Am 04.12.2021 um 08:30 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> 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.

I wrote, that 'time dilation' and relativist length contraction and so
forth make more sense in cosmology.

Therefore I use distances, which are a little larger than those, that
you could place in a laboratory.

Our nearest star Alpha Centaury and a hypothetical planet there, which
is inhabited by aliens with clocks is my usual setting.

This makes the required procedures for synchronisation a little more
obvious then an experiment in a lab could do.

>> 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'm actually not discussing SRT per se, but a certain text, which
Einstein wrote (called 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies').

(I personally think, that Einstein actually mocked his audience, because
he used an encoded message in the title, which actually means 'sex'.)

So, I cannot tell you, wether or not other versions of SRT make more
sense, because that was not my subject.

I meant: the prodecure, which Einstein described in his text, would not
enable humans to synchronize clocks with Alpha Centaury.

Since the requirement to synchronize clocks there with our clocks is
rather mild (it is actually our closest star), I cannot agree, that SRT
would not fail cosmology.

Sure, most likely such a scenario was not intended by Einstein.

But what else did he want to do with his theory, if it is not applicable
in cosmology?

>> 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.

No. You are talking about your own profession and call that 'science',
even if you are not doing any research in nature.

I'm also not an 'anti-relativity crank', because I have based my own
'book' on relativity (but not on SRT).

>> 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!

No.

I think, that Einstein erroneously ascribed the effects of relative
motion to the 'far end' of the observation, while he should have
researched the effect of motion on the perception on the 'near side'.

The effect of movement on vision is closely related to the Doppler effect.

This would make things look distorted, while the thing itself is not.

The reason is, that the IMAGE is distorted, not the thing observed.

So the effects occur on the side of the observer, while the observed
thing is not affected, because a thing can simply ignore observers
passing by at a distance.

But Einstein wrote about real length contraction, which apparently meant
the observed thing itself, which should become shorter.

>>
>> 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.

???

'Length contraction' is depending of 'length', which is an attribute of
an object, but 'relative motion' is not an object, hence cannot get shorter.

>> 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 motion can affect the observation of an observer, but not
possibly the observed thing itself, if that is far away.

>
> Relative to what, the local observer?

I usually use a scheme, where the observer is halted and regarded as not
moving, while the observed thing is moving.

The opposite is also possible, but less practical.

So I always halt the observer and let the observed thing move.

That is just a possible setting, but one, which makes sense.

>>>> 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.

Sure. But whether you regard something real or not is irrelevant at the
remote side.

>> 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)

That's is why we don't know the time, when the signal arrives on the Moon.

We only assume, they arrive in the middle between sending them out and
receiving the reflected signal.

That is a very plausible guess, but not exactly knowledge.

So, in fact we don't know the local time of arrival of a signal on the
Moon. Instead we calculate the middle between emission and return time
with our own clocks, while possible clocks on the Moon are not involved.

>> 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.
>
> ????

It is actually possible, that remote systems have a future, where we
have our past.

IOW: the arrow of time does not point into the same direction everywhere
(in the universe).

>>
>> 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.

Sure, but the environment is different.

Think about 'Gullivers travels'.

Gulliver could feel big or small, depending on the environment and its
inhabitants, without any change of his own body.

If you allow different timelines, then also similar processes can be
looking much faster in our view, then how they are perceived there.

Richard 'Hachel' Lengrand wrote:
> 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.

With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
definition it is true.

Your definition if inconsistent. EOS.

On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 at 16:43:17 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Richard 'Hachel' Lengrand wrote:
> > 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.
>
> With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
> definition it is true.

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.

Le 07/12/2021 à 16:42, Python a écrit :
> Richard 'Hachel' Lengrand wrote:
>> 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.
>
> With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
> definition it is true.

I'm not saying anything else.

Einstein gives his idea about a synchronization, and I say that its
synchronization is mathematically good, why not, but PHYSICALLY wrong.

His idea is perhaps apparently obvious, and I understand that if the world
were built on the mode of universal isochrony (ie if the notion of
uniiversal present existed) he would be right.

The problem is, the universe is not made like that.

What is Einstein doing? He assumes that sending a signal, then noting the
time of his return, then dividing that difference by two is enough.

It is mathematically logical, but it is physically wrong.

As you are nice today, and since I haven't seen you insult anyone yet,
Jean-Pierre, I'll give you an example.

The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of both
sides of the right angle.

But this is only valid in plane geometry.

The distance "d" equator-north pole, compared to the same distance placed
on the equator will not give a ratio of 1.432d between this last
destination and the pole.

Because we are not in plane geometry.

On the contrary, this third distance will still be d.

What I blame Einstein for is not realizing that he does a good
synchronization for small day-to-day matters.

But doing synchronization in an anisochronic environment inevitably leads
to a small problem at the end of the race.

We stupidly attribute to the universe a property that it does not have,
and we take away from it a property that it does.

Even if we think we are doing the right thing.

From where then the paradoxes, the cranks, the trolls.

Who wouldn't exist if Eintein had taken care to understand what he was
doing by synchronizing his watches like a simple housewife.

R.H.

Python wrote:

> Richard 'Hachel' Lengrand wrote:
>> 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.
> With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
> definition it is true. Your definition if inconsistent. EOS.

this nym'shifting troll posting under "Python" is attacking Richard
because he posts under his name. Have you no shame??

Richard Hachel wrote:

>> With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
>> definition it is true.
>
> I'm not saying anything else.
> Einstein gives his idea about a synchronization, and I say that its
> synchronization is mathematically good, why not, but PHYSICALLY wrong.
> His idea is perhaps apparently obvious, and I understand that if the
> world were built on the mode of universal isochrony (ie if the notion of
> uniiversal present existed) he would be right.

so true. The young Einstein never putted his hands on an oscilloscope. He
didn't know timing is the most important in physics and microtechnology.

Le 07/12/2021 à 16:42, Python a écrit :
> Richard 'Hachel' Lengrand wrote:
>> 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.
>
> With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
> definition it is true.
>
> Your definition if inconsistent. EOS.

Ton problème à toi, Jean-Pierre Messager, c'est que tu es incapable de
comprendre que la notion de "temps présent universel" dans un
référentiel inertiel donné, c'est du pipeau.

Ou alors pire et plus grave, tu le comprends (car tu m'as lu), mais tu
fais semblant de pas comprendre ce que c'est que cette notion
d'anisochronie universelle.

Et là, je peux rien faire pour toi.

Je te laisse avec Einstein accorder tes montres comme tu l'entends.

J'aurais bien aimé le rencontrer ce monsieur, et lui demander de
m'expliquer comment il faisait pour décrire un simple Langevin en
vitesses apparentes sans paradoxe.

Ca fait des années que j'explique comment il faut faire et pourquoi il
faut le faire.

Mais ça passe obligatoirement par la notion d'élasticité des distances,
qui est la clé finale de la solution.

L'équation de cette élasticité, je l'ai donnée ici, hier.

C'est la première des trois équations, elle traite des longueurs (ou des
distances, c'est pareil).

Tu remarqueras qe je n'ai pas posé bêtement l'=l.sqrt(1-v²/c²).

Des conneries pareilles, je les laisses aux théoriciens qui se croient
plus malins que moi.

R.H.

Richard 'Lengrand' Hachel wrote:
> [bullshit]
> Je te laisse avec Einstein accorder tes montres comme tu l'entends.
>
> J'aurais bien aimé le rencontrer ce monsieur, et lui demander de
> m'expliquer comment il faisait pour décrire un simple Langevin en
> vitesses apparentes sans paradoxe.

There is no paradox, I've shown it to you about 15 years ago, in
details. You removed the description of this so-called "paradox"
yourself from the Internet, BTW. You're not even seriously defending
it. You know that you are a kook Richard, so you've removed youre
own productions from the Internet. Remember the "hachelian cosinus",
dumbo?

> [more bullshit]
You are a demented ill man, Richard. Out of rationality. I'm quite
conviced you've killed several people as practitioner M.D.

Reese Page wrote:

> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
>>> definition it is true.
>>
>> I'm not saying anything else.
>> Einstein gives his idea about a synchronization, and I say that its
>> synchronization is mathematically good, why not, but PHYSICALLY wrong.
>> His idea is perhaps apparently obvious, and I understand that if the
>> world were built on the mode of universal isochrony (ie if the notion of
>> uniiversal present existed) he would be right.
>
> so true. The young Einstein never putted his hands on an oscilloscope.

If true, that may have to do with the fact that the oscilloscope as we know
it today was not manufactured before the late 1930s, and not theoretically
described before 1931 (by Zworykin).

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

> He didn't know timing is the most important in physics […]

By contrast to you dimwit, he studied Physics and completed it, so he must
have known it very well. In fact, special relativity is based on that: It
was the necessity of clock synchronization that arose at the beginning of
the 20th century (e.g. for train schedules), and Einstein’s exposure to
inventions in that regard at the Swiss Patent Office, that inspired him to
consider this problem and to formulate the theory.

Which you would know if you knew the first thing about Albert Einstein.

I could tell you that therefore you are an obnoxious idiot, but then again
what to expect from you as you are just the ’nym-shifting troll.

*PLONK*

PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

Reese Page wrote:

> Python wrote:
>> Richard 'Hachel' Lengrand wrote:
>>> 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.
>> With your definition of synchronization it is false, with Einstein's
>> definition it is true. Your definition if inconsistent. EOS.
>
> this nym'shifting troll posting under "Python" is attacking Richard
> because he posts under his name. Have you no shame??

You are confused: *You* are the ’nym-shifting troll.

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

(from: WolframAlpha)

Am 05.12.2021 um 13:21 schrieb Python:
> 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.

English, please!

> 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.

Sure.

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is actually an assumption (a false assumption btw).

It means, that the time for a ray is the same on the way towards the
target, compared to the time on the way back to the source.

This is, of course, not always the case, because there are effects
possible, which would make the equation wrong.

E.g. there might be gravity, which has an effect on the speed of light,
hence would eventually make light speed faster in one direction than in
the opposite.

We could also have different media, through which the ray had to pass on
the way forth and on the way back.

But the most important case is movement, where emitter and reflector are
not at rest in respect to each other.

The second equation says, that the ray arrives at the mirror in the
middle between emission and returning to the emitter.

This had all the requirements mentioned above. Otherwise the time for
the travel could be different on the way forth and on the way back.

> 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.

Actually I have not called you 'crank', but thinking about revison of
this decision.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.12.2021 um 13:21 schrieb Python:
>> 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.
>
> English, please!
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Sure.
>
> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is actually an assumption (a false assumption btw).
>
> It means, that the time for a ray is the same on the way towards the
> target, compared to the time on the way back to the source.

So this is a direct contradiction of your claim that Einstein didn't
take into account light propagation time when it comes to attribute
a time coordinate to a distant event, right?

> This is, of course, not always the case, because there are effects
> possible, which would make the equation wrong.
>
> E.g. there might be gravity, which has an effect on the speed of light,
> hence would eventually make light speed faster in one direction than in
> the opposite.
>
> We could also have different media, through which the ray had to pass on
> the way forth and on the way back.

All of this is irrelevant in the context of 1905's paper. Media is
supposed to be void and gravity is addressed in GR, not SR.

> But the most important case is movement, where emitter and reflector are
> not at rest in respect to each other.

In the context of part I.1. clock A and B are at rest relative to each
other. It took you years to understand this (even if it is obvious
given the introduction of this part of the article), but you finally
admitted it was the case. Why are you now, again, bringing this up?

>> 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.

I was answering to Richard Lengrand, M.D. (go figure!) but you
feel targeted anyway. How strange!

> Actually I have not called you 'crank', but thinking about revison of
> this decision.

Says the growing-earth believer who consider Hitler to be a MI5 agent.
Come on, Thomas, give us a break! You are a demented fool.

On Wednesday, 8 December 2021 at 12:56:28 UTC+1, Python wrote:

> In the context of part I.1. clock A and B are at rest relative to each
> other. It took you years to understand this (even if it is obvious
> given the introduction of this part of the article), but you finally
> admitted it was the case. Why are you now, again, bringing this up?

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

Le 08/12/2021 à 08:53, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 05.12.2021 um 13:21 schrieb Python:
>> 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.
>
> English, please!
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Sure.
>
> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is actually an assumption (a false assumption btw).
>
> It means, that the time for a ray is the same on the way towards the
> target, compared to the time on the way back to the source.
>
> This is, of course, not always the case, because there are effects
> possible, which would make the equation wrong.
>
> E.g. there might be gravity, which has an effect on the speed of light,
> hence would eventually make light speed faster in one direction than in
> the opposite.
>
> We could also have different media, through which the ray had to pass on
> the way forth and on the way back.
>
> But the most important case is movement, where emitter and reflector are
> not at rest in respect to each other.
>
> The second equation says, that the ray arrives at the mirror in the
> middle between emission and returning to the emitter.
>
> This had all the requirements mentioned above. Otherwise the time for
> the travel could be different on the way forth and on the way back.

You're saying some interesting things, but I think, as of now, you still
haven't figured out where I'm going.

It is much more astonishing than that if one understands the principle of
anisochrony well that I have been trying to explain to theorists for
almost decades.

R.H.

inbreed half german Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> so true. The young Einstein never putted his hands on an oscilloscope.
>
> If true, that may have to do with the fact that the oscilloscope as we
> know it today was not manufactured before the late 1930s, and not
> theoretically described before 1931 (by Zworykin).
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_oscilloscope>

this inbreed half-german feels the need to look wikipedia to learn about
oscilloscopes. Then posting pages of crap and ends plonking. What a
stupid half-german homepage designer.

Am 08.12.2021 um 14:47 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 08/12/2021 à 08:53, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am 05.12.2021 um 13:21 schrieb Python:
>>> 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.
>>
>> English, please!
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is actually an assumption (a false assumption
>> btw).
>>
>> It means, that the time for a ray is the same on the way towards the
>> target, compared to the time on the way back to the source.
>>
>> This is, of course, not always the case, because there are effects
>> possible, which would make the equation wrong.
>>
>> E.g. there might be gravity, which has an effect on the speed of
>> light, hence would eventually make light speed faster in one direction
>> than in the opposite.
>>
>> We could also have different media, through which the ray had to pass
>> on the way forth and on the way back.
>>
>> But the most important case is movement, where emitter and reflector
>> are not at rest in respect to each other.
>>
>> The second equation says, that the ray arrives at the mirror in the
>> middle between emission and returning to the emitter.
>>
>> This had all the requirements mentioned above. Otherwise the time for
>> the travel could be different on the way forth and on the way back.
>
> You're saying some interesting things, but I think, as of now, you still
> haven't figured out where I'm going.
>
> It is much more astonishing than that if one understands the principle
> of anisochrony well that I have been trying to explain to theorists for
> almost decades.
>
anisochrony was actually never a subject for me.

But I did something quite similar and allowed several different axes of
time, even a realm, where time runs backwards.

The effect of waves in time running fowards interacting with waves
running backwards is what I assume to create timelike stable standing
waves, which is, what we call 'matter'.

TH

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing