Am 01.12.2021 um 11:47 schrieb Justo Lugo:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> what's the "center" when you have an angle driven coordinate system?
>>> And the universe is 4D not 3. And your (0,0,0) is arbitrary, hence not
>>> fixed.
>>
>> The zero point of the co-moving 3d space are actually we ourselves.
>> The world we see is an internal representation of the outer world, which
>> is based on a certain spot within our brain.
>> So lets call that hypothetical spot 'observer' and what we see with our
>> eyes 'universe'.
>
> this is wrong even more. What's the distance between an arbitrary
> coordinate system and "you", in millimetres?

I relocate the coordinate system in question, that its center coincides
with the observer.

An arbitrary coordinate system could have any conceivable distance to
that, depending on your decision.

Because the location of an inertial FoR can be be chosen, I always chose
it that way, where its zero spot coincides with the observer.

This is only one of many possible ways, but has advantages.

>> Then we have a valid model of the process of seeing and of what is
>> seen. This 'universe' is, of course, not universal, but an subjective
>> image, that only represents the outer world.
>> Only, we humans are so used to use this method, that we usually forget,
>> that an internal representaion of the world is not the world, but an
>> image.
>
> wrong even more. Think!

We look into the past if we look into the sky.

The stars we see do not exist any more in many cases.

Therefore, seeing has a time-depency, while Euclidean space has not.

That's why the space we see and call 'universy' is actually non Euclidean.

It is also not universal, but the image the observer has from the world.

This image is actually not real for a number of reasons. One reason is,
that the things seen are not, where they are seen.

(Some stars seen do not exist at all anymore.)

The other main reason is, that we cannot see the world directly, but
have only an internal representation of the outside world in our brain.

>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/
> 1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> wasting your time. Better just focus on Einstine. He was wrong.

Einstein defined 'now' in a different way than me.

I would use a hypothetical signal with infinite speed. Then I needed to
use light, which is significantly slower, hence had to measure the delay
for the signal in transit and add the result to the received time-codes.

Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading of
a remote clock as time at that remote location.

I also disliked his description of induction, because he used a
conductor instead of a loop of wire.

Another set of errors was related to the symbol x'.

He also wrote no quotes or references at all.

His system of variable names was at best 'strange'.

I have written about 420 annotations, from which most mean errors.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
....
> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading of
> a remote clock as time at that remote location.

This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
propagation time.

As a matter of fact what you pretend (wrongly) about Einstein's method
is exactly what Richard (Lengrand) Hachel claim as the only correct
method (this is wrong too btw).

On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 10:05:39 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> ...
> > Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading of
> > a remote clock as time at that remote location.
> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
> propagation time.
>
> As a matter of fact what you pretend (wrongly) about Einstein's method
> is exactly what Richard (Lengrand) Hachel claim as the only correct
> method (this is wrong too btw).

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 28/11/2021 à 17:32, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> This is sometimes paired with feelings of persecution or paranoia.
>
>
> Note, it's like in France. It seems that there is a growing feeling of
> insecurity in some suburbs. But as the minister said, it's just a
> feeling. LOL.

wrong. If the child per woman is under 2.1 in europe, India and China
etc, then the population will decrease, the growth is negative without
the toxic vaccines.

Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> ...
>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading
>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location.
>
> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
> propagation time.

Sure, that is correct.

But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the
remote clock.

I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention
to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find
any hint.

Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want.

TH
> As a matter of fact what you pretend (wrongly) about Einstein's method
> is exactly what Richard (Lengrand) Hachel claim as the only correct
> method (this is wrong too btw).
>
>
>

Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> ...
>>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading
>>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location.
>>
>> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
>> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
>> propagation time.
>
> Sure, that is correct.
>
> But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the
> remote clock.
>
>
> I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention
> to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find
> any hint.
>
> Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want.
>

let me try to explain this statement:

I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second
to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury.

That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
which commonly communicate with us.

This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.

The clock is now able to sent coded signals, which we can receive. The
signals contain also the current time at that location (as measured by
our clock there).

The remote time is called t_B and the local time is called t_A.

So: a signal from there would reach us with a delay of three years.

Which was the assumption of Einstein about t_B, if the signal contains
the time t_A - 3years ?

He should have added 3 years, of course, but apparently didn't.

If he had actually calculated this delay and added it to the remote
reading, than I could, at least, not find his calculation.

Would you be so kind and tell me, where that calculation can be found?

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading
>>>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location.
>>>
>>> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
>>> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
>>> propagation time.
>>
>> Sure, that is correct.
>>
>> But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the
>> remote clock.
>>
>>
>> I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention
>> to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find
>> any hint.
>>
>> Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want.
>>
>
>
> let me try to explain this statement:
>
> I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second
> to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury.
>
> That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
> which commonly communicate with us.

This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
supposed to be used everywhere.

> This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.

Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until
you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein
wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason.

> The clock is now able to sent coded signals, which we can receive. The
> signals contain also the current time at that location (as measured by
> our clock there).
>
> The remote time is called t_B and the local time is called t_A.
>
> So: a signal from there would reach us with a delay of three years.
>
> Which was the assumption of Einstein about t_B, if the signal contains
> the time t_A - 3years ?
>
> He should have added 3 years, of course, but apparently didn't.

He did, look below : t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + (3 years)

> If he had actually calculated this delay and added it to the remote
> reading, than I could, at least, not find his calculation.
>
> Would you be so kind and tell me, where that calculation can be found?

Again, just apply equations from part I.1 in the original paper, I've
shown you this numerous times, this is basic algebra:

2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper)
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper)

implies:

t_B = t_A + (AB)/c

(AB)/c is the delay.

Apply these equations, which are DIRECT consequences of equations in
part I.1. in Einstein's article to your specific case you'll end
up with:

t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + (3 years)

How come you cannot understand something that is SO OBVIOUS Thomas?

On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:47:15 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> >> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python:
> >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading
> >>>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location.
> >>>
> >>> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
> >>> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
> >>> propagation time.
> >>
> >> Sure, that is correct.
> >>
> >> But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the
> >> remote clock.
> >>
> >>
> >> I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention
> >> to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find
> >> any hint.
> >>
> >> Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want.
> >>
> >
> >
> > let me try to explain this statement:
> >
> > I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second
> > to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury.
> >
> > That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
> > which commonly communicate with us.
> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
> at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
> person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
> or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
> supposed to be used everywhere.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your moronic religion non-identical GPS clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.

the stupid wannabe physicist troll, former JPB, now Python wrote:

>> I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second
>> to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury.
>>
>> That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
>> which commonly communicate with us.
>
> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
> at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single

shut the fuck up, you stupid frog troll.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:47:15 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> > Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>> >> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python:
>> >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> > That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
>> > which commonly communicate with us.
>> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks
>> mutually at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by
>> a single person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more
>> labs or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit
>> are supposed to be used everywhere.
>
> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your moronic

agree, Python is a stupid nym'shifting troll. A wannabe physicist,
uneducated like hell.

Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading
>>>>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location.
>>>>
>>>> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
>>>> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
>>>> propagation time.
>>>
>>> Sure, that is correct.
>>>
>>> But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the
>>> remote clock.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention
>>> to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find
>>> any hint.
>>>
>>> Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want.
>>>
>>
>>
>> let me try to explain this statement:
>>
>> I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second
>> to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury.
>>
>> That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
>> which commonly communicate with us.
>
> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
> at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
> person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
> or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
> supposed to be used everywhere.

No.

SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!!

SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think
about how nature functions.

So. Einstein wrote not about certain experiments, but about the nature
of space and time.

The question is, whether or not his method makes sense.

I would say:

no SRT is a piece of garbadge, which is seemingly intentionally created,
to prevent people from doing exactly that: thinking about the nature of
space and time.

If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how
that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the
distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance would
have been mandatory.

But in fact he ascribed the effects of relative motion erroneously to
the real behaviour of objects on the remote side.

But that is not even nonsense, but pure bunk, because the objects on the
remote side cannot possibly be affected by relative motion of a remote
observer

>> This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.
>
> Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until
> you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein
> wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason.

No, things do not exist, because we can see them.

Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the
requirement, that something real must also be visible.

And: in fact we could synchronize clocks in cosmological distances only,
if we had communication partners there.

But the required procedure would not function like Einstein wrote it
would function.

Einstein erroneously assumed, that time is universal and remote
observers could measure the same absolute time, hence only velocity
(also meant as relative to the universe) would make a difference.

But in fact only local time makes sense and we have neither absolute
time, nor absolute space, against which velocity could eventually be
measured.

So, we had to communicate with someone remote. And I assumed
three-legged aliens.

(But you can assume whatever you like.)

Now we send signals and receive answers.

To synchronize clocks, we first need to negotiate the meaning of the
term 'clock' and how that should look like.

Now we cannot assume, that processes here on Earth have the same
frequency as processes at that remote location.

We cannot even assume, that future for us is future there, too.

So we need to find out the relation of frequency in equivalent processes.

That could eventually be a certain frequency of a gas, which we could
identify as similar. From this we could built a clock, on which both
sides could agree.

Then we needed to estimate the distance and relative velocity of the
remote system.

We could do that by sending a signal there, which is immidiatly
retransmitted there.

Then we could measure the delay and calculate the distance.

Next we need to fix a certain reference point in time, from where the
local calender starts the new year and the calender itself (here: birth
of Christ, there: ???).

This year has most likely a diffent length, hence we need to maintain a
system, that translates our dates into dates there.

We could also measure Doppler shift and calcule relative motion.

Then we could create a system here, which is in synch with the remote
clocks there and those aliens could do the same, but with our clocks.

If we now calculate the current time at the remote location, we could
generate a time-coded signal, which is in synch with the remote clock,
once or signal arrives there.

This signal would be composed from the results of several calculations.

For instance we had to calculate the position of that planet in the
local orbit at the time of arrival of the signal.

Than we can calculte the precise distance from our position in our orbit
towards that position.

Then we need to figure out the local speed of light in relation to our
planet and to our local solar system (because of local gravity).

We should do the same for the remote side, too.

After a number of iterations we can figuere out, how that signal should
look like and when we should send it.

Would be a little difficult, but we have actually computers.

But nothing of this procedure was mentioned in Einstein's text.

Einstein wrote nowhere, that the addition of the dealy would be required.

He did not even calculate this delay or even mentioned it.

Now you say, he had done that and only forgot to write something about
that delay, because it is so obvious.

But what is written in a text is relevant, and not, what you think it
should contain.

Therefore a required statement is missing, if it is missing in the text.
A reader must not alter a paper, only because it should contain
something which it does not.

....

TH

On 12/4/2021 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python:

>> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
>> at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
>> person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
>> or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
>> supposed to be used everywhere.
>
> No.
>
> SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!!
>
> SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think
> about how nature functions.

Python was writing about a theoretical experiment when he wrote "some
experiment". Say measuring something happening on Alpha Centauri and
needing accurate time measurements of the events for the data to be
useful. You'd want synchronized clocks for that.
>
> So. Einstein wrote not about certain experiments, but about the nature
> of space and time.
>
> The question is, whether or not his method makes sense.

Since relativity has never failed when GR/SR are used within their
domains, then yes it does make sense.
>
> I would say:
>
> no SRT is a piece of garbadge, which is seemingly intentionally created,
> to prevent people from doing exactly that: thinking about the nature of
> space and time.

Scientists don't care what you think. Scientists care whether it makes
accurate predictions and is consistent with existing results. As I
stated, relativity hasn't failed so far, nor is there anything better
yet. But you must be popular with the anti-relativity cranks.
>
> If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how
> that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the
> distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance would
> have been mandatory.

The "distortion" is Einstein's relativity!
>
> But in fact he ascribed the effects of relative motion erroneously to
> the real behaviour of objects on the remote side.

No, on the relative motion of both sides.
>
> But that is not even nonsense, but pure bunk, because the objects on the
> remote side cannot possibly be affected by relative motion of a remote
> observer

???

Relative to what, the local observer?
>
>>> This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.
>>
>> Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until
>> you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein
>> wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason.
>
> No, things do not exist, because we can see them.
>
> Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the
> requirement, that something real must also be visible.

It must be visible for us to know about the real thing.
>
> And: in fact we could synchronize clocks in cosmological distances only,
> if we had communication partners there.
>
> But the required procedure would not function like Einstein wrote it
> would function.
>
> Einstein erroneously assumed, that time is universal and remote
> observers could measure the same absolute time,

There is no absolute time in relativity!

> hence only velocity
> (also meant as relative to the universe) would make a difference.
>
> But in fact only local time makes sense and we have neither absolute
> time, nor absolute space, against which velocity could eventually be
> measured.

Velocity is relative, between the observer and observed.
>
> So, we had to communicate with someone remote. And I assumed
> three-legged aliens.
>
> (But you can assume whatever you like.)
>
> Now we send signals and receive answers.

Why are the three legged aliens necessary? We send signals and receive
answers from the Moon without any aliens there. (Except us, when Apollo
missions planted the laser reflectors we're still using)
>
> To synchronize clocks, we first need to negotiate the meaning of the
> term 'clock' and how that should look like.
>
> Now we cannot assume, that processes here on Earth have the same
> frequency as processes at that remote location.

Clocks are what measure time.
>
> We cannot even assume, that future for us is future there, too.

????
>
> So we need to find out the relation of frequency in equivalent processes.

First Postulate states the laws of physics and the processes are
identical both here and there.
>
> That could eventually be a certain frequency of a gas, which we could
> identify as similar. From this we could built a clock, on which both
> sides could agree.

No "both sides" needed. In Einstein's work, the clocks are assumed
identical. In reality they need to have the same accuracy and tick the
same units.
>
> Then we needed to estimate the distance and relative velocity of the
> remote system.
>
> We could do that by sending a signal there, which is immidiatly
> retransmitted there.

As the Apollo laser reflectors do.
>
> Then we could measure the delay and calculate the distance.
>
> Next we need to fix a certain reference point in time, from where the
> local calender starts the new year and the calender itself (here: birth
> of Christ, there: ???).

Irrelevant. We use our time.

> We could also measure Doppler shift and calcule relative motion.

Yes.
>
> Then we could create a system here, which is in synch with the remote
> clocks there and those aliens could do the same, but with our clocks.

If there are any aliens, and if so, if they wish to do so. But they
aren't needed, just like with the Moon. We just use our time system.

<bla bla bla>

> Einstein wrote nowhere, that the addition of the dealy would be required.
>
> He did not even calculate this delay or even mentioned it.

It's part of his time synchronization test procedure!
>
> Now you say, he had done that and only forgot to write something about
> that delay, because it is so obvious.

It's part of his time synchronization test procedure!
>
> But what is written in a text is relevant, and not, what you think it
> should contain.
>
> Therefore a required statement is missing, if it is missing in the text.
> A reader must not alter a paper, only because it should contain
> something which it does not.

It's in there. Remember the paper was written for other scientists of
his time, not ignoramuses 115 years later.

Einstein didn't write down 2+2=4, either.

On Saturday, 4 December 2021 at 08:30:53 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/4/2021 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python:
>
> >> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
> >> at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
> >> person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
> >> or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
> >> supposed to be used everywhere.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!!
> >
> > SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think
> > about how nature functions.
> Python was writing about a theoretical experiment when he wrote "some
> experiment". Say measuring something happening on Alpha Centauri and
> needing accurate time measurements of the events for the data to be
> useful. You'd want synchronized clocks for that.
> >
> > So. Einstein wrote not about certain experiments, but about the nature
> > of space and time.
> >
> > The question is, whether or not his method makes sense.
> Since relativity has never failed when GR/SR are used within their
> domains, then yes it does make sense.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

> Scientists don't care what you think. Scientists care whether it makes
> accurate predictions and is consistent with existing results. As I
> stated, relativity hasn't failed so far, nor is there anything better
> yet.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

> It must be visible for us to know about the real thing.

Isn't a gedanken of your idiot guru enough?

> No "both sides" needed. In Einstein's work, the clocks are assumed
> identical. In reality they need to have the same accuracy and tick the
> same units.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
insane religion GPS non-identical clocks keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/4/2021 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
....

For some reason Thomas' post does not appear on the nttp server
I'm using, so I didn't see it before Michael's answer.

>> If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how
>> that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the
>> distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance
>> would have been mandatory.

This is not about distortion. It is about how you make sense of reading
of distant co-moving clocks in order to be able to label distant events
with a consistent time coordinate.

You definitely completely overlook part I.1. of Einstein's paper even
if it is referenced all over the article when dealing with time and
space coordinates of distant events in a single frame of reference.

>> Now you say, he had done that and only forgot to write something about
>> that delay, because it is so obvious.
>
> It's part of his time synchronization test procedure!

Michael is right.

>> But what is written in a text is relevant, and not, what you think it
>> should contain.
>>
>> Therefore a required statement is missing, if it is missing in the
>> text. A reader must not alter a paper, only because it should contain
>> something which it does not.

What is written in the text is relevant, right.

When it comes to time-labelling events in a single frames, here are the
equations in the text:

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

These equations obviously imply t_B = t_A + (AB)/c

(AB)/c is the delay you pretend is not taken into account.

I've already explained you why it make more sense to consider
the synchronization that way instead of postulating that one-trip
light speed is constant, I doubt you even read it, and if you
did I'm sure you didn't try to understand it. Like all cranks
you, Thomas, always prefer to stick to whatever ill-defined
"concept" you've pulled out of your ass instead of trying to
understand what *others* are stating. It's one of the worst
pathological symptom of autism.

So when pretending that Einstein didn't take into account light
propagation delays you are the one making up something that is
not in the text, moreover you are making up something that is
in direct contradiction with what is actually in the original
text, Thomas. You are not intellectually able to understand
what is in Einstein's article, and why it is presented in such
a way.

Le 03/12/2021 à 13:12, Harif Kuloo a écrit :

> agree, Python is a stupid nym'shifting troll.

Certainly yes.
But when did you find out?
In France, we've known that for 27 years.

R.H.

Le 03/12/2021 à 10:47, Python a écrit :
> Again, just apply equations from part I.1 in the original paper, I've
> shown you this numerous times, this is basic algebra:
>
> 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper)
> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper)
>
> implies:
>
> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
>
> (AB)/c is the delay.
>
> Apply these equations, which are DIRECT consequences of equations in
> part I.1. in Einstein's article to your specific case you'll end
> up with:
>
> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + (3 years)
>
> How come you cannot understand something that is SO OBVIOUS Thomas?

Le 03/12/2021 à 10:47, Python a écrit :

> 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper)
> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper)
>
> implies:
>
> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c

One day, someone will have to devote himself to teaching the theory of
relativity to Jean-Pierre Messager (as Python)

Me, I gave up.

C'est des équations qu'on écrit sur les bancs du collège entre 12 et
14 ans, ça.

Faut pas être bien dans sa tête pour colporter des conneries pareilles
dans une théorie beaucoup plus belle, plus profonde, plus étrange, et
beaucoup moins évidente par rapport aux montres habituelles.

J'en arrive à me demander si Jean-Pierre a compris quelque chose de la
notion d'anisochronie spatiale,
et de relativité de la simultanéité.

Bon, Jean-Pierre, mon chéri, maintenant, tu arrêtes.

Repends-toi, Jean-Pierre.

Sois bon avec toi-même.

R.H.

Le 03/12/2021 à 10:47, Python a écrit :
> Again, just apply equations from part I.1 in the original paper, I've
> shown you this numerous times, this is basic algebra:
>
> 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper)

Einstein was right. And my grand mother Anatolphine too.

> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper)

Et mes couilles?

Il y a des gens qui ne peuvent pas être enseignés.

Même à grandes claques dans la gueule, même avec de grands coups de
genoux dans les couilles.

Tu peux pas.

Ils continueront sans cesse à radoter leurs conneries et leur
débilités.

Jean-Pierre! Mon tendre chéri darling! Je te supplie de comprendre
quelque chose.

OUI, on peut dire 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.

NON, on ne peut pas en conclure t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B.

Ce serait vrai pour une troisième montre placée en C, orthogonale sur
la médiane AB.

Ce n'est vrai ni pour A, ni pour B.

R.H.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>>> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading
>>>>>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
>>>>> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
>>>>> propagation time.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, that is correct.
>>>>
>>>> But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the
>>>> remote clock.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention
>>>> to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find
>>>> any hint.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> let me try to explain this statement:
>>>
>>> I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second
>>> to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury.
>>>
>>> That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
>>> which commonly communicate with us.
>>
>> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
>> at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
>> person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
>> or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
>> supposed to be used everywhere.
>
> No.
>
> SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!!

Well, yeah it is. All theories are about observations and experiments.

>
> SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think
> about how nature functions.
>
> So. Einstein wrote not about certain experiments, but about the nature
> of space and time.

Well, he hypothesized about space and time based on observations.

>
> The question is, whether or not his method makes sense.

As long as it agrees with observations, yes it makes sense. That’s how
science works.

>
> I would say:
>
> no SRT is a piece of garbadge, which is seemingly intentionally created,
> to prevent people from doing exactly that: thinking about the nature of
> space and time.

Now, Thomas, you’ll have to explain to me how anybody thinking about the
nature of space and time would PREVENT anyone else from thinking about it.

>
> If he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how
> that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the
> distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance would
> have been mandatory.
>
> But in fact he ascribed the effects of relative motion erroneously to
> the real behaviour of objects on the remote side.
>
> But that is not even nonsense, but pure bunk, because the objects on the
> remote side cannot possibly be affected by relative motion of a remote
> observer
>
>>> This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.
>>
>> Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until
>> you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein
>> wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason.
>
> No, things do not exist, because we can see them.
>
> Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the
> requirement, that something real must also be visible.
>
>
> And: in fact we could synchronize clocks in cosmological distances only,
> if we had communication partners there.
>
> But the required procedure would not function like Einstein wrote it
> would function.
>
> Einstein erroneously assumed, that time is universal and remote
> observers could measure the same absolute time, hence only velocity
> (also meant as relative to the universe) would make a difference.
>
> But in fact only local time makes sense and we have neither absolute
> time, nor absolute space, against which velocity could eventually be
> measured.
>
> So, we had to communicate with someone remote. And I assumed
> three-legged aliens.
>
> (But you can assume whatever you like.)
>
> Now we send signals and receive answers.
>
> To synchronize clocks, we first need to negotiate the meaning of the
> term 'clock' and how that should look like.
>
> Now we cannot assume, that processes here on Earth have the same
> frequency as processes at that remote location.
>
> We cannot even assume, that future for us is future there, too.
>
> So we need to find out the relation of frequency in equivalent processes.
>
> That could eventually be a certain frequency of a gas, which we could
> identify as similar. From this we could built a clock, on which both
> sides could agree.
>
> Then we needed to estimate the distance and relative velocity of the
> remote system.
>
> We could do that by sending a signal there, which is immidiatly
> retransmitted there.
>
> Then we could measure the delay and calculate the distance.
>
> Next we need to fix a certain reference point in time, from where the
> local calender starts the new year and the calender itself (here: birth
> of Christ, there: ???).
>
> This year has most likely a diffent length, hence we need to maintain a
> system, that translates our dates into dates there.
>
> We could also measure Doppler shift and calcule relative motion.
>
> Then we could create a system here, which is in synch with the remote
> clocks there and those aliens could do the same, but with our clocks.
>
> If we now calculate the current time at the remote location, we could
> generate a time-coded signal, which is in synch with the remote clock,
> once or signal arrives there.
>
> This signal would be composed from the results of several calculations.
>
> For instance we had to calculate the position of that planet in the
> local orbit at the time of arrival of the signal.
>
> Than we can calculte the precise distance from our position in our orbit
> towards that position.
>
> Then we need to figure out the local speed of light in relation to our
> planet and to our local solar system (because of local gravity).
>
> We should do the same for the remote side, too.
>
> After a number of iterations we can figuere out, how that signal should
> look like and when we should send it.
>
> Would be a little difficult, but we have actually computers.
>
>
> But nothing of this procedure was mentioned in Einstein's text.
>
> Einstein wrote nowhere, that the addition of the dealy would be required.
>
> He did not even calculate this delay or even mentioned it.
>
> Now you say, he had done that and only forgot to write something about
> that delay, because it is so obvious.
>
> But what is written in a text is relevant, and not, what you think it
> should contain.
>
> Therefore a required statement is missing, if it is missing in the text.
> A reader must not alter a paper, only because it should contain
> something which it does not.
>
> ...
>
>
> TH
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python:
> ...

I've already answered to most of your nonsense, or Michael did,
in my answer to Michael's answer. Until a few minutes ago your
post wasn't visible on the nntp server I'm using.

>>> This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.
>>
>> Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until
>> you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein
>> wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason.
>
> No, things do not exist, because we can see them.
>
> Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the
> requirement, that something real must also be visible.

Sorry, Thomas, I cannot make any sense of your anser here.
It is even remotely related to what I wrote, or part I.1. in
Einstein's paper.

What the hell are you talking about? How could this nonsense
about things being seen of invisible is related in any way
to part I.1. in Einstein's paper? In other words: what kind
of demented nonsense did your ill brain produced, again?

On Saturday, 4 December 2021 at 17:58:36 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python:
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 03.12.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> >>>> Am 02.12.2021 um 10:06 schrieb Python:
> >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> Einsteins method was actually strange, because he wanted the reading
> >>>>>> of a remote clock as time at that remote location.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is NOT Einstein method at ALL. As I've shown you numerous times
> >>>>> Einstein synchronization procedure actually takes into account light
> >>>>> propagation time.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, that is correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> But Einstein did not add the propagation time to the reading of the
> >>>> remote clock.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have carefully searched for any hint, that Einstein had the intention
> >>>> to correct the reaing of a remote clock by the delay, but could not find
> >>>> any hint.
> >>>>
> >>>> Therefore, I must assume, that he did not want.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> let me try to explain this statement:
> >>>
> >>> I assume for a moment, that I could send a clock in less than a second
> >>> to an Earth-like planet near Alpha Centaury.
> >>>
> >>> That planet should be inhabited by friendly beings with three legs,
> >>> which commonly communicate with us.
> >>
> >> This stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
> >> at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
> >> person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
> >> or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
> >> supposed to be used everywhere.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!!
> Well, yeah it is. All theories are about observations and experiments.
> >
> > SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we think
> > about how nature functions.
> >
> > So. Einstein wrote not about certain experiments, but about the nature
> > of space and time.
> Well, he hypothesized about space and time based on observations.

But in the real world, forbidden by your moronic religion GPS
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.

> As long as it agrees with observations, yes it makes sense. That’s how
> science works.

Thinkers more advanced than a poor idiot woodworker
(Poincare, Kuhn, Lakatos) knew better.

Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/12/2021 à 10:47, Python a écrit :
>
>> Again, just apply equations from part I.1 in the original paper, I've
>> shown you this numerous times, this is basic algebra:
>>
>> 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper)
>
> Einstein was right.
>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper)
....
> OUI, on peut dire 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.
> NON, on ne peut pas en conclure t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B.

You didn't read seriously the article. t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is
NOT deduced from 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.

This is a typical problems with cranks of your kind. You always
make up stuff then argue against this stuff that was not claimed
by anyone in the first place. This is something that makes
discussion with you cranks impossible.

Remember when you were first, more than a decade ago, presented
to this equation (t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B) you interpreted it as
meaning that clock A and clock B are running at the same rate?

Do you really get, now, that this is completely WRONG? Equality
of clock rates is stated BEFORE in the text:

"the clock [at B] is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"

You were unable to read back then, you still are Lengrand.

Considering the logical relation between these two equations, Einstein
is very clear in part I.1 :

2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c is assumed in accordance with experiments
(it refers to actual measures of round-trip time of light signals
in experiments involving a single clock).

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is ASSUMED as a convention about initialization
of clock readings in order to obtain a consistent synchronization
between a network of co-moving clocks in a given frame of reference.

There is NOTHING said about the second equation being a consequence
of the first one, nor the other way around.

You pretend that t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is impossible with absolutely
NO ARGUMENT but "ME, Richard Lengrand 'Hachel' say so". This is
ridiculous.

Not only it is possible; it's routinely done in real setups to configure
clocks preparing an actual experiment, it can be shown mathematically
that this convention, under the hypothesis of the other one
(2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c, insures that Einstein is RIGHT in stating this:

"We assume that this definition of synchronism is possible without
involving any inconsistency, for any number of points, therefore
the following relations hold:

1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the
clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A be synchronous with the clock at B as well as
with the clock at C, then also the clocks at B and C are
synchronous."

(a part that, again, you completely misunderstood 15 years ago)

Einstein assumed it, it can actually being (mathematically) proven. It
means that your claim about (un)consistency of synchronisation is WRONG.

Le 05/12/2021 à 13:21, Python a écrit :

> 1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the
clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B.

C'est faux.

Tu le fais exprès Jean-Pierre Messager?

J'ai pris l'exemple d'une horloge solaire.

L'heure solaire, à Berlin, Paris et Denver n'est pas la même.

MAIS, on peut faire en sorte qu'elle soit la même, en modifiant la
position du socle.

On aura donc une parfaite simultanéité des heures notées.

Mais bon, on peut aussi dire que deux joints à sept font neuf.

Selon qu'il est saintement écrit : "La précision mathématique de ses
réponses entraîne l'épouvante".

Mais une fois cela dit? Que dit-on de plus?

L'heure solaire, à Berlin, à Paris, et à Denver n'est pas la même.

Et c'est pas Jean-Pierre qui va y changer quelque chose.

Il y a dans le monde, certaine réalité immuable.

Même Einstein, le petit employé de Berne, qui recopiait les brevets
(c'était sa fonction en 1905 à l'Institut des brevets de Berne), s'y est
frotté.

Il a perdu.

Le génie, c'était Poincaré. Le plus grand mathématicien que le monde
ait porté, et le dernier capable
(parce qu'après ça progresse trop vite) de maîtriser l'ensemble de
toutes les sciences de son époque.

Faut arrêter, Jean-Pierre.

Mais je suis sûr que tu vas continuer selon qu'il est saintement écrit
: "Là où il n'y a pas de bornes, ils n'auront plus de limites".

R.H.

--
L'important, c'est l'essentiel.<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=pgUyxP7uCHbZytZrOfa1dr2y5u4@jntp>

On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 13:26:27 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Richard (Lengrand) Hachel wrote:
> > Le 03/12/2021 à 10:47, Python a écrit :
> >
> >> Again, just apply equations from part I.1 in the original paper, I've
> >> shown you this numerous times, this is basic algebra:
> >>
> >> 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c (Einstein's paper)
> >
> > Einstein was right.
> >> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (Einstein's paper)
> ...
> > OUI, on peut dire 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.
> > NON, on ne peut pas en conclure t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B.
> You didn't read seriously the article. t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is
> NOT deduced from 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c.
>
> This is a typical problems with cranks of your kind. You always
> make up stuff then argue against this stuff that was not claimed
> by anyone in the first place. This is something that makes
> discussion with you cranks impossible.
>
> Remember when you were first, more than a decade ago, presented
> to this equation (t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B) you interpreted it as
> meaning that clock A and clock B are running at the same rate?
>
> Do you really get, now, that this is completely WRONG? Equality
> of clock rates is stated BEFORE in the text:
>
> "the clock [at B] is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>
> You were unable to read back then, you still are Lengrand.
>
> Considering the logical relation between these two equations, Einstein
> is very clear in part I.1 :
>
> 2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c is assumed in accordance with experiments
> (it refers to actual measures of round-trip time of light signals
> in experiments involving a single clock).
>
> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is ASSUMED as a convention about initialization
> of clock readings in order to obtain a consistent synchronization
> between a network of co-moving clocks in a given frame of reference.
>
> There is NOTHING said about the second equation being a consequence
> of the first one, nor the other way around.
>
> You pretend that t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is impossible with absolutely
> NO ARGUMENT but "ME, Richard Lengrand 'Hachel' say so". This is
> ridiculous.
>
> Not only it is possible; it's routinely done in real setups to configure
> clocks preparing an actual experiment, it can be shown mathematically
> that this convention, under the hypothesis of the other one
> (2(AB)/(t'A - t_A) = c, insures that Einstein is RIGHT in stating this:
>
> "We assume that this definition of synchronism is possible without
> involving any inconsistency, for any number of points, therefore
> the following relations hold:
>
> 1. If the clock at B be synchronous with the clock at A, then the
> clock at A is synchronous with the clock at B.
> 2. If the clock at A be synchronous with the clock at B as well as
> with the clock at C, then also the clocks at B and C are
> synchronous."
>
> (a part that, again, you completely misunderstood 15 years ago)
>
> Einstein assumed it, it can actually being (mathematically) proven. It
> means that your claim about (un)consistency of synchronisation is WRONG.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

Am 04.12.2021 um 20:06 schrieb Python:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 03.12.2021 um 10:47 schrieb Python:
>> ...
>
> I've already answered to most of your nonsense, or Michael did,
> in my answer to Michael's answer. Until a few minutes ago your
> post wasn't visible on the nntp server I'm using.
>
>>>> This remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until
>>> you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein
>>> wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason.
>>
>> No, things do not exist, because we can see them.
>>
>> Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the
>> requirement, that something real must also be visible.
>
> Sorry, Thomas, I cannot make any sense of your anser here.
> It is even remotely related to what I wrote, or part I.1. in
> Einstein's paper.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? How could this nonsense
> about things being seen of invisible is related in any way
> to part I.1. in Einstein's paper? In other words: what kind
> of demented nonsense did your ill brain produced, again?
>

You insisted on 'a common procedure to check..' (if something is the case).

This way you raise the requirement that such a something should be
measurable, before you regard it as real.

I wrote, that invisible (unmeasurable) things could also be real.

Things can 'live' in a different world, to where we have no access, but
are still real.

Such invisible things (like behind the event horizon of a black hole) do
not belong to the realm, to which we possibly make contact, hence cannot
measure anything there, while this realm and its content might built a
real world.

TH