On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 1:34:17 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I have a German and Polish keyboards settings but I was referring
to the situations where for whatever reason those options were not
available. Some industrial display devices do not have the proper diacritics
although the situation has improved a lot over the years. I remember some
years ago in Berlin the bus to, say, Steinstücken would show a big
STEINSTUECKEN in front.

> And there is no *working* PC software that does not support displaying them.
>
> So they are *always* available nowadays.

True but you know human nature.

--
Jan

On 10/17/21 3:40 PM, Michael Moroney 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?

In my Langenscheidt "Tashenwörterbuch Englisch", purchased in Germany, ö
is alphabetized immediately after o, but when considering the rest of
the word the umlaut is ignored: Mutter, ..., mütterlich, ...,
Mutterliebe. Ditto for other vowels. ß is alphabetized as if it were ss.

Tom Roberts

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> 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

No; it does not take a psychiatrist to see that you are seriously mentally
ill, and are suffering from delusions of grandeur, instead. Get well soon.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions>

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Clocks remain syncronized after they move apart
as long as the share the same Gamma for gravity and speed.

Mitchell Raemsch

On 10/17/2021 4:06 PM, Townes Olson wrote:
> 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 [at all how verbs are conjugated in German to agree with the subject?]...
>
> 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?),

but it does not contain the non-word "lauft". While Thomas Lahn can be
extremely nitpicky, he is correct. If you don't know German, you should
have said so or said "sorry my keyboard doesn't have any 'ä' key" or "I
don't know the significance of those dots" or something similar.

> 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".

I will not comment on whether a translation using "run" or "runs" is
correct or not. Each language has their words and phrases which cannot
be word-for-word translated. And my German is too rusty.
>
>> <snip translations>
>
> Huh? This is the whole point of the discussion.

I merely commented on your snarky reply to Thomas' comment.

> 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 made no such 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.

My high school German isn't good enough for me to make a meaningful
comment as to which translation is the most faithful to the original
German. So I won't.
>
>> 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.

Umlauts are significant in German. They don't have them in order to try
to look cool like rock groups ("Blue Öyster Cult") often do.
>
>>>> 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 accept your apology." (at least 3 times) when Thomas wasn't
apologizing for anything.

"You seem to be having a mental breakdown."

Complaining that pointing out the lack of umlaut was "pomposity" as well
as stating essentially "I'm not going to bother with any umlaut".

"the monumental stupidity and pointlessness of that complaint [about
umlauts]".

Both of you appear to be rather hard headed. I bow out again so that
you two can fight over which translation is best/official or whether
umlauts matter. This may be quite amusing to watch.

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 6:54:22 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>> 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.
> > My claim is that the sentence (in German) in Einstein's paper is as quoted above
> > (do you deny this?)...

Apparently you do not deny that... good.

> > and that the sentence contains the words läuft and laufen (do you deny this?),
> [No] but it does not contain the non-word "lauft".

Again, Einstein's sentence -- and the words it contains -- are not in dispute, and are available online for anyone to view for themselves, so your maniacal fixation on whether someone referring to those word in a Usenet message includes the umlaut is toweringly stupid. The question at issue is whether John Stachel's translation of that sentence is "wrong", as Thomas claims (and you've endorsed his claim). The only difference in the Stachel translation (and the literal translation) is his use of the word run/runs, which obviously he got from the German 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?).

Apparently you do not deny this.... good.

> 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".
>
> I will not comment on whether a translation using "run" or "runs" is correct or not.

Huh? This is the entire subject of the discussion, i.e., the transitivity of synchronization as discussed in Einstein's 1905 paper. If you have no comment on this, then why are you commenting?

> I merely commented on your snarky reply to Thomas' comment.

Hold on. My original post in this sub-discussion was nothing but a reply to Jan, pointing out that the sentence quoted by the OP (from a Stachel translation) actually *does* appear in Einstein's paper -- which Jan immediately agreed -- and I also noted that the Stachel translation (quoted by the OP, not by me) differed from the CPAE translation in its use of the word run/runs, which could be what was confusing the OP since it conflates rate with initialization. It might also have been why Jan didn't immediately recognize it. However, I also pointed out that there is some justification for the word run/runs in the actual German of Einstein's paper, so Stachel didn't fabricate it out of whole cloth. My message was completely unobjectionable and correct, as everyone (now) agrees.

At that point your esteemed ally Thomas jumped in to dismiss Stachel's translation as "not official" [whatever that means] and "therefore irrelevant", and to haughtily suggest that I am an ignoramous for not being aware of the "official" CPAE version. I pointed out that, in fact, the version I quoted in my original message *was* the CPAE version, which Thomas would have known if he hadn't just snipped and ignored my message. It quoted that version verbatim and compared and contrasted it with the Stachel version (and subsequently with several others). At this point your ally Thomas conceded that his haughty and supercilious allegations had been unfounded... but weirdly this didn't deter him from launching a completely pointless digression into the world of umlauts. Then you jumped in to endorse Thomas' position and add your insults to his.

In response I tried to direct the discussion back to the actual topic, by quoting verbatim the original German sentence, and then 5 widely available translations, and then asking which of those he and you think is the most literally accurate translation into English of what Einstein actually wrote. Neither he nor you ever responded.... and you never will. You've even admitted that you have no opinion on the matter. All you want to say is that you feel I have not treated your friend Thomas with the dignity and respect he deserves. Sheesh.

This shouldn't be so difficult for you. Even if you are totally ignorant of German, you know how to access Google, right? Just paste the German sentence in and see what you get. Your ally claims any translation that has the word run/runs is self-evidently inaccurate and doesn't come close to conveying the actual meaning. So, after this little exercise, do you still have confidence in his claim that John Stachel's translation was totally inaccurate?

On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 21:35:52 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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

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 you love.

On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 21:46:17 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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.

And, of course Wise Gurus will tell us what appears to
it, right, stupid Mike?

> > 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.

As I've told you many times, these values are T, not t,
and your Shit is actually predicting them to be equal.

>
> > 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,

See, stupid Mike: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity
ever had, while you're just a fanatic idiot worshipping an
insane crazie. Of course, you can't discuss against me,
you can only spit, bark and slander. But you will do what
you can for The Shit you love.

On Monday, 18 October 2021 at 01:27:25 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > 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
> No; it does not take a psychiatrist to see that you are seriously mentally
> ill, and are suffering from delusions of grandeur, instead.

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.

And in the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks will keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 8:35:22 PM UTC-7, Townes Olson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> This shouldn't be so difficult for you. Even if you are totally ignorant of German, you know how to access Google, right? Just paste the German sentence in and see what you get. Your ally claims any translation that has the word run/runs is self-evidently inaccurate and doesn't come close to conveying the actual meaning. So, after this little exercise, do you still have confidence in his claim that John Stachel's translation was totally inaccurate?

Here's another little test that you are fully capable of performing: Enter the CPAE English translation into the Google translator and see what you get in German. Since you are too lazy and disinterested, I'll spoon feed it to you:

"Wenn die Uhr in A sowohl mit der Uhr in B als auch mit der Uhr in C synchron ist, dann sind auch die Uhren in B und C relativ zueinander synchron."

Note that läuft/laufen do not appear, and instead we have "ist", as in "synchron ist" (is synchronous), just as one would expect. Now, one could argue that this is what Einstein *should* have said (and indeed I suggested this in my original post), but it is not what he actually said. He said "synchron läuft" (runs synchronously). So, in view of this, do you still claim (along with your pointy-eared friend) that John Stachel's translation (quoted by the OP) is blatantly inaccurate?

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> 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".
>
> I will not comment on whether a translation using "run" or "runs" is
> correct or not. Each language has their words and phrases which cannot
> be word-for-word translated. And my German is too rusty.

not existent. No, You're Not Crazy for Standing Firm: The Rest of The
World is Nuts!

On 10/18/2021 1:41 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 21:35:52 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> 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
>
>
> 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.

Different track on the same scratchy record. "I'm one of the best
logicians the humanity ever had" <click> "I'm one of the best logicians
the humanity ever had" <click> "I'm one of the best logicians the
humanity ever had" <click>, followed by "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> "In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like serious clocks always did." <click> ... What
other cuts will be featured on your new album?

> You can't discuss against me, of course,

Nope. Can't argue with a telephone pole. At least actual telephone poles
aren't autistic, they just stand there.

On Monday, 18 October 2021 at 19:46:16 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/18/2021 1:41 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 21:35:52 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > 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.
> Different track on the same scratchy record. "I'm one of the best
> logicians the humanity ever had" <click> "I'm one of the best logicians
> the humanity ever had" <click> "I'm one of the best logicians the
> humanity ever had" <click>, followed by "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> "In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
> measuring t'=t, just like serious clocks always did." <click> ... What
> other cuts will be featured on your new album?
> > You can't discuss against me, of course,
> Nope. Can't argue with a telephone pole. At least actual telephone poles
> aren't autistic, they just stand there.

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 you love.

On 10/18/2021 1:47 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 21:46:17 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> 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.
>
> And, of course Wise Gurus will tell us what appears to
> it, right, stupid Mike?
>
I know nothing about any gurus, but actual scientists will state what
the instruments should read *if the theory is correct*. And so far, the
GR theory has been excellent with predictions.
>
>>> 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.
>
> As I've told you many times, these values are T, not t,
> and your Shit is actually predicting them to be equal.

I don't know what your possibly messed-up Soviet education has done, but
you introduce something new. It seems you have at least 3 time
parameters, t, t' and T. Do you have tau (upper or lower case) in your
Soviet science education? How about things like tau' (prime)? Did they
also use Cyrillic letters? Maybe you need to be clear what t, t', T, or
perhaps tau, т (or perhaps в (for время)) all mean to you. Did the
Soviets proudly claim some great Russian scientist, not Einstein,
discovered SR and GR?

On Monday, 18 October 2021 at 20:05:51 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/18/2021 1:47 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 21:46:17 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > And, of course Wise Gurus will tell us what appears to
> > it, right, stupid Mike?
> >
> I know nothing about any gurus, but actual scientists will state what
> the instruments should read *if the theory is correct*. And so far, the
> GR theory has been excellent with predictions.
> >
> >>> 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..
> >
> > As I've told you many times, these values are T, not t,
> > and your Shit is actually predicting them to be equal.
> I don't know what your possibly messed-up Soviet education has done, but
> you introduce something new. It seems you have at least 3 time
> parameters, t, t' and T. Do you have tau (upper or lower case) in your
> Soviet science education?

It was Polish, but yes, tau was included.

> How about things like tau' (prime)? Did they
> also use Cyrillic letters? Maybe you need to be clear what t, t', T, or
> perhaps tau, т (or perhaps в (for время)) all mean to you.

It's rather simple, poor halfbrain; even such an idiot
could understand if he ever started to listen the
wiser ones. t and t' in your idiot guru's formulas
mean time coordinates. Something like: 18.10.2021
20:42:40 (for example). These values are equal for all
clocks in GPS system (with the precision of an acceptable
error), anyone can check it, unless he is too dumb, like
you, Thomas or other relativists.
T in physics is usually assigned to a period of
some oscillation. Period, you know, the inverse of
a frequency. Both 1/9192631770 and 1/9192631774.1
are obviously periods of some oscillation. And - according
to your idiot guru's prediction and his moronic postulate,
a time unit counted by a clock on Earth should take
the same amount of Cs periods as time unit counted
by a clock in any other place. Is 9192631770 equal
to 1/9192631774.1, stupid Mike? No; your idiot
guru has predicted incorrectly; samely with time
periods as with time coordinates.

Did the
> Soviets proudly claim some great Russian scientist, not Einstein,
> discovered SR and GR?

Rather not. See, your idiot guru was a good friend of Lenin,
Insane radical maniacs tend to stick to each other, and they've
chosen the same cafe in Zurich. Einstein has later said "Men of
his type are the guardians and restorers of humanity"; he was
such an idiot... And Lenin was similiarly kind for Einstein; he was
such an idiot...

Townes Olson wrote:

> 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.

Of course he does. What puzzles you?

In German, the forms „die Uhr läuft“ (literally: “the clock goes/runs”) and
„die Uhr geht“ (literally: “the clock goes/walks”) are synonymous. The
second form is (IMNSHO) the more common one today; Einstein’s use of the
verb „laufen“ instead may be owed to his Swabian origin (its being a variant
2that might be more common in the Alemannian dialects in general, or Swabian
in particular) or to the different epoch in which he lived (even the
Standard German back then – 116 years ago – was already very different from
today’s).

> Now, here are 5 widely available translations of this sentence into
> English, two of which render as "run/runs":

I cannot help but be amused when speakers of German as a foreign language
attempt to lecture me and other foreign speakers about how my native
language is to be understood.
> 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?

Translations 2 and 5 must be excluded because that is NOT what the German
text means. „läuft synchron“ describes a *state* (“is synchronous”), NOT
a process (“synchronizes” „synchronisiert sich [mit]“). (This was Ricardo
Jimenez’ misconception from the outset; he interpreted Einstein’s
description in that paper as one of a synchronization *method*, when in fact
Einstein was merely describing a *situation*.)

As I am not a native English speaker, I do not claim to make an informed
decision between translations 1, 3, and 4 there; however, “is synchronous”
(„ist synchron“) strikes me as being equally appropriate as “run
synchronous” because that is what „läuft synchron“ or „geht synchron“ mean
in German (the qualification “synchronous” is important here; it allows this
freedom of selection in the first place). The use of the verbs „laufen“ and
„gehen“ in that context merely indicate that the clock is
*working/operating*. That is just a figure of speech (of course the clock
is not walking around).

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 Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:40:47 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > As you can see, Einstein uses both läuft and laufen.
> Of course he does. What puzzles you?

What puzzles me is why you insist that Stachel's translation using the words run/runs is blatantly "wrong", and does not even come close to the actual meaning of Einstein's sentence. The most straight forward translations (2/3 of the translations you yourself have said you can't rule out) use run/runs.

> > Now, here are 5 widely available translations of this sentence into
> > English, two of which render as "run/runs":
>
> I cannot help but be amused...

But you yourself have agreed that of the 3 translations you think are acceptable, 2 of them use run/runs. And yet your position is that any translation using run/runs is grossly inaccurate. It doesn't matter how "amused" you can't help being, your claims are completely spurious and self-contradictory.

> Translations 2 and 5 must be excluded because that is NOT what the German
> text means.

Right, and yet that is the most widely published English translation over the past 100 years, since it is the translation of Perret and Jeffery of the Methuen selected papers, widely reprinted in endless Dover editions throughout the 20th century.

> „läuft synchron“ describes a *state* (“is synchronous”), NOT
> a process (“synchronizes” „synchronisiert sich [mit]“).
>
> As I am not a native English speaker, I do not claim to make an informed
> decision between translations 1, 3, and 4 there; however, “is synchronous”
> („ist synchron“) strikes me as being equally appropriate as “run
> synchronous”...

But wait... Your original contribution to this discussion was to claim with cloying condescension and certainty that 3 (Stachel's translation) is blatantly wrong. That's what started this whole discussion. Now you admit that you aren't qualified to judge.

Moreover, 1 and 3 both use "run synchronous" whereas 4 uses "is synchronous", and Translation 1 is from the Google Translate, and it is quite similar to Stachel, and if we run Stachel's English through the Google translate in reverse (from English to German), we get back almost identical to Einstein's original German:

Original Einstein German:
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."

Translate Stachel's English to German:
Wenn die Uhr von A sowohl mit der Uhr von B als auch mit der Uhr von C synchron läuft, dann laufen auch die Uhren von B und C relativ zueinander synchron.

Note that läuft/laufen appear, just as they do in Einstein's original. I know for a fact that Google has German-speaking experts on the Translate project, so please spare me the "Google Translate is worthless" nonsense. In contrast, if we take Anna Beck's English and translate it back to German we get:

Translate Beck's English to German:
"Wenn die Uhr in A sowohl mit der Uhr in B als auch mit der Uhr in C synchron ist, dann sind auch die Uhren in B und C relativ zueinander synchron."

This is different from Einstein's words, noting that läuft/laufen do *not* appear, and instead we have "ist", as in "synchron ist" (is synchronous), just as one would expect. So, according not just to Stachel but also to the German-speaking experts and English-speaking experts who developed the Google translator, the German läuft/laufen maps to run/runs, and vice versa... even though run is an active verb. Scientifically, as I said in my very first message (that you contemptuously dismissed unread), "is" would be better than "runs", but this may have been a case of Beck putting her thumb on the scale and "translating with advantages".

So, in view of this, combined with your latest admission that you really aren't qualified to judge whether Google, Stachel, or Beck is more accurate, would it be fair to say that when you began this discussion by confidently claiming John Stachel's translation (quoted by the OP) was blatantly inaccurate, you really didn't know what you were talking about?

Townes Olson wrote:

> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:40:47 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> > As you can see, Einstein uses both läuft and laufen.
>> Of course he does. What puzzles you?
>
> What puzzles me is why you insist that Stachel's translation using the
> words run/runs is blatantly "wrong",

I have NEVER said that it is wrong. That was only your misconstruction of
what I meant, upon which you thought it to be a good idea to react in the
most impolite and – in light of that German is my native language *and* I am
fluent in English – a quite ridiculous manner.

> So, in view of this, combined with your latest admission that you really
> aren't qualified to judge whether Google, Stachel, or Beck is more
> accurate,

Yet another misconstruction. How boring.

> would it be fair to say that when you began this discussion by confidently
> claiming John Stachel's translation (quoted by the OP) was blatantly
> inaccurate,

I did NOT.

> you really didn't know what you were talking about?

No; instead you were reading something into it that was not there.

So blame yourself.

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 Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:00:18 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > What puzzles me is why you insist that Stachel's translation using the
> > words run/runs is blatantly "wrong",
>
> I have NEVER said that it is wrong.

That is a lie, as shown by this verbatim quote:

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

You see? You claimed that Stachel's translation (with the run/runs) is blatantly, even laughably, wrong, and that only a clueless person could think otherwise. But now you acknowledge that you don't know if the Stachel (and Google) translation are accurate or not, because you don't know English well enough to know if the words läuft/laufen relate to the words run/runs in English, and you have no opinion on whether the Google and Stachel translations of those words is wrong. All you are prepared to say now is that the well known translation of Perrett and Jeffery (in the Methuen/Dover collection) is blatently wrong. That's not the translation that the OP gave.. So all your messages here have been completely pointless and misguided.

If clocks shares sameness of motion and gravity
by math of Gamma it will be synchronized... even
separating for light to travel more distance...
That is appearance rate.

Townes Olson wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:00:18 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> > What puzzles me is why you insist that Stachel's translation using the
>> > words run/runs is blatantly "wrong",
>>
>> I have NEVER said that it is wrong.
>
> That is a lie, as shown by this verbatim quote:

It is not a lie. The problem is instead that you are so arrogant that you
have become delusional, and imagine things that people simply did not write.
>> LOL If you had any clue about translations, you would know that such a
>> translation [Stachel's] hardly reflects the original meaning.

I did not write “[Stachel’s]”, and the implication that I referred to that
translation by what I said is yet another misconstruction on your part.
> You see? You claimed that Stachel's translation (with the run/runs) is
> blatantly, even laughably, wrong, […]

Not at all. I wrote that *your idea* of what would be the properties of a
good translation, is wrong: A literal translation is only a poor substitute
for a good translation, as every translator knows.

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

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 7:51:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> I have NEVER said that it is wrong.
> >
> > That is a lie, as shown by this verbatim quote:
> >
> >> LOL If you had any clue about translations, you would know that such a
> >> translation [Stachel's] hardly reflects the original meaning.
>
> I did not write “[Stachel’s]”, and the implication that I referred to that
> translation by what I said is yet another misconstruction on your part.

Again, that is a lie. First, the use of square brackets is conventional to denote interpolation, and second, as anyone can see for themselves by scrolling up to the referenced message, the Google and Stachel translations are essentially identical, both using run/runs, which was the basis of your complaint, and which you insisted was "wrong". When I quoted, in support of the Stachel translation with run/runs the simple literal translation from Google -- showing that it was the same as the Stachel translation -- you replied

> LOL If you had any clue about translations, you would know that such a
> translation [the Google translation, which is the same as Stachel's] hardly
> reflects the original meaning.

You see? You claimed that the Google/Stachel translation (with the run/runs) is blatantly, even laughably, wrong, and that only a clueless person could think otherwise. But now you acknowledge that you don't know if the Stachel/Google translation is accurate or not, because you don't know English well enough to know if the words läuft/laufen relate to the words run/runs in English, and you have no opinion on whether the Google/Stachel translation of those words is wrong. All you are prepared to say now is that the well known translation of Perrett and Jeffery (in the Methuen/Dover collection) is blatantly wrong. That's not the translation that the OP gave. So all your messages here have been completely pointless and misguided... and now you are devolving into abject dishonesty.

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 2:19:16 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/17/21 3:40 PM, Michael Moroney 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?
> In my Langenscheidt "Tashenwörterbuch Englisch", purchased in Germany, ö
> is alphabetized immediately after o, but when considering the rest of
> the word the umlaut is ignored: Mutter, ..., mütterlich, ...,
> Mutterliebe. Ditto for other vowels. ß is alphabetized as if it were ss.
>
> Tom Roberts

I think Duden is considered the ultimate authority?

--
Jan

On 12-Oct-21 4:09 am, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> AFAIK, the standard procedure to sync all clocks in a frame with the
> one at the space origin is t(p) = t(0) + |p|/c where p is an arbitrary
> point in space. If you perform a translation of space, how do you
> show all clocks are synchonized with the one at the new origin? If
> you try to evaluate t(p + q) where q is the translation vector you get
> t(p + q) = t(q) + (|p + q| - |q|)/c which doesn't seem to do the
> trick. What am I missing?
>

Take the absolute value of the difference between the vectors, not the
difference between the absolute value of the vectors.

Sylvia.

On 10/17/2021 5:19 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/17/21 3:40 PM, Michael Moroney 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?
>
> In my Langenscheidt "Tashenwörterbuch Englisch", purchased in Germany, ö
> is alphabetized immediately after o, but when considering the rest of
> the word the umlaut is ignored: Mutter, ..., mütterlich, ...,
> Mutterliebe. Ditto for other vowels. ß is alphabetized as if it were ss.
>
> Tom Roberts

OK, so Mutter, Mütter, mütterlich, Mutterliebe. U before ü only as a
tiebreaker. Thanks.