

On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 02:38:13 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > See, stupid Mike: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity
> > ever had […]
>
> (sic!)
>
> And what does your psychiatrist say about that, NUTCASE?

See, Thomas: 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 waving your arms. But you will do
what you can for The Shit you love.

On 10/16/21 6:34 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 10/15/21 9:12 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> 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".]
>
> Yet another person who can’t read.

No. YOU are reading more into this than is actually there. I repeat:
Nowhere does it claim to be "official". They say they are new
translations, not "official" ones. I suppose they could have used that
word, but that would strike scientists' ears as rather strange and
overly officious.

> As if it were not obvious from the domain name:
> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/about>

There's nothing "official" there -- YOU are reading more into it than is
actually there.

Yes, Princeton University performed a large and serious project to
translate Einstein's papers into English, and it was supported by the
National Science Foundation (an agency of the U.S. government). But
there is nothing "official" about it, because as I said, there is no
person or organization who could confer such status on any particular
translation. The only person who could plausibly do that is Einstein
himself, and he did not do so.

Your German sensibilities may wish for an "official version", but in
this case that is a forlorn hope. Science does not work that way.

[AFAICT the only documents that have "official
translations" are legal and diplomatic documents.
That status is conferred by the original authors.]

Tom Roberts

On 10/16/2021 5:00 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:10:16 PM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
>>
>> The normalization of Schrodinger
>
> Schroedinger.

Or Schrödinger. Replacing a German letter with an umlaut by the plain
form and an added "e" is the English language's way of dealing with
umlauts it doesn't have.

On 10/16/2021 12:11 PM, Townes Olson wrote:
> 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.

Do you understand at all how verbs are conjugated in German to agree
with the subject? English has that concept but just barely. It's the
equivalent of writing "the clock runs" and "the clocks run" in English,
and saying "look, the author uses both 'run' and 'runs'". 'Laufen' is
somewhat an irregular verb in German by using 'läuft' for third person
singular.

> Now, here are five widely available translations of this sentence into English, two of which render as "run/runs":

See, you do seem to understand the difference between 'run' and 'runs'.
'Laufen' and 'läuft' are German equivalents, although German has more
than two forms.

<snip translations>

Nothing to do with your claim that insisting on using the umlaut in
'läuft' is "pompous". The usual (English) solution to German umlauts is
an additional 'e' after the letter without the umlaut, although I
dislike that.

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

Several of your responses to Thomas. I don't have a dog in that fight,
so I'll leave you two to go at it, or not, and I will say no more.

On 10/16/2021 10:42 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:

> 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.

"schon" (already) and "schön" (beautiful)

"Küchen" (kitchens [plural] and "Kuchen" (cake)

"schwül" (humid) and "schwul" (gay).

"Mutter" (mother) and Mütter" (mothers [plural]). A few other nouns form
plurals by adding an umlaut.

On 10/16/2021 1:41 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 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:

>>> 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

Hahahahaha!!!! The "best logician" is a broken record player that can
only repeat "In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like serious clocks always did." <click> "In the
meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like serious clocks always did." <click> ...

You can't discuss against me, of course,

Of course it's impossible to discuss anything with a broken record player.

> all you can
> do is barking, spitting and slandering.

That's all you can do, when not in broken record player mode.

On 10/16/2021 1:22 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 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?

An observer doesn't have to be a physical person. In fact the usual
physics observer is an instrument of some sort. As to the satellites
themselves, it depends on whether the satellites use any process locally
which depends on correct *local* time (not adjusted signals sent to earth).

> It's the measuremant result that matters,

Which is why I said about any satellite-local process. Such as tracking
its own orbit or whatever.

> and it is t'=t. Just like always.

Not on the GPS. Unless you insist that 1/9192631770 = 1/9192631774.1.

> Or maybe you're trying to convince me that the result
> is invalid because the measurement equipment was
> calibrated. Are you?

As a crank with an idée fixe, educating you is a hopeless task. I know
that. I am here to watch crackpots and post to get reactions from them,
usually by posting corrections and facts that make them (you) whine.

Rarely something useful comes along, typically from the likes of Tom R.

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 11:48:50 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.
>
> Do you understand...

My claim is that the sentence (in German) in Einstein's paper is as quoted above (do you deny this?), and that the sentence contains the words läuft and laufen (do you deny this?), and that -- as supported by verbatim quotes of 5 widely available English translations -- this has led some translators to use the English words "run" and "runs" in their translations (do you deny this?). Lastly, I claim that it is wrong to assert (as you and Thomas do) that any translation using the words "run" or "runs" is "not official" and "therefore quite irrelevant", and "hardly reflects the original meaning".

> <snip translations>

Huh? This is the whole point of the discussion. Remember, the OP claimed that Einstein's 1905 paper included the sentence as translated by Stachel, and Jan (incorrectly) told the OP that this sentence was not in Einstein's paper. I posted a message to point out that the sentence (in German, of course) does appear in Einstein's paper, and I presumed that Jan had just forgotten this, and was not quibbling over the translation, although I noted in my very first message that one could quibble over the use of the word run/runs, since it confuses rates with initialization. Jan graciously acknowledged that, indeed, he had simply forgotten that the sentence was in Einstein's paper, and was not quibbling over the translation.

Now, as I said, one *could* challenge the translation, but the use of the verb "run" is arguably not very apt, and indeed some of the English translations avoid using "run". We may prefer these translations for external reasons, but that is different from saying it is strictly wrong to use the word run/runs in an English translation of that sentence (as you and Thomas claim). I posted the original German sentence and 5 widely available English translations, asked both you and Thomas to tell me which of those you think is the most accurate literal translation. Neither of you has answered... and neither of you ever will.

> Nothing to do with your claim that insisting on using the umlaut in
> 'läuft' is "pompous".

You misunderstood. My comment was not a critique of the German language, it was a critique of Thomas' pompous diversion from the subject of how Einstein treated transitivity of simultaneity in his 1905 paper to an idiotic complaint that when noting that Einstein's paper uses the word lauft in a Usenet post I didn't bother to render the umlaut. The English language can be rightly criticized for lacking the resources to adequately express the monumental stupidity and pointlessness of that complaint... which you promptly endorsed.

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

Surely that's just begging the question. Can you point to something (anything) specific? I've summarized my claims above, and asked if you dispute *any* of them. Do you? If so, which ones? If not, then what exactly is your complaint?

JanPB wrote:

> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 4:35:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> > On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:10:16 PM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
>> >> The normalization of Schrodinger
>> >
>> > Schroedinger.
>> _Schrödinger_
>
> Yes, that's why I said earlier "when the diacritics are not available".

Even if you do not have the „Ö“ key (and similar keys) on your keyboard, you
can switch to a different keyboard layout (in software), or use Compose
sequences, character map applications, or a spell checker to input the
umlaut characters (and other non-ASCII characters). If all else fails,
you can copy them from a file, the Web (e.g. Wikipedia), or Usenet.

And there is no *working* PC software that does not support displaying them.

So they are *always* available nowadays.

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

(from: WolframAlpha)

On 10/17/2021 4:34 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
[]

Quick question: In German are letters with umlauts considered to be
completely different letters than plain letters with no umlaut? Would
sorting software and phone books sort "Mütter" to follow (or precede?)
"Mutter" always or are they considered identical? How about "ß"
compared to "ss", how does that work?