Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 28/12/2021 à 21:15, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by
>>> the set of events which are observed at the same time by a given
>>> observer,
>>
>> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity of the
>> events. The latter has physical meaning.
>
> You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
> player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball enters
> the goal?

No, we are trying to explain to you the simple fact that, because the speed
of light (and the speed of causality) is final, when you observe a distant
event is a different time than when it happens.

The most significant examples of that can be found in astronomy, where, for
example we would learn that Sol had disappeared only ≈ 8.3 minutes after
that happened because until then we would still receive its radiation.

Or, more practical, when we are observing a distant supernova, the star that
we are seeing is actually no longer there: it went supernova thousands to
billions of years ago, but the information has reached us, through light,
only now.

t
^
:
t₁ +-------------------------------------+- now (of the observer)
:^. .^
: `. .'
: `. path of light/causality .'
: `. .'
: `. .'
: `. .'
: `. .'
: `. .'
: `. .'
'------------------*--------------------> x
0 event
(0, x₀)

This spacetime diagram also nicely shows why your idea that the observer
would have to be in the origin is plain false. In a spaceTIME coordinate
system they can be *anywhere*. Here the observer is *chosen* to be in the
SPATIAL origin (at least at x = 0), but they are NOT in the origin of the
spaceTIME coordinate system when they observe the event because we *chose*
t = 0 as the time at which the supernova happened.

In fact, there is a second observer that is not in the spatial origin, but
at rest at x = 2 x₀ that observes the same event.

And in fact, because this diagram shows only one spatial dimension, there is
an infinite number of possible observers that need not to be in any origin
that all observe the same event. The only thing that they have in common is
that their spacetime coordinates are t = t₁, and either x = 0 or x = 2 x₀
(y and z are arbitrary).

HTH

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

Am 29.12.2021 um 03:45 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 28/12/2021 à 21:15, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by the
>>>> set of events which are observed at the same time by a given observer,
>>>
>>> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity of the
>>> events. The latter has physical meaning.
>>
>> You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
>> player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball enters
>> the goal?
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>
> If the penalty is scored the moment the ball passes the line, that is not
> the same time the player perceives it or claims his victory. An event is
> separate from the perception of it some distance away.
>

This is actually true.

The event 'ball passes the line' happens a little earlier than when the
audience can see it.

The 'real deal' would be a time, which is a little earlier than the
time, whan an observer sees the even.

Let 'l' be the length of the distance between observer and line, then
the observed time as measured by an observer had to be corrected by
't_delta=l/c', where t_delta is the necessary correction for the time
value directly at the line.

So t_delta should be calculated, if you want to figure out the time at
the position of the observer, that would be equal to when the event
happens at the line.

You certainly agree on that.

But why then didn't Einstein do that (or anything equivalent) in his
paper 'On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'???

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 29.12.2021 um 03:45 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 28/12/2021 à 21:15, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by the
>>>>> set of events which are observed at the same time by a given observer,
>>>>
>>>> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity of the
>>>> events. The latter has physical meaning.
>>>
>>> You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
>>> player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball enters
>>> the goal?
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>
>> If the penalty is scored the moment the ball passes the line, that is not
>> the same time the player perceives it or claims his victory. An event is
>> separate from the perception of it some distance away.
>>
>
>
> This is actually true.
>
> The event 'ball passes the line' happens a little earlier than when the
> audience can see it.
>
> The 'real deal' would be a time, which is a little earlier than the
> time, whan an observer sees the even.
>
> Let 'l' be the length of the distance between observer and line, then
> the observed time as measured by an observer had to be corrected by
> 't_delta=l/c', where t_delta is the necessary correction for the time
> value directly at the line.
>
> So t_delta should be calculated, if you want to figure out the time at
> the position of the observer, that would be equal to when the event
> happens at the line.
>
> You certainly agree on that.
>
> But why then didn't Einstein do that (or anything equivalent) in his
> paper 'On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'???

He did. You cannot read for comprehension.

You have memorized the paper without comprehending any of it.

>
>
>
> TH
>

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

ignorant troll rotchm spamming:

> On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 6:16:48 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>
>> Have you noticed that quite a few cranks have exactly the same problem
>> about understanding part I.1 ("Definition of Simultaneity") or staying
>> unwilling to even read it properly? To name a few down here: Wozniak,
>> Heger, "Hachel"...
>
> Yes, the cranks refuse to read, recite, adhere to definitions.
> They hear a word used by 'smart' people, they then invent a meaning for
> it and use it ad nauseum w/o actually knowing its meaning. When we ask
> them what it means, they refuse to answer or chicken away.

You are among those cranks, severely uneducated, not understanding shit,
you stupid pretentious idiot. Show me something wise and competent. You
can't, you are an idiot. Your country is a shithole. Shitholes are all
about your inbreed culture.

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.12.2021 um 03:45 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 28/12/2021 à 21:15, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically
>>>>> by the
>>>>> set of events which are observed at the same time by a given observer,
>>>>
>>>> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity
>>>> of the
>>>> events. The latter has physical meaning.
>>>
>>> You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
>>> player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball
>>> enters
>>> the goal?
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>
>> If the penalty is scored the moment the ball passes the line, that is not
>> the same time the player perceives it or claims his victory. An event is
>> separate from the perception of it some distance away.
>>
>
>
> This is actually true.
>
> The event 'ball passes the line' happens a little earlier than when the
> audience can see it.
>
> The 'real deal' would be a time, which is a little earlier than the
> time, whan an observer sees the even.
>
> Let 'l' be the length of the distance between observer and line, then
> the observed time as measured by an observer had to be corrected by
> 't_delta=l/c', where t_delta is the necessary correction for the time
> value directly at the line.
>
> So t_delta should be calculated, if you want to figure out the time at
> the position of the observer, that would be equal to when the event
> happens at the line.
>
> You certainly agree on that.
>
> But why then didn't Einstein do that (or anything equivalent) in his
> paper 'On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'???

He does. It takes two lines of (elementary) algebra to obtain what
you wrote as l/c using Einstein's paper postulates:

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (in ref.)
2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c (in ref.)

=> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + l/c = t_A + t_delta

exactly what you pretend Einstein didn't do.

ref.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Simultaneity.

The only question that remains is if the reason of your
denial of such a straightforward, obvious, rebuttal of
your comment comes more from your lack of integrety or
from your sheer stupidity, Thomas.

Le 29/12/2021 à 00:16, Python a écrit :

> ("Definition of Simultaneity")

In relativistic physics, it is very important to define the terms that we
use.
Not only in relativistic physics, but also in other sciences or even
religions and parasciences.
It is one of the goals of my life. Blow on the fog of words.
The notion of simultaneity is the basis of the theory of relativity. It is
precisely this natural rupture, this anisochrony which is at the base of
all the observed phenomena. There is no theory of relativity without the
natural anisochrony of the universe.
Besides, there would be no world either. A world where there would be an
infinite number of references of the "present time plan" type would simply
not exist.
Relativity = anisochrony.
Definition: We call simultaneity the set of events which occur at the same
time for a given observer, the totality of the physical universe which
exists at the same time as him.
On the other hand, to say that two watches are beating simultaneously is
already starting to become a little more murky in terms. We should say:
they have the same chronotropy.
Example: in a given inertial frame of reference, all watches have hands
which beat at the same speed regardless of their position in the frame of
reference. They say they have the same chronotropy.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 29/12/2021 à 00:16, Python a écrit :
>
>> ("Definition of Simultaneity")
>
> In relativistic physics, it is very important to define the terms that
> we use.
> Not only in relativistic physics, but also in other sciences or even
> religions and parasciences.

Sure, but you are the one refusing to even consider the rigorous
definition of the word.

> It is one of the goals of my life. Blow on the fog of words.

And you've achieved quite the opposite. You only produce nonsense.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
....
> Definition: We call simultaneity the set of events which occur at the
> same time for a given observer, the totality of the physical universe
> which exists at the same time as him.

This is a completely stupid definition. It is fully circular. It defines
actually nothing at all.

For a proper definition refer to paragraph I.1. there:

English:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Simultaneity.

French:
https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/De-l%C3%A9lectrodynamique-des-corps-en-mouvement.pdf

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 29/12/2021 à 00:16, Python a écrit :
>
>> ("Definition of Simultaneity")
>
> In relativistic physics, it is very important to define the terms that we
> use.

Well, specifically, it is very important to learn the definition of terms
as used in the context of physics. Deciding to just make up new definitions
of your own is not really a viable substitute.

> Not only in relativistic physics, but also in other sciences or even
> religions and parasciences.
> It is one of the goals of my life. Blow on the fog of words.
> The notion of simultaneity is the basis of the theory of relativity. It is
> precisely this natural rupture, this anisochrony which is at the base of
> all the observed phenomena. There is no theory of relativity without the
> natural anisochrony of the universe.

Well no, that’s not an honest statement. As you well know, physicists
describe relativity with a finite speed of light and no inherent
“anisochrony”. You have even said that physicists are right to do so, but
that you find that explanation hard to understand. So you created a new,
alternate explanation. But finding an alternative in no way implies that it
is the only correct answer, right?

I think you are trying very hard to get some attention paid to your idea.
But to say that it is the ONLY POSSIBLE answer is dishonest, even if it is
the only one you understand.

> Besides, there would be no world either. A world where there would be an
> infinite number of references of the "present time plan" type would simply
> not exist.
> Relativity = anisochrony.
> Definition: We call simultaneity the set of events which occur at the same
> time for a given observer, the totality of the physical universe which
> exists at the same time as him.

And you see, here you are defining simultaneity much differently than what
physicists mean by that word.

The simultaneity of the perception of events is not at all the same as the
simultaneity of the events themselves.

> On the other hand, to say that two watches are beating simultaneously is
> already starting to become a little more murky in terms. We should say:
> they have the same chronotropy.
> Example: in a given inertial frame of reference, all watches have hands
> which beat at the same speed regardless of their position in the frame of
> reference. They say they have the same chronotropy.
>
> R.H.
>

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

On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 14:25:18 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> ...
> > Definition: We call simultaneity the set of events which occur at the
> > same time for a given observer, the totality of the physical universe
> > which exists at the same time as him.
> This is a completely stupid definition. It is fully circular. It defines
> actually nothing at all.
>
> For a proper definition refer to paragraph I.1. there:
>
> English:
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Simultaneity.

This is also a completely stupid definition, and it defines actually
nothing as well.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 14:25:18 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>> ...
>>> Definition: We call simultaneity the set of events which occur at the
>>> same time for a given observer, the totality of the physical universe
>>> which exists at the same time as him.
>> This is a completely stupid definition. It is fully circular. It defines
>> actually nothing at all.
>>
>> For a proper definition refer to paragraph I.1. there:
>>
>> English:
>> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Simultaneity.
>
> This is also a completely stupid definition, and it defines actually
> nothing as well.

This is actually the procedure used in actual labs with actual clocks.
But how could you know, Maciej? You're nothing close to an engineer. You
are a ridiculous kook and a disgusting liar.

On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 16:10:25 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 14:25:18 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> Definition: We call simultaneity the set of events which occur at the
> >>> same time for a given observer, the totality of the physical universe
> >>> which exists at the same time as him.
> >> This is a completely stupid definition. It is fully circular. It defines
> >> actually nothing at all.
> >>
> >> For a proper definition refer to paragraph I.1. there:
> >>
> >> English:
> >> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Simultaneity.
> >
> > This is also a completely stupid definition, and it defines actually
> > nothing as well.
> This is actually the procedure used in actual labs with actual clocks.

Maybe it's good enough for puny sandpits of your idiot gurus. For
professionals dealing with real clocks and real time (TAI, GPS, UTC)
it's pretty useless.
How could your idiot guru seriously hope that enough precisely co-moving
clocks will be found in the real world? Well, he was an idiot, that's how.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 16:10:25 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 14:25:18 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Definition: We call simultaneity the set of events which occur at the
>>>>> same time for a given observer, the totality of the physical universe
>>>>> which exists at the same time as him.
>>>> This is a completely stupid definition. It is fully circular. It defines
>>>> actually nothing at all.
>>>>
>>>> For a proper definition refer to paragraph I.1. there:
>>>>
>>>> English:
>>>> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Simultaneity.
>>>
>>> This is also a completely stupid definition, and it defines actually
>>> nothing as well.
>> This is actually the procedure used in actual labs with actual clocks.
>
> Maybe it's good enough for puny sandpits of your [rant removed]. For
> professionals dealing with real clocks and real time (TAI, GPS, UTC)
> it's pretty useless.
> How could your [rant removed] seriously hope that enough precisely co-moving
> clocks will be found in the real world?

He was optimistic enough to know that engineers in the future won't be
as stupid and incompetent as Maciej Wozniak. Morever there are a lot
of apparatus equivalent to co-moving clocks because measure instruments
data have to be transmitted around. This is subtle stuff you couldn't
understand Maciej. Thank anyway to provide money so that non mentally
impaired people can learn all of this.

On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 16:23:19 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 16:10:25 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 14:25:18 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> Definition: We call simultaneity the set of events which occur at the
> >>>>> same time for a given observer, the totality of the physical universe
> >>>>> which exists at the same time as him.
> >>>> This is a completely stupid definition. It is fully circular. It defines
> >>>> actually nothing at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> For a proper definition refer to paragraph I.1. there:
> >>>>
> >>>> English:
> >>>> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Simultaneity.
> >>>
> >>> This is also a completely stupid definition, and it defines actually
> >>> nothing as well.
> >> This is actually the procedure used in actual labs with actual clocks.
> >
> > Maybe it's good enough for puny sandpits of your [rant removed]. For
> > professionals dealing with real clocks and real time (TAI, GPS, UTC)
> > it's pretty useless.
> > How could your [rant removed] seriously hope that enough precisely co-moving
> > clocks will be found in the real world?
> He was optimistic enough to know that engineers in the future won't be
> as stupid and incompetent as Maciej Wozniak. Morever there are a lot
> of apparatus equivalent to co-moving clocks because measure instruments
> data have to be transmitted around.

They're no way equivalent, sane people simply fuck his idiotic
definitions and his idiotic demands.

Le 29/12/2021 à 15:34, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> The simultaneity of the perception of events is not at all the same as the
> simultaneity of the events themselves.

When I was a child, I already had a questioning outlook on the world.
I think the same is true for you. You seem genuinely interested in the
things of the world.

As I was a poor child, I could not afford to attend all the fairgrounds.

So sometimes, I would go to an aunt who lived in Avesnelles and, from
there, through the open window, I could watch the fireworks over
Avesnes-Sur-Helpe in the distance.

Something extraordinarily troubled me then.

No matter how much you are a child, damn it wouldn't be able to lie.

I'm sure you would have thought the same.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 29/12/2021 à 15:34, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> The simultaneity of the perception of events is not at all the same as the
>> simultaneity of the events themselves.
>
> When I was a child, I already had a questioning outlook on the world.
> I think the same is true for you. You seem genuinely interested in the
> things of the world.
>
> As I was a poor child, I could not afford to attend all the fairgrounds.
>
> So sometimes, I would go to an aunt who lived in Avesnelles and, from
> there, through the open window, I could watch the fireworks over
> Avesnes-Sur-Helpe in the distance.
>
> Something extraordinarily troubled me then.

I think there are a number of people here who bring ideas that occurred to
them as children, and believe that they are still troublesome insights as
an adult.

It may perturb a child to be aware of two lightning strikes that happen at
two different times at two different distances away, but then the thunder
from both is heard at the same time. “Wait,” the child ponders, “did the
strikes happen at the same time or not? I got the perception of them at the
same time, yet I know they are not at the same time.” This might puzzle a
child. It does not puzzle an adult. It is foolish to imagine that a
childhood pondering brings a novel insight.

There is another fellow here who arrived at a thought that commonly occurs
to boys when they are 8 or 9. “This picture of an atom looks much like this
other picture of the solar system. What if each atom were itself a solar
system, and what if our solar system is just an atom in another larger
reality?” And he put it forward as a serious idea for adults to consider
plausible. He was unable to tell the difference between a childhood
puzzlement and a seriously open question for adults.

>
> No matter how much you are a child, damn it wouldn't be able to lie.
>
> I'm sure you would have thought the same.
>
>
> R.H.
>

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

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 28/12/2021 à 21:15, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity of
>>> the events. The latter has physical meaning.
>>
>> You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
>> player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball
>> enters the goal?
>
> No, we are trying to explain to you the simple fact that, because the
> speed of light (and the speed of causality) is final,

s/final/finite/

> when you observe a
> distant event is a different time than when it happens.

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

(from: WolframAlpha)

Am 29.12.2021 um 12:45 schrieb Python:

>>>>> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity
>>>>> of the
>>>>> events. The latter has physical meaning.
>>>>
>>>> You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
>>>> player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball
>>>> enters
>>>> the goal?
>>>>
>>>> R.H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the penalty is scored the moment the ball passes the line, that is
>>> not
>>> the same time the player perceives it or claims his victory. An event is
>>> separate from the perception of it some distance away.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is actually true.
>>
>> The event 'ball passes the line' happens a little earlier than when
>> the audience can see it.
>>
>> The 'real deal' would be a time, which is a little earlier than the
>> time, whan an observer sees the even.
>>
>> Let 'l' be the length of the distance between observer and line, then
>> the observed time as measured by an observer had to be corrected by
>> 't_delta=l/c', where t_delta is the necessary correction for the time
>> value directly at the line.
>>
>> So t_delta should be calculated, if you want to figure out the time at
>> the position of the observer, that would be equal to when the event
>> happens at the line.
>>
>> You certainly agree on that.
>>
>> But why then didn't Einstein do that (or anything equivalent) in his
>> paper 'On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'???
>
> He does. It takes two lines of (elementary) algebra to obtain what
> you wrote as l/c using Einstein's paper postulates:
>
> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (in ref.)
> 2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c (in ref.)
>
>
> => t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + l/c = t_A + t_delta

YOU have written 't-delta', while Einstein didn't.

It is certainly true, that you can easily derive this difference very
easily from Einstein's equations.

But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't do that.

Instead he had drawn the erroneous picture, that the actual reading of
the remote clock by an observer would be the time at the clock.

But this is and was wrong. And Einstein made no effort whatsoever, to
correct this error.

....

TH

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> No, we are trying to explain to you the simple fact that, because the
>> speed of light (and the speed of causality) is final,
>
> s/final/finite/

you talk about *propagation_delay*, idiot. Causality has no speed
associated with.

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.12.2021 um 12:45 schrieb Python:
....
>>> Let 'l' be the length of the distance between observer and line, then
>>> the observed time as measured by an observer had to be corrected by
>>> 't_delta=l/c', where t_delta is the necessary correction for the time
>>> value directly at the line.
>>>
>>> So t_delta should be calculated, if you want to figure out the time at
>>> the position of the observer, that would be equal to when the event
>>> happens at the line.
>>>
>>> You certainly agree on that.
>>>
>>> But why then didn't Einstein do that (or anything equivalent) in his
>>> paper 'On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'???
>>
>> He does. It takes two lines of (elementary) algebra to obtain what
>> you wrote as l/c using Einstein's paper postulates:
>>
>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (in ref.)
>> 2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c (in ref.)
>>
>>
>> => t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + l/c = t_A + t_delta
>
> YOU have written 't-delta', while Einstein didn't.

sigh... I picked the same name as you, I didn't pretend that
the name was used in Einstein's article.

What matters is not the NAME but the fact that it is the delay
you pretend is not taken into account while it is.

You've completely overlooked this part of the article (at first
you didn't even notice that it was about mutually at rest clocks,
go figure!) in your comment and you continue to do so by not
understanding it concerns ALL mutually-at-rest clocks involved
in a single frame.

It is not a matter of opinion, Thomas, it basic algebra: the
procedure described in I.1 implies that light propagation
delays are taken into account.

> It is certainly true, that you can easily derive this difference very
> easily from Einstein's equations.
>
> But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't do that.
>
> Instead he had drawn the erroneous picture, that the actual reading of
> the remote clock by an observer would be the time at the clock.

There is NOT a single line in the article implying that an observer
would take the "apparent" reading of a remote clock at the time
coordinate of the remote event. This is something that you 100% made up
and that is in direct contradiction with paragraph I.1. Fun fact: what
you pretend Einstein did (he didn't) is exactly what Richard "Hachel"
Lengrand is pretending he should have done.

As I've shown you above, paragraph I.1 implies that this delay is taken
into account and all over the article it is explicitly stated by
Einstein that the procedure defined in paragraph I.1. is to be used
when it comes to determining time coordinates.

In paragraph I.2 is is referenced TWICE:

Every ray of light moves in the "stationary" co-ordinate system with
the definite velocity V, the velocity being independent of the
condition, whether this ray of light is emitted by a body at rest or
in motion. Here velocity = Path of Light/Interval of time where
"interval of time," is to be understood *as defined in § 1*.
[...]
The observer measures, at which points of the stationary system the
ends of the rod to be measured are located at a particular time t,
by means of clocks placed in the stationary system (the clocks being
synchronous *as defined in § 1*)

And in paragraph I.3 this procedure is referenced THREE TIMES:

Furthermore, let the time t be determined for each point of the
stationary system by means of the clocks which are placed in the
stationary system, with the help of light-signals
*as described in § 1*

Let also the time τ of the moving system be determined for each
point of the moving system (in which there are clocks which are at
rest relative to the moving system), by means of the method of
light signals between these points (in which there are clocks) in
*the manner described in § 1.*
[...]
For this purpose we have to express in equations the fact, that τ
is nothing other than the time given by the clocks which are at
rest in the system k, which must be made synchronous in the manner
*given by the rule in § 1*

> But this is and was wrong. And Einstein made no effort whatsoever, to
> correct this error.

Einstein had no error to correct, he's made himself clear enough for
any educated reader even repeating several times what it means to
label a distance event with a time coordinate. You cannot blame him
because YOU are incapable to properly read what he wrote. Errors
are yours and yours alone.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 29.12.2021 um 12:45 schrieb Python:
>
>>>>>> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> events. The latter has physical meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
>>>>> player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball
>>>>> enters
>>>>> the goal?
>>>>>
>>>>> R.H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the penalty is scored the moment the ball passes the line, that is
>>>> not
>>>> the same time the player perceives it or claims his victory. An event is
>>>> separate from the perception of it some distance away.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is actually true.
>>>
>>> The event 'ball passes the line' happens a little earlier than when
>>> the audience can see it.
>>>
>>> The 'real deal' would be a time, which is a little earlier than the
>>> time, whan an observer sees the even.
>>>
>>> Let 'l' be the length of the distance between observer and line, then
>>> the observed time as measured by an observer had to be corrected by
>>> 't_delta=l/c', where t_delta is the necessary correction for the time
>>> value directly at the line.
>>>
>>> So t_delta should be calculated, if you want to figure out the time at
>>> the position of the observer, that would be equal to when the event
>>> happens at the line.
>>>
>>> You certainly agree on that.
>>>
>>> But why then didn't Einstein do that (or anything equivalent) in his
>>> paper 'On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'???
>>
>> He does. It takes two lines of (elementary) algebra to obtain what
>> you wrote as l/c using Einstein's paper postulates:
>>
>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (in ref.)
>> 2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c (in ref.)
>>
>>
>> => t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + l/c = t_A + t_delta
>
> YOU have written 't-delta', while Einstein didn't.
>
> It is certainly true, that you can easily derive this difference very
> easily from Einstein's equations.
>
> But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't do that.

That’s because Einstein’s intended audience (fellow physicists) would see
the two equation he did write and IMMEDIATELY come to the conclusion that
Python just did, in their heads. This is the benefit of writing to a
particular audience. You know what the audience will intuit immediately,
without having to write it down explicitly.

Your complaint seems to be, “But Thomas Heger read it and did not intuit
it, and Einstein did not warn Thomas Heger that he should not read this
article. Therefore the fact that it was left unsaid was Einstein’s fault,
not Heger’s fault for not being able to intuit it.”

This article was not written for 3rd grade children, either. 3rd graders
are not prevented from reading it, but it’s not Einstein’s fault that he
did not cater his presentation so that a 3rd grader would understand it.

>
> Instead he had drawn the erroneous picture, that the actual reading of
> the remote clock by an observer would be the time at the clock.
>
> But this is and was wrong. And Einstein made no effort whatsoever, to
> correct this error.
>
> ...
>
> TH
>

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

Am 30.12.2021 um 15:40 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 29.12.2021 um 12:45 schrieb Python:
>>
>>>>>>> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> events. The latter has physical meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
>>>>>> player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball
>>>>>> enters
>>>>>> the goal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> R.H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the penalty is scored the moment the ball passes the line, that is
>>>>> not
>>>>> the same time the player perceives it or claims his victory. An event is
>>>>> separate from the perception of it some distance away.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is actually true.
>>>>
>>>> The event 'ball passes the line' happens a little earlier than when
>>>> the audience can see it.
>>>>
>>>> The 'real deal' would be a time, which is a little earlier than the
>>>> time, whan an observer sees the even.
>>>>
>>>> Let 'l' be the length of the distance between observer and line, then
>>>> the observed time as measured by an observer had to be corrected by
>>>> 't_delta=l/c', where t_delta is the necessary correction for the time
>>>> value directly at the line.
>>>>
>>>> So t_delta should be calculated, if you want to figure out the time at
>>>> the position of the observer, that would be equal to when the event
>>>> happens at the line.
>>>>
>>>> You certainly agree on that.
>>>>
>>>> But why then didn't Einstein do that (or anything equivalent) in his
>>>> paper 'On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'???
>>>
>>> He does. It takes two lines of (elementary) algebra to obtain what
>>> you wrote as l/c using Einstein's paper postulates:
>>>
>>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (in ref.)
>>> 2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c (in ref.)
>>>
>>>
>>> => t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + l/c = t_A + t_delta
>>
>> YOU have written 't-delta', while Einstein didn't.
>>
>> It is certainly true, that you can easily derive this difference very
>> easily from Einstein's equations.
>>
>> But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't do that.
>
> That’s because Einstein’s intended audience (fellow physicists) would see
> the two equation he did write and IMMEDIATELY come to the conclusion that
> Python just did, in their heads. This is the benefit of writing to a
> particular audience. You know what the audience will intuit immediately,
> without having to write it down explicitly.

Even if this is wrong itself, (because a text contains only what it
contains and not what you think it should), it is also wrong, because
Einstein had actually drawn the (erroneous) picture, that he wanted to
assigne a different time to the different points in the same frame of
reference according to their distance.

This can only say, that he rejected to correct the delay and wanted to
define synchonicity in his own special way, where points further away
have a local time, which is equal to how the observer would read the
remote clocks.

IOW: Einstein had no intention to correct the remote time by the time
needed for the signal to travel.

At least he had not left a single remark (anywhere in the entire paper),
which could be interpreted, that a delay time should be added to the
reading of a remote clock.

Since nothing alike can be found anywhere in his paper, we had to
assume, he didn't want to add the delay.

It would have been correct to add the delay, of course, and certainly
most physicists would do it intuitively.

But that is not allowed in science, where only an author has the right
to add or remove things. The reader can only take a paper as it actually
is. It is not allowed to correct even obvious errors.

....

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 30.12.2021 um 15:40 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 29.12.2021 um 12:45 schrieb Python:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> events. The latter has physical meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
>>>>>>> player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball
>>>>>>> enters
>>>>>>> the goal?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> R.H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the penalty is scored the moment the ball passes the line, that is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> the same time the player perceives it or claims his victory. An
>>>>>> event is
>>>>>> separate from the perception of it some distance away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is actually true.
>>>>>
>>>>> The event 'ball passes the line' happens a little earlier than when
>>>>> the audience can see it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'real deal' would be a time, which is a little earlier than the
>>>>> time, whan an observer sees the even.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let 'l' be the length of the distance between observer and line, then
>>>>> the observed time as measured by an observer had to be corrected by
>>>>> 't_delta=l/c', where t_delta is the necessary correction for the time
>>>>> value directly at the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> So t_delta should be calculated, if you want to figure out the time at
>>>>> the position of the observer, that would be equal to when the event
>>>>> happens at the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> You certainly agree on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why then didn't Einstein do that (or anything equivalent) in his
>>>>> paper 'On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'???
>>>>
>>>> He does. It takes two lines of (elementary) algebra to obtain what
>>>> you wrote as l/c using Einstein's paper postulates:
>>>>
>>>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (in ref.)
>>>> 2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c (in ref.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> => t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + l/c = t_A + t_delta
>>>
>>> YOU have written 't-delta', while Einstein didn't.
>>>
>>> It is certainly true, that you can easily derive this difference very
>>> easily from Einstein's equations.
>>>
>>> But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't do that.
>>
>> That’s because Einstein’s intended audience (fellow physicists) would see
>> the two equation he did write and IMMEDIATELY come to the conclusion that
>> Python just did, in their heads. This is the benefit of writing to a
>> particular audience. You know what the audience will intuit immediately,
>> without having to write it down explicitly.
>
>
> Even if this is wrong itself, (because a text contains only what it
> contains and not what you think it should),
....
> Since nothing alike can be found anywhere in his paper, we had to
> assume, he didn't want to add the delay.

When a text contains a = 2 and b = 3 you can conclude that the text
implies a + b = 5 and CERTAINLY not assume that the author in the
text meant "a + b =/= 5".

> it is also wrong, because
> Einstein had actually drawn the (erroneous) picture, that he wanted to
> assigne a different time to the different points in the same frame of
> reference according to their distance.

"assign a different time to different points" is meaningless, you do
not understand what an event is.

> This can only say, that he rejected to correct the delay and wanted to
> define synchonicity in his own special way, where points further away
> have a local time, which is equal to how the observer would read the
> remote clocks.

Clocks synchronized in a way insuring the delay is taken into account,
read paragraph I.1 again.

> IOW: Einstein had no intention to correct the remote time by the time
> needed for the signal to travel.

remote time is not "corrected" it is insured to be compatible with
time recorded at remote place following procedure in paragraph I.1.
which means taking light propagation time into account.

> At least he had not left a single remark (anywhere in the entire paper),
> which could be interpreted, that a delay time should be added to the
> reading of a remote clock.

He did. Whole paragraph I.1.

> Since nothing alike can be found anywhere in his paper, we had to
> assume, he didn't want to add the delay.

Paragraph I.1.

> It would have been correct to add the delay, of course, and certainly
> most physicists would do it intuitively.

Physicists understood paragraph I.1. while you don't.

> But that is not allowed in science, where only an author has the right
> to add or remove things. The reader can only take a paper as it actually
> is. It is not allowed to correct even obvious errors.

It is allowed in science to understand what you are reading, it is even
quite a basic ability asked to got a proper job in the field. You,
Thomas, are uncapable of that.

On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 10:45:52 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 30.12.2021 um 15:40 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >>> Am 29.12.2021 um 12:45 schrieb Python:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity
> >>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>> events. The latter has physical meaning.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
> >>>>>>> player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball
> >>>>>>> enters
> >>>>>>> the goal?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> R.H.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If the penalty is scored the moment the ball passes the line, that is
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>> the same time the player perceives it or claims his victory. An
> >>>>>> event is
> >>>>>> separate from the perception of it some distance away.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is actually true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The event 'ball passes the line' happens a little earlier than when
> >>>>> the audience can see it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The 'real deal' would be a time, which is a little earlier than the
> >>>>> time, whan an observer sees the even.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let 'l' be the length of the distance between observer and line, then
> >>>>> the observed time as measured by an observer had to be corrected by
> >>>>> 't_delta=l/c', where t_delta is the necessary correction for the time
> >>>>> value directly at the line.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So t_delta should be calculated, if you want to figure out the time at
> >>>>> the position of the observer, that would be equal to when the event
> >>>>> happens at the line.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You certainly agree on that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But why then didn't Einstein do that (or anything equivalent) in his
> >>>>> paper 'On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'???
> >>>>
> >>>> He does. It takes two lines of (elementary) algebra to obtain what
> >>>> you wrote as l/c using Einstein's paper postulates:
> >>>>
> >>>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (in ref.)
> >>>> 2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c (in ref.)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> => t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + l/c = t_A + t_delta
> >>>
> >>> YOU have written 't-delta', while Einstein didn't.
> >>>
> >>> It is certainly true, that you can easily derive this difference very
> >>> easily from Einstein's equations.
> >>>
> >>> But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't do that.
> >>
> >> That’s because Einstein’s intended audience (fellow physicists) would see
> >> the two equation he did write and IMMEDIATELY come to the conclusion that
> >> Python just did, in their heads. This is the benefit of writing to a
> >> particular audience. You know what the audience will intuit immediately,
> >> without having to write it down explicitly.
> >
> >
> > Even if this is wrong itself, (because a text contains only what it
> > contains and not what you think it should),
> ...
> > Since nothing alike can be found anywhere in his paper, we had to
> > assume, he didn't want to add the delay.
> When a text contains a = 2 and b = 3 you can conclude that the text
> implies a + b = 5 and CERTAINLY not assume that the author in the
> text meant "a + b =/= 5".

If the author is an idiot denying basic Euclidean math - why is it
so sure that he's not going to deny the rest of basic math?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 10:45:52 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 30.12.2021 um 15:40 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>>>>> Am 29.12.2021 um 12:45 schrieb Python:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> events. The latter has physical meaning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
>>>>>>>>> player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball
>>>>>>>>> enters
>>>>>>>>> the goal?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> R.H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the penalty is scored the moment the ball passes the line, that is
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> the same time the player perceives it or claims his victory. An
>>>>>>>> event is
>>>>>>>> separate from the perception of it some distance away.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is actually true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The event 'ball passes the line' happens a little earlier than when
>>>>>>> the audience can see it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 'real deal' would be a time, which is a little earlier than the
>>>>>>> time, whan an observer sees the even.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let 'l' be the length of the distance between observer and line, then
>>>>>>> the observed time as measured by an observer had to be corrected by
>>>>>>> 't_delta=l/c', where t_delta is the necessary correction for the time
>>>>>>> value directly at the line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So t_delta should be calculated, if you want to figure out the time at
>>>>>>> the position of the observer, that would be equal to when the event
>>>>>>> happens at the line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You certainly agree on that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But why then didn't Einstein do that (or anything equivalent) in his
>>>>>>> paper 'On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He does. It takes two lines of (elementary) algebra to obtain what
>>>>>> you wrote as l/c using Einstein's paper postulates:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (in ref.)
>>>>>> 2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c (in ref.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> => t_B = t_A + (AB)/c = t_A + l/c = t_A + t_delta
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU have written 't-delta', while Einstein didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is certainly true, that you can easily derive this difference very
>>>>> easily from Einstein's equations.
>>>>>
>>>>> But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't do that.
>>>>
>>>> That’s because Einstein’s intended audience (fellow physicists) would see
>>>> the two equation he did write and IMMEDIATELY come to the conclusion that
>>>> Python just did, in their heads. This is the benefit of writing to a
>>>> particular audience. You know what the audience will intuit immediately,
>>>> without having to write it down explicitly.
>>>
>>>
>>> Even if this is wrong itself, (because a text contains only what it
>>> contains and not what you think it should),
>> ...
>>> Since nothing alike can be found anywhere in his paper, we had to
>>> assume, he didn't want to add the delay.
>> When a text contains a = 2 and b = 3 you can conclude that the text
>> implies a + b = 5 and CERTAINLY not assume that the author in the
>> text meant "a + b =/= 5".
>
> If the author is an idiot denying basic Euclidean math - why is it
> so sure that he's not going to deny the rest of basic math?

Yawn. Usual idiotic rant from "one of the greatest logician Humananity
ever add". Sigh. Learn math idiot.