| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:22:02 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,706 |
On 7/22/2025 5:08 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 |a 12:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
What if two of the technicians you hired to "do something about it",using the same tools and procedure to compute "what to do about it", disagree about the correction to apply for the same two clocks?
That's a simple one, poor stinker: I'm
not paying them.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks desynchronize and we do nothing
about it, because some idiot has asserted it's correct and proper and demanded by some Laws of Nature he invented.
Le 22/07/2025 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :it", using the same tools and procedure to compute "what to do about
On 7/22/2025 5:08 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 |a 12:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
What if two of the technicians you hired to "do something about
That's a simple one, poor stinker: I'm
not paying them.
I payed you to have these clocks synchronized.
You refund me then ?
On 7/22/2025 7:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :it", using the same tools and procedure to compute "what to do about
On 7/22/2025 5:08 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 |a 12:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
What if two of the technicians you hired to "do something about
it", disagree about the correction to apply for the same two clocks?
That's a simple one, poor stinker: I'm
not paying them.
I payed you to have these clocks synchronized.
Did you? I don't remember.
You refund me then ?
And what if I don't?
Le 22/07/2025 |a 21:11, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :about it", using the same tools and procedure to compute "what to do
On 7/22/2025 7:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/22/2025 5:08 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 |a 12:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
What if two of the technicians you hired to "do something
That's a simple one, poor stinker: I'm
not paying them.
I payed you to have these clocks synchronized.
Did you? I don't remember.
You refund me then ?
And what if I don't?
I will hire someone else and ask her/him the same question.
On 7/22/2025 9:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 |a 21:11, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :about it", using the same tools and procedure to compute "what to do
On 7/22/2025 7:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/22/2025 5:08 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 |a 12:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
What if two of the technicians you hired to "do something
about it", disagree about the correction to apply for the same two clocks?
That's a simple one, poor stinker: I'm
not paying them.
I payed you to have these clocks synchronized.
Did you? I don't remember.
You refund me then ?
And what if I don't?
I will hire someone else and ask her/him the same question.
If you pay me handsomely I will
give you any answer you desire.
But, well, considering my attitude
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it, because some idiot has asserted it's
correct and proper and demanded by
some Laws of Nature he invented.
Of course, there is no "time dilation"
in GPS. It exist only in gedankenland,
only gedanken people from gedankenland
can be stupid enough to treat the idiot
seriously. In the real world - stupidity
is never infinite, the idiot has been
mistaken about that too.
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take
the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to transfer a signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out by a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take
the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to transfer
a signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out by
a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
and the observer at Earth and the observer on-a the Moon are
where they will see the other body at zenith.
The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
But let's ignore this problem for now.
---------------------
We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
at point B on the Moon.
We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
way, but they are using the same time unit second.
The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take
the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to transfer a
signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out by a
large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
and the observer at Earth and the observer on the Moon are
where they will see the other body at zenith.
The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
But let's ignore this problem for now.
---------------------
We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they
can communicate with each other.
We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
way, but they are using the same time unit second.
The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
At point A the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers
a laser pulse from the Moon.
At point B the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_B when
the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth.
Now the observer at A fires the laser.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds.
When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tx seconds.
Some time later the light detector at A registers
the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds.
Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer
and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was
sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received.
The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein:
"The two clocks synchronise if tB reA tA = t'A reA tB."
So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown
tB = (tA + t'A)/2
But since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
+| = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
So when he corrects the clock C_B with +| seconds,
it will be in synch with clock C_A.
Do you miss a delay in the above?
Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take
the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to transfer
a signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out by
a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
and the observer at Earth and the observer on-a the Moon are
where they will see the other body at zenith.
The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
But let's ignore this problem for now.
---------------------
We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they
can communicate with each other.
We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
way, but they are using the same time unit second.
The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
At point A the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers
a laser pulse from the Moon.
At point B the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_B when
the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth.
Now the observer at A fires the laser.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds.
When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tx seconds.
Some time later the light detector at A registers
the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds.
Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer
and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was
sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received.
The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein:
-a"The two clocks synchronise if-a tB reA tA = t'A reA tB."
So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown
tB = (tA + t'A)/2
But since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
+| = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
So when he corrects the clock C_B with +| seconds,
it will be in synch with clock C_A.
Do you miss a delay in the above?
Am Dienstag000029, 29.07.2025 um 22:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take
the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to
transfer a signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out
by a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
and the observer at Earth and the observer on-a the Moon are
where they will see the other body at zenith.
The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
But let's ignore this problem for now.
---------------------
We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they
can communicate with each other.
We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
way, but they are using the same time unit second.
The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
At point A the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers
a laser pulse from the Moon.
At point B the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_B when
the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth.
Now the observer at A fires the laser.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds.
When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tx seconds.
Some time later the light detector at A registers
the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds.
Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer
and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was
sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received.
The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein:
-a-a"The two clocks synchronise if-a tB reA tA = t'A reA tB."
So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown
tB = (tA + t'A)/2
But since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
+| = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
So when he corrects the clock C_B with +| seconds,
it will be in synch with clock C_A.
Do you miss a delay in the above?
No, but in Einstein's paper.
Actually I can almost sing 'On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies' and
can assure you, that 'transit delay' or anything similar was neither calculated, measured or even mentioned.
Einstein seemingly assumed, that the actual reading of the remote clock would be the remote time.
To eleminate this error, you would need to 'ping' the remote station, measure the delay for a round trip, cut that in half (supposed the
remote station is in relative rest) and add this value to your own time.
Then you need to encode the own time plus delay into a signal and send
that to the remote station.
The remote station would need to decode the signal, extract the time
value and adjust the own clockks according to that value.
But Einstein didn't say anything like that.
This problem was simply missing entirely in his paper.
Den 30.07.2025 19:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000029, 29.07.2025 um 22:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take >>>> the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to
transfer a signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out
by a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
and the observer at Earth and the observer on-a the Moon are
where they will see the other body at zenith.
The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
But let's ignore this problem for now.
---------------------
Read this again when you have read my response below:
We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they
can communicate with each other.
We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
way, but they are using the same time unit second.
The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
At point A the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers
a laser pulse from the Moon.
At point B the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_B when
the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth.
Now the observer at A fires the laser.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds.
When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tx seconds.
Some time later the light detector at A registers
the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds.
Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer
and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was
sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received.
The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein:
-a-a"The two clocks synchronise if-a tB reA tA = t'A reA tB."
So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown
tB = (tA + t'A)/2
But since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
+| = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
So when he corrects the clock C_B with +| seconds,
it will be in synch with clock C_A.
Do you miss a delay in the above?
No, but in Einstein's paper.
Actually I can almost sing 'On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies' and
can assure you, that 'transit delay' or anything similar was neither
calculated, measured or even mentioned.
Quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
"we establish by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light
to travel from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel
from B to A."
"the time required by light to travel from A to B" _is_
the 'transit delay' you say is never mentioned.
Another quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB."
If the clocks synchronise, then the transit delay for
the pulse is tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB.
The transit delay is _measured_!
So the transit delay is calculated, measured and mentioned.
How did you manage to miss that?
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem!
Einstein seemingly assumed, that the actual reading of the remote clock
would be the remote time.
? ? ? Is the clock at B the "remote clock"?
Do you mean that the actual reading of the clock at B
is _not_ the time showed by clock B?
Or what do you mean?
To eleminate this error, you would need to 'ping' the remote station,
measure the delay for a round trip, cut that in half (supposed the
remote station is in relative rest) and add this value to your own time.
There is no error to correct.
Then you need to encode the own time plus delay into a signal and send
that to the remote station.
Good Grief! :-D
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when the light pulse
is sent. He reads the clock at A!
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when the light pulse
is reflected. He reads the clock at B!
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when he receives
the reflected light pulse. He reads the clock at A!
These are all the measurements that are done.
Only local clocks are read.
There is no "reading of the remote clock"!
The observer at A has _measured_ the transit delay.
It is (t'A-tA)/2 ! How did you manage to miss that?
To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have
to communicate. They can do it by shouting, send it by snail mail,
E-post, a mobile phone or whatever.
And there is not necessary to encrypt anything!
If they find that their clocks are not synchronous, the clock
at B can be corrected as I explained above,
The remote station would need to decode the signal, extract the time
value and adjust the own clockks according to that value.
But Einstein didn't say anything like that.
Quite. Einstein wasn't stupid!
Now you can read my previous post quoted above again.
But with your serious reading comprehension problem,
you will probably not understand it.
This problem was simply missing entirely in his paper.
Right. All your problems are missing.
There is no problem in his paper.
Le 31/07/2025 |a 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 30.07.2025 19:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000029, 29.07.2025 um 22:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take >>>>> the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to
transfer a signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out >>>>> by a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early. >>>>
the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
and the observer at Earth and the observer on-a the Moon are
where they will see the other body at zenith.
The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
But let's ignore this problem for now.
---------------------
Read this again when you have read my response below:
We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they
can communicate with each other.
We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
way, but they are using the same time unit second.
The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
At point A the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers
a laser pulse from the Moon.
At point B the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_B when
the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth.
Now the observer at A fires the laser.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds.
When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tx seconds.
Some time later the light detector at A registers
the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds.
Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer
and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was
sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received.
The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein:
-a-a"The two clocks synchronise if-a tB reA tA = t'A reA tB."
So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown
tB = (tA + t'A)/2
But since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
+| = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
So when he corrects the clock C_B with +| seconds,
it will be in synch with clock C_A.
Do you miss a delay in the above?
No, but in Einstein's paper.
Actually I can almost sing 'On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies' and >>> can assure you, that 'transit delay' or anything similar was neither
calculated, measured or even mentioned.
Quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
"we establish by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light
to travel from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel
from B to A."
"the time required by light to travel from A to B" _is_
the 'transit delay' you say is never mentioned.
Another quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB."
If the clocks synchronise, then the transit delay for
the pulse is tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB.
The transit delay is _measured_!
So the transit delay is calculated, measured and mentioned.
How did you manage to miss that?
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem!
Einstein seemingly assumed, that the actual reading of the remote clock >>> would be the remote time.
? ? ? Is the clock at B the "remote clock"?
Do you mean that the actual reading of the clock at B
is _not_ the time showed by clock B?
Or what do you mean?
To eleminate this error, you would need to 'ping' the remote station,
measure the delay for a round trip, cut that in half (supposed the
remote station is in relative rest) and add this value to your own time.
There is no error to correct.
Then you need to encode the own time plus delay into a signal and send
that to the remote station.
Good Grief! :-D
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when the light pulse
is sent. He reads the clock at A!
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when the light pulse
is reflected. He reads the clock at B!
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when he receives
the reflected light pulse. He reads the clock at A!
These are all the measurements that are done.
Only local clocks are read.
There is no "reading of the remote clock"!
The observer at A has _measured_ the transit delay.
It is (t'A-tA)/2 ! How did you manage to miss that?
To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have
to communicate. They can do it by shouting, send it by snail mail,
E-post, a mobile phone or whatever.
And there is not necessary to encrypt anything!
If they find that their clocks are not synchronous, the clock
at B can be corrected as I explained above,
The remote station would need to decode the signal, extract the time
value and adjust the own clockks according to that value.
But Einstein didn't say anything like that.
Quite. Einstein wasn't stupid!
Now you can read my previous post quoted above again.
But with your serious reading comprehension problem,
you will probably not understand it.
This problem was simply missing entirely in his paper.
Right. All your problems are missing.
There is no problem in his paper.
Moreover Thomas could see this procedure in action at https://noedge.ne/e/
He could even check the source code and see Einstein's very equation are used to
compute the delay to be applied to any of both clocks or both.
Replaying the synchronisation checking procedure allow te see how it is reflexive and symmetric.
I may add more clocks to illustrate that the procedure is transitive.
Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw...
Le 31/07/2025 |a 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw..
Le 01/08/2025 |a 18:50, Python a |-crit :
Le 31/07/2025 |a 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw..
:))
R.H.
Le 01/08/2025 |a 18:50, Python a |-crit :
Le 31/07/2025 |a 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw..
:))
R.H.
SI idiocy is unusable and not used.
Thomas could even see the delay applied according to the exact equations from Einstein's article as used in my Web app there: https://noedge.net/e/
Den 30.07.2025 07:08, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
Another wise statement by Maciej Wo+|niak! :-D
SI idiocy is unusable and not used.
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
Le 02/08/2025 |a 13:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
On 8/2/2025 2:01 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 |a 13:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be not even consistent
and you can do nothing
about it apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.
Le 02/08/2025 |a 14:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/2/2025 2:01 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 |a 13:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be not even consistent
You did nothing of this kind.
On 8/2/2025 2:36 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 |a 14:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/2/2025 2:01 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 |a 13:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be not even consistent
You did nothing of this kind.
Surely I did
Le 02/08/2025 |a 17:26, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/2/2025 2:36 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 |a 14:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/2/2025 2:01 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 |a 13:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be not even consistent
You did nothing of this kind.
Surely I did
No you didn't.
I, and others, have shown how ridiculous your alleged "proof" is.
On 8/2/2025 7:14 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 |a 17:26, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/2/2025 2:36 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 |a 14:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/2/2025 2:01 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 |a 13:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be not even consistent
You did nothing of this kind.
Surely I did
No you didn't.
Surely I did
I, and others, have shown how ridiculous your alleged "proof" is.
You waved arms, spitted and slandered.
And others.
Le 02/08/2025 |a 19:29, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/2/2025 7:14 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 |a 17:26, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/2/2025 2:36 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 |a 14:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/2/2025 2:01 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 |a 13:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be not even consistent
You did nothing of this kind.
Surely I did
No you didn't.
Surely I did
No, you didn't.
I, and others, have shown how ridiculous your alleged "proof" is.
You waved arms, spitted and slandered.
And others.
No, this not what we did.
This what you do anyway.
n 8/2/2025 8:28 PM, Python wrote:
This what you do anyway.
I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be not even consistent, and
some brainwashed doggies screaming "NOOOOO!!!"
and barking are not changing that, sorry, poor stinker.
Den 30.07.2025 12:54, skrev Python:
Thomas could even see the delay applied according to the exact
equations from Einstein's article as used in my Web app there:
https://noedge.net/e/
Nice!
Am Samstag000002, 02.08.2025 um 12:35 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 30.07.2025 12:54, skrev Python:
Thomas could even see the delay applied according to the exact
equations from Einstein's article as used in my Web app there:
https://noedge.net/e/
Nice!
Not nice!
if you criticize me, than you would need to present a quote from
Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', where Einstein calculated the delay or eventually mentioned the word 'delay'.
Also possible would be any statement, where Einstein wrote, that he had
the intention to correct the actually reading of the remote clocks time
by the delay for the signal transit.
But none of the above was actually present in Einstein's paper.
The only thing, which can actually be found is an equation, which would allow you to calculate the delay yourself.
But that is, of course, not enough, since Einstein had to do that
himself and had to write, how he wanted to deal with the delay.
Den 30.07.2025 07:08, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
Another wise statement by Maciej Wo+|niak! :-D
SI idiocy is unusable and not used.
if you criticize me, than you would need to present a quote from
Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', where Einstein calculated the delay or eventually mentioned the word 'delay'.
Also possible would be any statement, where Einstein wrote, that he had
the intention to correct the actually reading of the remote clocks time
by the delay for the signal transit.
But none of the above was actually present in Einstein's paper.
The only thing, which can actually be found is an equation, which would allow you to calculate the delay yourself.
But that is, of course, not enough, since Einstein had to do that
himself and had to write, how he wanted to deal with the delay.
And THAT cannot be found in Einstein's paper.--
TH
Den 03.08.2025 08:13, skrev Thomas Heger:
if you criticize me, than you would need to present a quote from
Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', where Einstein
calculated the delay or eventually mentioned the word 'delay'.
I did that in a post 31.07.2025
What you call "delay" is obviously the transit time for
the light to go from A to B or from B to A.
Quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
-a"we establish by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light
-a to travel from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel
-a from B to A."
"the time required by light to travel from A to B" _is_
the 'transit time' you say is never mentioned.
Another quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
-a"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB."
If the clocks synchronise, then the transit time-a for
the pulse is tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB.
The transit time is _measured_!
So the transit time is calculated, measured and mentioned.
How did you manage to miss that?
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem!
BTW, why do you call the transit time a "delay"?
Also possible would be any statement, where Einstein wrote, that he
had the intention to correct the actually reading of the remote clocks
time by the delay for the signal transit.
No "remote clock" is read!
You have been explained this over and over by me and others.
How slow is it possible to be?
I have posted this before, READ IT!
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when
-a-a the light pulse is sent.
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when
-a-a the light pulse is reflected.
-a-a The observer at B reads the clock at B!
-a-a =======================================
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when
-a-a he receives the reflected light pulse.
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
These are all the measurements that are done.
Only local clocks are read.
There is no "reading of the remote clock"!
The observer at A has _measured_ the transit time.
It is (t'A-tA)/2 ! How did you manage to miss that?
To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have
to communicate. They can do it by shouting, send it by snail mail,
E-post, a mobile phone or whatever.
And there is not necessary to encrypt anything!
When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if:
-atB reA tA = trC#A reA tB
If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A.
If it isn't the observer at B will understand
what he must do to bring them in sync.
What "delay" do you miss in the expression:
-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB?
This is "transit time A-B" = "transit time B-A"
Do you miss some other "delay" than the transit time?
But none of the above was actually present in Einstein's paper.
The only thing, which can actually be found is an equation, which
would allow you to calculate the delay yourself.
You mean the equation: tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB?
But that is, of course, not enough, since Einstein had to do that
himself and had to write, how he wanted to deal with the delay.
So you mean that when he said "transit time A-B" = "transit time B-A"
then he haven't said how he would deal with the transit time?
How do you think Einstein should have dealt with the transit time?
Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 14:04 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
No "remote clock" is read!
You have been explained this over and over by me and others.
How slow is it possible to be?
I have posted this before, READ IT!
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when
-a-a-a the light pulse is sent.
-a-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a-a =======================================
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when
-a-a-a the light pulse is reflected.
-a-a-a The observer at B reads the clock at B!
-a-a-a =======================================
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when
-a-a-a he receives the reflected light pulse.
-a-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a-a =======================================
These are all the measurements that are done.
Only local clocks are read.
There is no "reading of the remote clock"!
The observer at A has _measured_ the transit time.
It is (t'A-tA)/2 ! How did you manage to miss that?
To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have
to communicate. They can do it by shouting, send it by snail mail,
E-post, a mobile phone or whatever.
And there is not necessary to encrypt anything!
When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if:
-a-atB reA tA = trC#A reA tB
If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A.
If it isn't the observer at B will understand
what he must do to bring them in sync.
What "delay" do you miss in the expression:
-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB?
If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position 'B',
which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A-time' and 'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'.
To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in
Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon.
Now Houston could send a signal to the Moon, which gets reflected there.
'A' can only use 'A-time', because Houston cannot read the clocks upon
the Moon.
t_B is therefore unknown in A and cannot be used.
But the delay could be measured anyhow, because t_B is irrelevant for
the measurement of the delay.
A sends simply a 'ping' to the Moon and waits for the reflected signal
and measures that delay.
Since that is for two ways, Houston would cut that value in half and
assume, this would be the one-way delay.
that procedere would have be necessary, but wasn't meantioned by Einstein.
The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein:
-a"The two clocks synchronise if-a tB reA tA = t'A reA tB."
These are all the measurements that are done.
Only local clocks are read.
There is no "reading of the remote clock"!
The observer at A has _measured_ the transit time.
It is (t'A-tA)/2 ! How did you manage to miss that?
To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have
to communicate. They can do it by shouting, send it by snail mail,
E-post, a mobile phone or whatever.
And there is not necessary to encrypt anything!
When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if:
-a-atB reA tA = trC#A reA tB
If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A.
If it isn't the observer at B will understand
what he must do to bring them in sync.
What "delay" do you miss in the expression:
-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB?
If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position 'B',
which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A-time' and
'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'.
To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in
Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon.
So A is Houston and B is the Moon.
Sure.Now Houston could send a signal to the Moon, which gets reflected there.
'A' can only use 'A-time', because Houston cannot read the clocks upon
the Moon.
PBA wrote:
"
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when
-a-a the light pulse is sent.
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when
-a-a the light pulse is reflected.
-a-a The observer at B reads the clock at B!
-a-a =======================================
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when
-a-a he receives the reflected light pulse.
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
-aThese are all the measurements that are done.
-aOnly local clocks are read.
-aThere is no "reading of the remote clock"!
"
Why didn't you read it?
t_B is therefore unknown in A and cannot be used.
PBA:
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
-a-a The observer at B reads the clock at B!
-a-a =======================================
But the delay could be measured anyhow, because t_B is irrelevant for
the measurement of the delay.
A sends simply a 'ping' to the Moon and waits for the reflected signal
and measures that delay.
Since that is for two ways, Houston would cut that value in half and
assume, this would be the one-way delay.
PBA:
" The observer at A has _measured_ the transit time.
-a It is (t'A-tA)/2 !"
But Houston can do nothing with this information,
so why should they calculate the transit-time?
that procedere would have be necessary, but wasn't meantioned by
Einstein.
The "procedure" which is necessary is that
the observer at Earth and the observer at Moon communicate.
The observer at A has measured tA and t'A
The observer at B has measured tB.
Am Dienstag000005, 05.08.2025 um 15:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
...
Den 05.08.2025 08:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position 'B',
which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A-time' and
'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'.
To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in
Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon.
So A is Houston and B is the Moon in my example posted before.
Now Houston could send a signal to the Moon, which gets reflected there. >>>
'A' can only use 'A-time', because Houston cannot read the clocks
upon the Moon.
I have posted the following before:
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when
the light pulse is sent.
The observer at A reads the clock at A!
=======================================
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when
the light pulse is reflected.
The observer at B reads the clock at B!
=======================================
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when
he receives the reflected light pulse.
The observer at A reads the clock at A!
=======================================
These are all the measurements that are done.
Only local clocks are read.
There is no "reading of the remote clock"!
To check if the clock at B is synchronous
the observers have to communicate. They can do
it by shouting, E-post, a mobile phone, radio
or whatever.
When B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if:
tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB
If it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A.
If it isn't, the observer at B will have to correct
the clock at B to makeit sunchronous with the clock
at A.
Remember that clock B will probably not be synchronous.
So let B's reading of the clock be tx.
The observer at B knows that according to Einstein:
"The two clocks synchronise if tB reA tA = t'A reA tB."
So he knows that to be in sync with the clock at A,
the clock at B should have shown tB = (tA + t'A)/2
But since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
+| = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
to the clock at B.
Sure.
But there ain't no observers on the Moon.
It is irrelevant, anyhow, because the qunatity t_B is not important in Einstein's equation, because he actually used only t_A.
On 8/2/2025 12:31 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 30.07.2025 07:08, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
Another wise statement by Maciej Wo+|niak! :-D
SI idiocy is unusable and not used.
Raving and spitting wont help, poor fanatic,
no serious timekeeping system keeps its clocks
matching that nonsense and you've admitted
it many times. Eben such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop.
Den 06.08.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000005, 05.08.2025 um 15:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
...
DON'T SKIP THE ATTRIBUTIONS!
Den 05.08.2025 08:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position
'B', which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A-
time' and 'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'.
To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in
Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon.
So A is Houston and B is the Moon in my example posted before.
Now Houston could send a signal to the Moon, which gets reflected
there.
'A' can only use 'A-time', because Houston cannot read the clocks
upon the Moon.
I have posted the following before:
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when
-a-a the light pulse is sent.
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when
-a-a the light pulse is reflected.
-a-a The observer at B reads the clock at B!
-a-a =======================================
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when
-a-a he receives the reflected light pulse.
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
-aThese are all the measurements that are done.
-aOnly local clocks are read.
-aThere is no "reading of the remote clock"!
-aTo check if the clock at B is synchronous -athe observers have to
communicate. They can do -ait by shouting, E-post, a mobile phone, radio >>> -aor whatever.
-aWhen B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if:
-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB
-aIf it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A.
-aIf it isn't, the observer at B will have to correct
-athe clock at B to makeit sunchronous with the clock -aat A.
-aRemember that clock B will probably not be synchronous.
-aSo let B's reading of the clock be tx.
-aThe observer at B knows that according to Einstein:
-a"The two clocks synchronise if-a tB reA tA = t'A reA tB."
-aSo he knows that to be in sync with the clock at A, -athe clock at B
should have shown tB = (tA + t'A)/2
-aBut since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
-a-a +| = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
-ato the clock at B.
Sure.
But there ain't no observers on the Moon.
I see. You have successfully proved that Einstein's
synchronisation method is wrong because there is
no observer at the Moon.
The method of synchronization had to be symmetric. But Einstein's method wasn't.
It is irrelevant, anyhow, because the qunatity t_B is not important in
Einstein's equation, because he actually used only t_A.
I am an idiot since I thought it must be possible to make
Thomas Heger understand something.
Den 02.08.2025 13:52, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/2/2025 12:31 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 30.07.2025 07:08, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
Another wise statement by Maciej Wo+|niak! Efye
SI idiocy is unusable and not used.
Raving and spitting wont help, poor fanatic,
no serious timekeeping system keeps its clocks
matching that nonsense and you've admitted
it many times. Eben such a disgusting piece
of lying shit can't lie non stop.
Can you please tell us what "SI" is
and why it is unusable idiocy and never used?
Am Mittwoch000006, 06.08.2025 um 22:17 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 06.08.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000005, 05.08.2025 um 15:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 05.08.2025 08:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position
'B', which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A-
time' and 'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'.
To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in
Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon.
So A is Houston and B is the Moon in my example posted before.
I have posted the following before:
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when
-a-a the light pulse is sent.
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when
-a-a the light pulse is reflected.
-a-a The observer at B reads the clock at B!
-a-a =======================================
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when
-a-a he receives the reflected light pulse.
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
-aThese are all the measurements that are done.
-aOnly local clocks are read.
-aThere is no "reading of the remote clock"!
-aTo check if the clock at B is synchronous -athe observers have to
communicate. They can do -ait by shouting, E-post, a mobile phone, radio >>>> -aor whatever.
-aWhen B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if:
-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB
-aIf it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A.
-aIf it isn't, the observer at B will have to correct
-athe clock at B to make it synchronous with the clock -aat A.
-aRemember that clock B will probably not be synchronous.
-aSo let B's reading of the clock be tx.
-aThe observer at B knows that according to Einstein:
-a"The two clocks synchronise if-a tB reA tA = t'A reA tB."
-aSo he knows that to be in sync with the clock at A, -athe clock at B >>>> should have shown tB = (tA + t'A)/2
-aBut since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
-a-a +| = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
-ato the clock at B.
Sure.
But there ain't no observers on the Moon.
The hole dammed thing is total nonsense and full of errrors from start
to finish.
I have used the example of a Earth-Moon communcation as an exageration
and as example, why Einstein's method was nonsense.
But the main reason was, that if you have two remote clocks out of synch
and want to synchronize them by Einstein's method, you need to decide,
which clock is the 'master clock'.
You simply cannot use both clocks, because that would cause something,
which in computer science is called 'dead lock'.
In simple words:As done in my example above.
if you tune clock B to clock A, than you should not tune clock A to
clock B. You simply tune the remote clock to the time of the 'master
clock', which was A in this case.
But you could also tune clock A to clock B.
But you should not try both.
This would result in this:
B (on Moon) is set in 1s in advance, because A (on Earth) tells B to do so the B finds, that A is behind and had to turn the clock one second ahead
A send then a signal to B which tells B to advance by one second
...
and so forth.
Symmetry is, of course, important, but Einstein's method wasn't
symmetric, because of the above.
The time 'B-time' gets lost and is irrelevant anyhow, if you tune clock
B to 'A-time'.
Symmetry could be achieved, if the remote clock's reading is corrected
by the transit delay.
But Einstein did neither calculate the delay, nor had the intention to correct the remote clock's reading.
The method of synchronization had to be symmetric. But Einstein's method wasn't.
Therefore Einstein's method was wrong.
It's that simple!
But you could come to the same conclusion by simply thinking about the problem.
Then you would find, that a delay caused by the finite speed of light
would make remote clocks seemingly have a time too early.
This delay is, of course, identical to the run-time of the signal,You will keep believing that the clock at B is visually
because that is, what causes the apparent delay.
TH
On 8/6/2025 10:39 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Can you please tell us what "SI" is
As if you didn't know.
It's "second" referred as 9 192 631 770
periods of local Cs radiation.
and why it is unusable idiocy and never used?
If we applied your idiocy to our clocks,
they wouldn't indicate t'=t, would they?
Of course, your idiotic religion has
persuaded you, that clocks not indicating
t'=t (i.e. - unsynchronized) are good.
You've bought it - you're such an idiot.
For sane people of the real world such
situation is, however, unacceptable-a and
thus your SI absurd had no chance.
This is explicitly described by Einstein:
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A
can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of
A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
these events.
If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to
determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of
B.
"
Den 07.08.2025 08:54, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/6/2025 10:39 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Can you please tell us what "SI" is
As if you didn't know.
It's "second" referred as 9 192 631 770
periods of local Cs radiation.
That is the definition of a second.
This and all the other units used by scientists, engineers and
and why it is unusable idiocy and never used?
If we applied your idiocy to our clocks,
they wouldn't indicate t'=t, would they?
I don't know what that is supposed to mean
that it is idiotic to claim that the units defined by SI
never are used.
Of course, your idiotic religion has
persuaded you, that clocks not indicating
t'=t (i.e. - unsynchronized) are good.
You've bought it - you're such an idiot.
For sane people of the real world such
situation is, however, unacceptable and
thus your SI absurd had no chance.
Since the units defined by SI are used by everybody
and are taught in elementary schools,
On 8/7/2025 10:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2025 08:54, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/6/2025 10:39 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
-a >
-a > Can you please tell us what "SI" is
As if you didn't know.
It's "second" referred as 9 192 631 770
periods of local Cs radiation.
That is the definition of a second.
This and all the other units used by scientists, engineers and
everybody else are defined by SI.
In the gedankenland of your bunch of idiots?
Not in GPS or other timekeeping systems.
Den 08.08.2025 07:22, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/7/2025 10:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.08.2025 08:54, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/6/2025 10:39 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Can you please tell us what "SI" is
As if you didn't know.
It's "second" referred as 9 192 631 770
periods of local Cs radiation.
That is the definition of a second.
This and all the other units used by scientists, engineers and
everybody else are defined by SI.
In the gedankenland of your bunch of idiots?
Not in GPS or other timekeeping systems.
Yet another wise statement by Maciej Wo+|niak:
"The unit 'second' is not used in GPS or other timekeeping systems." Congratulations!
Den 07.08.2025 08:41, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000006, 06.08.2025 um 22:17 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 06.08.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000005, 05.08.2025 um 15:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 05.08.2025 08:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position
'B', which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A- >>>>>> time' and 'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'.
To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in >>>>>> Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon.
So A is Houston and B is the Moon in my example posted before.
I have posted the following before:
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when
-a-a the light pulse is sent.
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when
-a-a the light pulse is reflected.
-a-a The observer at B reads the clock at B!
-a-a =======================================
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when
-a-a he receives the reflected light pulse.
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
-aThese are all the measurements that are done.
-aOnly local clocks are read.
-aThere is no "reading of the remote clock"!
Thomas Heger believes that clock B is visually read
by the observer at point A.
But the observer at A reads the clock at A only!
It is the observer at B who reads the clock at B!
This is explicitly described by Einstein:
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A
can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity
of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous
with these events.
If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to
determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood
of B.
"
-aTo check if the clock at B is synchronous -athe observers have to >>>>> communicate. They can do -ait by shouting, E-post, a mobile phone, radio >>>>> -aor whatever.
-aWhen B has got tA and t'A from A, he can check if:
-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB
And B can calculate the "delay" (transit time) = (t'A-TA)/2
-aIf it is, B's clock is synchronous with clock A.
That is, clock B is the time when A sent the pulse +
the calculated "delay", TB = tA + (t'A-TA)/2 = (tA + t'A)/2
-aIf it isn't, the observer at B will have to correct
-athe clock at B to make it synchronous with the clock -aat A.
-aRemember that clock B will probably not be synchronous.
-aSo let B's reading of the clock be tx.
-aThe observer at B knows that according to Einstein:
-a"The two clocks synchronise if-a tB reA tA = t'A reA tB."
-aSo he knows that to be in sync with the clock at A, -athe clock at B >>>>> should have shown tB = (tA + t'A)/2
-aBut since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
-a-a +| = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
-ato the clock at B.
After this correction, clock B will always show the same
as the master clock A. A and B are synchronous.
Sure.
But there ain't no observers on the Moon.
! :-D
The hole dammed thing is total nonsense and full of errrors from start
to finish.
So in which hole of yours is there many errrors?
(Sorry. Couldn't resist!)
I have used the example of a Earth-Moon communcation as an exageration
and as example, why Einstein's method was nonsense.
But the main reason was, that if you have two remote clocks out of synch
and want to synchronize them by Einstein's method, you need to decide,
which clock is the 'master clock'.
Of course.
In my example the clock at B is synched to the master clock at A.
Is that a problem?
You simply cannot use both clocks, because that would cause something,
which in computer science is called 'dead lock'.
You have to use both clock A and clock B to sync clock B to clock A.
Are you saying it is a deadlock in my example above?
As done in my example above.
In simple words:
if you tune clock B to clock A, than you should not tune clock A to
clock B. You simply tune the remote clock to the time of the 'master
clock', which was A in this case.
But you could also tune clock A to clock B.
Of course you could.
But you should not try both.
You seem to say that you shouldn't try to sync
two clocks to each other without knowing
which should be synched to which.
This is obviously impossible, or rather meaningless.
This would result in this:
B (on Moon) is set in 1s in advance, because A (on Earth) tells B to do so >> the B finds, that A is behind and had to turn the clock one second ahead
A send then a signal to B which tells B to advance by one second
...
and so forth.
Don't you think it is a bit silly to state that
you shouldn't try to sync two clocks to each other
without knowing which should be synched to which?
It is like stating:
"You shouldn't try to do an impossible stupidity."
Symmetry is, of course, important, but Einstein's method wasn't
symmetric, because of the above.
Right.
You sync one clock to another.
You can't sync two clocks to each other without
knowing which should be synched to which.
In this sense synchronisation can't be symmetric.
So why do you think symmetry is important?
The time 'B-time' gets lost and is irrelevant anyhow, if you tune clock
B to 'A-time'.
The "wrong" clock B is corrected. Is that a problem?
Symmetry could be achieved, if the remote clock's reading is corrected
by the transit delay.
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
On 8/8/2025 1:51 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Yet another wise statement by Maciej Wo+|niak:
"The unit 'second' is not used in GPS or other timekeeping systems." Congratulations!
Yet another slandering lie by Paul B.Andersen, well known lying piece of shit. Congratulations!
His mad slanders are not changing anything, the unit "second" used by
GPS [and other timekeeping systems] is not SI defined second, it is Cambridge dictionary defined second. Face the reality, trash.
Le 07/08/2025 |a 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using such a "method" to immediately rule it out:
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by
an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co- ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands
with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching
him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage
that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the
watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought."
This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the time coordinate attached to such an event.
Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python:
Le 07/08/2025 |a 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using such a
"method" to immediately rule it out:
Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define
the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to
explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate.
(This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out")
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined byYou probably meant Heger.
an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-
ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands
with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching
him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage
that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the
watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more
practical determination along the following line of thought."
This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the time
coordinate attached to such an event.
But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is.
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admit
that it is wrong.
the unit "second" used byYet another wise statement by Maciej Wo+|niak! :-D
GPS [and other timekeeping systems] is not SI defined second, it is Cambridge dictionary defined second. Face the reality, trash.
Den 30.07.2025 07:08, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
SI idiocy is unusable and not used.
Another wise statement by Maciej Wo?niak! :-D
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 30.07.2025 07:08, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
Another wise statement by Maciej Wo?niak! :-D
SI idiocy is unusable and not used.
Wozzy isn't content with being seen as a complete idiot
by almost all working physicists.
He feels he must convince all of them of it,
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
Yet another wise statement by Maciej Wo+|niak! :-D
the unit "second" used by
GPS [and other timekeeping systems] is not SI defined-a second, it is
Cambridge dictionary defined second. Face the reality, trash.
Le 08/08/2025 |a 20:30, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python:
Le 07/08/2025 |a 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using
such a "method" to immediately rule it out:
Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define
the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to
explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate.
(This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out")
In principle it could be used. Good luck expressing Newton law of motion with that but it could be done. Coordinates systems can be quite arbitrary.
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determinedYou probably meant Heger.
by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the
co- ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the
hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and
reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the
disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the
observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We
arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of thought."
This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the
time coordinate attached to such an event.
No, Hachel actually thinks that what should be done is what Heger thinks Einstein did. Cranks are funny sometimes...
But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is.
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admit
that it is wrong.
Same for Hachel Efye
Le 08/08/2025 |a 20:30, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python:
Le 07/08/2025 |a 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using such a >>> "method" to immediately rule it out:
Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define
the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to
explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate.
(This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out")
In principle it could be used. Good luck expressing Newton law of motion with
that but it could be done. Coordinates systems can be quite arbitrary.
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined byYou probably meant Heger.
an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-
ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands
with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching
him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage
that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the
watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more
practical determination along the following line of thought."
This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the time >>> coordinate attached to such an event.
No, Hachel actually thinks that what should be done is what Heger thinks Einstein did. Cranks are funny sometimes...
But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is.
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admit
that it is wrong.
Same for Hachel Efye
On 8/8/2025 8:58 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
Yet another wise statement by Maciej Wo+|niak! :-D
the unit "second" used by
GPS [and other timekeeping systems] is not SI defined-a second, it is
Cambridge dictionary defined second. Face the reality, trash.
Yet another idiotic raving by Paul B. Andersen.
Le 08/08/2025 |a 20:41, Python a |-crit :
Le 08/08/2025 |a 20:30, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python:
Le 07/08/2025 |a 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using such >>>> a "method" to immediately rule it out:
Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define
the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to
explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate.
(This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out")
In principle it could be used. Good luck expressing Newton law of
motion with that but it could be done. Coordinates systems can be quite
arbitrary.
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by >>>> an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co- >>>> ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands >>>> with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching >>>> him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantageYou probably meant Heger.
that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the >>>> watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more
practical determination along the following line of thought."
This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the time >>>> coordinate attached to such an event.
No, Hachel actually thinks that what should be done is what Heger
thinks Einstein did. Cranks are funny sometimes...
But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is.
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admit
that it is wrong.
Same for Hachel Efye
Doctor Hachel is the best theorist of special relativity of all time.
R.H.--
On 2025-08-09 11:22:10 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 08/08/2025 |a 20:41, Python a |-crit :
Le 08/08/2025 |a 20:30, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python:
Le 07/08/2025 |a 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using such >>>>> a "method" to immediately rule it out:
Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define >>>> the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to
explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate.
(This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out")
In principle it could be used. Good luck expressing Newton law of
motion with that but it could be done. Coordinates systems can be quite >>> arbitrary.
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by >>>>> an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co- >>>>> ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands >>>>> with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching >>>>> him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage >>>>> that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the >>>>> watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more >>>>> practical determination along the following line of thought."You probably meant Heger.
This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the time >>>>> coordinate attached to such an event.
No, Hachel actually thinks that what should be done is what Heger
thinks Einstein did. Cranks are funny sometimes...
But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is.
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admit
that it is wrong.
Same for Hachel Efye
Doctor Hachel is the best theorist of special relativity of all time.
You forgot the quotation marks: "Doctor" Hachel (D.Nutt., Crackpot U.) is ...
R.H.
Le 09/08/2025 |a 15:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a |-crit :
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?-ImxEOjFspCFNQcCnt63lh0Syrg@jntp/Data.Media:1>
Le 09/08/2025 |a 15:40, Python a |-crit :
Le 09/08/2025 |a 15:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a |-crit :
The professor Python.
Anti-hachelian doctor.
Le 09/08/2025 |a 16:49, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
Le 09/08/2025 |a 15:40, Python a |-crit :
Le 09/08/2025 |a 15:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a |-crit :
The professor Python.
Anti-hachelian doctor.
Not "anti-hachelian" : anti-liars, anti-idiots, anti-cranks. You fall in all categories, not my fault.
Den 08.08.2025 20:41, skrev Python:
Le 08/08/2025 |a 20:30, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python:
Le 07/08/2025 |a 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using
such a "method" to immediately rule it out:
Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define
the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to
explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate.
(This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out")
In principle it could be used. Good luck expressing Newton law of
motion with that but it could be done. Coordinates systems can be
quite arbitrary.
Sure.
Generally the time coordinate can be defined in any way you wish.
But Einstein's time coordinate in -o1 is precisely defined.
And your moronic lies of "experiments confirming"
especially the [utterly idiotic] way you wish -
are, well, what anyone can expect from a brainwashed
idiot.
Den 09.08.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
And your moronic lies of "experiments confirming"
especially the [utterly idiotic] way you wish -
are, well, what anyone can expect from a brainwashed
idiot.
Was the above an attempt to make a meaningful statement?
I am afraid you didn't succeed.
Did you try to say something about experimental evidence?
Den 09.08.2025 00:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/8/2025 8:58 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
Yet another wise statement by Maciej Wo+|niak! Efye
the unit "second" used by
GPS [and other timekeeping systems] is not SI defined second, it is
Cambridge dictionary defined second. Face the reality, trash.
Yet another idiotic raving by Paul B. Andersen.
Quite.
I will rave a bit more:
You say the definition of a second is:
"a short unit of time that is equal to a 60th of a minute:"
[minute - 60th of an hour, hour - 24th of a day].
That means that according to you, a "second" is 86400th of a "day."
But the length of a "day" will vary between 86380 and 86430 SI-seconds.
So is it the length of your second or the Si-second that is varying?
Den 07.08.2025 08:41, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000006, 06.08.2025 um 22:17 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 06.08.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000005, 05.08.2025 um 15:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 05.08.2025 08:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
If we have a 'stationary' position 'A' and and a remote position
'B', which are both equipped with their own local time (named 'A- >>>>>> time' and 'B-time'), then an observer at 'A' knows only 'A-time'.
To illustrate this problem I place 'A' at Houston Space Center in >>>>>> Houston, Texas and B at 'Tranquility base', Moon.
So A is Houston and B is the Moon in my example posted before.
I have posted the following before:
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when
-a-a the light pulse is sent.
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when
-a-a the light pulse is reflected.
-a-a The observer at B reads the clock at B!
-a-a =======================================
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when
-a-a he receives the reflected light pulse.
-a-a The observer at A reads the clock at A!
-a-a =======================================
-aThese are all the measurements that are done.
-aOnly local clocks are read.
-aThere is no "reading of the remote clock"!
Thomas Heger believes that clock B is visually read
by the observer at point A.
But the observer at A reads the clock at A only!
It is the observer at B who reads the clock at B!
This is explicitly described by Einstein:
-a"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A
-a can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity
-a of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous
-a with these events.
-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
-a resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to
-a determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood
-a of B.
"
Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python:
Le 07/08/2025 |a 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using such
a "method" to immediately rule it out:
Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define
the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to
explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate.
(This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out")
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined byYou probably meant Heger.
an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-
ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands
with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching
him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage
that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the
watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more
practical determination along the following line of thought."
This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the
time coordinate attached to such an event.
But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is.
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admit
that it is wrong.
Am Freitag000008, 08.08.2025 um 20:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python:
Le 07/08/2025 |a 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using
such a "method" to immediately rule it out:
Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define
the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to
explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate.
(This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out")
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determinedYou probably meant Heger.
by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the
co- ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the
hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and
reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the
disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the
observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We
arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of thought."
This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the
time coordinate attached to such an event.
But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is.
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
Well, I read a text and assume, that the author actually meant what he
wrote.
So, I take every single word verbatim, whether that makes sense or not, because it isn't my duty to correct a text which I'm reading.
An author tells a story which he wants to tell. It's his duty to make
clear, what that story is.
If the author makes an error of whatever kind, this error is his and
only his. Especially it wouldn't be my error, if I interpret his words
in a legal way. (if not, that would be my error, of course)
That's why I have all rights to make guesses about what the author
actually tries to say by searching for an interpretation, which would
fit to his words.
Upon the interpretation of Einstein's synchronization method I had to
chew for a while.
But the only fitting solution was, that Einstein actually wanted to
ignore the delay and take the apparent reading of the remote time by 'visually'* reading the remote clock as remote time.
That is, of course, nonsense, but is actually the only way that
Einstein's text could be interpreted.
*('visually' is meant as any kind of receiving and decoding a signal,
also by some kind of radio transmission).
Entirely irrelevant is, what an author actually wanted to say, but has
not written, because the reader isn't supposed to read the authors mind.>
When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admitI wrote several times already already, that this would be wrong, but
that it is wrong.
wouldn't be my fault, because I'm NOT the author of the text under consideration.
TH
On 08/09/2025 09:54 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
I wrote several times already already, that this would be wrong, butWhether a "generous" or "ingenerous" reading need follow, it's fair to
wouldn't be my fault, because I'm NOT the author of the text under
consideration.
TH
say that in Einstein's theory that the only thing in Einstein's theory
that goes light speed is his mind.
Or, like the koan, "it is your mind that moves".
On 08/09/2025 09:54 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000008, 08.08.2025 um 20:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python:
Le 07/08/2025 |a 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using
such a "method" to immediately rule it out:
Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define
the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to
explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate.
(This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out")
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determinedYou probably meant Heger.
by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the
co- ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the
hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and
reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the
disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the
observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We
arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of thought."
This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the
time coordinate attached to such an event.
But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is.
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
Well, I read a text and assume, that the author actually meant what he
wrote.
So, I take every single word verbatim, whether that makes sense or not,
because it isn't my duty to correct a text which I'm reading.
An author tells a story which he wants to tell. It's his duty to make
clear, what that story is.
If the author makes an error of whatever kind, this error is his and
only his. Especially it wouldn't be my error, if I interpret his words
in a legal way. (if not, that would be my error, of course)
That's why I have all rights to make guesses about what the author
actually tries to say by searching for an interpretation, which would
fit to his words.
Upon the interpretation of Einstein's synchronization method I had to
chew for a while.
But the only fitting solution was, that Einstein actually wanted to
ignore the delay and take the apparent reading of the remote time by
'visually'* reading the remote clock as remote time.
That is, of course, nonsense, but is actually the only way that
Einstein's text could be interpreted.
*('visually' is meant as any kind of receiving and decoding a signal,
also by some kind of radio transmission).
Entirely irrelevant is, what an author actually wanted to say, but has
not written, because the reader isn't supposed to read the authors mind.> >>> When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admit
that it is wrong.I wrote several times already already, that this would be wrong, but
wouldn't be my fault, because I'm NOT the author of the text under
consideration.
TH
Whether a "generous" or "ingenerous" reading need follow,
it's fair to say that in Einstein's theory that the only
thing in Einstein's theory that goes light speed is his mind.
Or, like the koan, "it is your mind that moves".
On 08/10/2025 08:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/09/2025 09:54 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000008, 08.08.2025 um 20:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python:
Le 07/08/2025 |a 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using
such a "method" to immediately rule it out:
Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define
the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to
explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate.
(This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out")
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determinedYou probably meant Heger.
by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the >>>>> co- ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the
hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and
reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the
disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the
observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We
arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of thought."
This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the
time coordinate attached to such an event.
But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is.
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
Well, I read a text and assume, that the author actually meant what he
wrote.
So, I take every single word verbatim, whether that makes sense or not,
because it isn't my duty to correct a text which I'm reading.
An author tells a story which he wants to tell. It's his duty to make
clear, what that story is.
If the author makes an error of whatever kind, this error is his and
only his. Especially it wouldn't be my error, if I interpret his words
in a legal way. (if not, that would be my error, of course)
That's why I have all rights to make guesses about what the author
actually tries to say by searching for an interpretation, which would
fit to his words.
Upon the interpretation of Einstein's synchronization method I had to
chew for a while.
But the only fitting solution was, that Einstein actually wanted to
ignore the delay and take the apparent reading of the remote time by
'visually'* reading the remote clock as remote time.
That is, of course, nonsense, but is actually the only way that
Einstein's text could be interpreted.
*('visually' is meant as any kind of receiving and decoding a signal,
also by some kind of radio transmission).
Entirely irrelevant is, what an author actually wanted to say, but has
not written, because the reader isn't supposed to read the authors
mind.>
When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admitI wrote several times already already, that this would be wrong, but
that it is wrong.
wouldn't be my fault, because I'm NOT the author of the text under
consideration.
TH
Whether a "generous" or "ingenerous" reading need follow,
it's fair to say that in Einstein's theory that the only
thing in Einstein's theory that goes light speed is his mind.
Or, like the koan, "it is your mind that moves".
Einstein, "Think of light's speed as an arbitrarily high unreachable
limit that's not infinity. This way we don't have infinity in our theory while we kind of do."
The idea is that Einstein has a theory about theories, and sometimes
that's called the "philosophical" side, since he expects his model
physicist to necessarily be provided 100% instructions that are
mathematical and that they're relayable. Then, "relaying infinity,
and mathematically", gets quite involved that Foundations of physics
has that Foundations of mathematics _owes_ physics, and I've said
this about a thousand times, _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of infinity, and continuity, the more "replete" after the tenuous
"complete" so axiomatized to exist in the modern standard linear
curriculum and tower of results.
So, Einstein didn't have available some of the more relevant aspects
of mathematical infinity, and continuity, while, today we can sort of
say we do.
It's sort of cool that modern physics the Big Science has very well established the 7-sigmas called dark matter one way and dark energy
another, and very well established non-locality with regards to usual theories our premier theories the GR and QM, because very many or mostly
all the particulars fields or sectors in physics, have otherwise
their usual more or less well-known empirically evident "effects", say,
so that we can rather readily show lots of 20'th century hand-waving, fudge-coating, wall-papering, coattail-riding non-scientific
not-physicsts not-mathematicians the door.
"Cube wall: a door."
On 8/9/2025 1:46 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
You say the definition of a second is:
"a short unit of time that is equal to a 60th of a minute:"
[minute - 60th of an hour, hour - 24th of a day].
I said and the Cambridge dictionary
said-a and 20 other dictionaries.
That means that according to you, a "second" is 86400th of a "day."
But the length of a "day" will vary between 86380 and 86430 SI-seconds.
But it is not stated which day the definition
means.
The length of a foot varies even more. Does
it make a foot unreliable unit?
So is it the length of your second or the Si-second that is varying?
Relativity, poor trash. Points of view.
Anyway, SI second is 9 192 631 770 local Cs
periods on Earth and 9 192 631 770 on a GPS
satellite. What is referred as "second"
in GPS is - 9 192 631 770 and 9 192 631 774.
GPS second IS NOT your ISO absurd, QED.And you don't know the difference between SI and ISO! :-D
No timekeeping system can rely on it,
would loose the synchronization.
Am Freitag000008, 08.08.2025 um 20:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
Well, I read a text and assume, that the author actually meant what he wrote.
So, I take every single word verbatim, whether that makes sense or not, because it isn't my duty to correct a text which I'm reading.
Am Donnerstag000007, 07.08.2025 um 22:13 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Thomas Heger believes that clock B is visually read
by the observer at point A.
But the observer at A reads the clock at A only!
It is the observer at B who reads the clock at B!
This is explicitly described by Einstein:
-a-a"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A
-a-a can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity
-a-a of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous
-a-a with these events.
-a-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
-a-a resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to
-a-a determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood
-a-a of B.
"
Sure, that's true and also what Einstein wrote.
But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there wasn't anybody to read a clock on the Moon.
Am Donnerstag000007, 07.08.2025 um 22:13 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
This is explicitly described by Einstein:
-a"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A
-a can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity
-a of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous
-a with these events.
-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
-a resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to
-a determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood
-a of B.
"
Sure, that's true and also what Einstein wrote.
But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there wasn't anybody to read a clock on the Moon.
If there are actually observers at the remote station with clocks and at least some intelligence, we would get a lot of now problems.
Den 09.08.2025 20:18, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/9/2025 1:46 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
You say the definition of a second is:
"a short unit of time that is equal to a 60th of a minute:"
[minute - 60th of an hour, hour - 24th of a day].
I said and the Cambridge dictionary
said and 20 other dictionaries.
Cambridge dictionary says:
second: a short unit of time that is equal to a 60th of a minute.
Even you must understand that this is not a definition of
the duration of a second.
You added:
[minute - 60th of an hour, hour - 24th of a day
That means that according to you, a "second" is 86400th of a "day."
But the length of a "day" will vary between 86380 and 86430 SI- seconds.
Which demonstrates that you didn't know that the length
of a solar day varies all the time.
Your ignorance is amazing! Efye
But it is not stated which day the definition
means.
The length of a foot varies even more. Does
it make a foot unreliable unit?
Uttering yet another idiocy won't change the fact
that you have made a stupid blunder.
Relativity, poor trash. Points of view.
Anyway, SI second is 9 192 631 770 local Cs
periods on Earth and 9 192 631 770 on a GPS
satellite. What is referred as "second"
in GPS is - 9 192 631 770 and 9 192 631 774.
An SI second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of
the radiation corresponding to the hyperfine transition
frequency of the cesium-133 atom.
The old definition of second was that it is a 86400th of
a mean solar day. The mean sun is a theoretical sun which
is moving at constant speed around the Earth in the equatorial plane.
It moves once around the Earth in 24 hours = 86400 seconds.
The mean sun is at longitude 0rU# at 12:00:00 GMT.
To find the mean length of a solar day you have to observe
the Sun for a very long time. This was done at Greenwich,
and the pendulum clock at Greenwich showed mean solar time.
This clock was the standard clock, and all clocks on Earth
were synchronised to this clock. The clock is now on museum
so it now impossible to sync clocks to it.
So now the SI definition of second is the only usable definition.
The rotation of the Earth is slowing down, so in 2008 the duration--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
of a mean solar day was 86400.002 SI seconds.
You will of course understand nothing of this.
This is getting boring, so now I won't ridicule you any more.
At least not for a while. EfOe
On 08/09/2025 09:54 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000008, 08.08.2025 um 20:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python:
Le 07/08/2025 |a 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Thomas Heger believes that tB is the time the observer at A
has visually observed clock B to show at the time tA when
the light pulse was sent from point A.
It is interesting to note that Einstein actually considered using
such a "method" to immediately rule it out:
Of course Einstein never considered this to be a usable way to define
the time coordinate of a frame of reference. His point was to
explain why this was not a usable way to define the time coordinate.
(This was probably what you meant with "immediately rule it out")
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determinedYou probably meant Heger.
by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the
co- ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the
hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and
reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the
disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the
observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We
arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of thought."
This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the
time coordinate attached to such an event.
But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is.
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
Well, I read a text and assume, that the author actually meant what he
wrote.
So, I take every single word verbatim, whether that makes sense or not,
because it isn't my duty to correct a text which I'm reading.
An author tells a story which he wants to tell. It's his duty to make
clear, what that story is.
If the author makes an error of whatever kind, this error is his and
only his. Especially it wouldn't be my error, if I interpret his words
in a legal way. (if not, that would be my error, of course)
That's why I have all rights to make guesses about what the author
actually tries to say by searching for an interpretation, which would
fit to his words.
Upon the interpretation of Einstein's synchronization method I had to
chew for a while.
But the only fitting solution was, that Einstein actually wanted to
ignore the delay and take the apparent reading of the remote time by
'visually'* reading the remote clock as remote time.
That is, of course, nonsense, but is actually the only way that
Einstein's text could be interpreted.
*('visually' is meant as any kind of receiving and decoding a signal,
also by some kind of radio transmission).
Entirely irrelevant is, what an author actually wanted to say, but has
not written, because the reader isn't supposed to read the authors mind.> >>> When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admit
that it is wrong.I wrote several times already already, that this would be wrong, but
wouldn't be my fault, because I'm NOT the author of the text under
consideration.
TH
Whether a "generous" or "ingenerous" reading need follow,
it's fair to say that in Einstein's theory that the only
thing in Einstein's theory that goes light speed is his mind.
Or, like the koan, "it is your mind that moves".
Am Freitag000008, 08.08.2025 um 20:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
[ rCa ]
You probably meant Heger.
But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is.
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
Well, I read a text and assume, that the author actually meant what he wrote.
So, I take every single word verbatim, whether that makes sense or not, because it isn't my duty to correct a text which I'm reading.
An author tells a story which he wants to tell. It's his duty to make
clear, what that story is.
If the author makes an error of whatever kind, this error is his and
only his. Especially it wouldn't be my error, if I interpret his words
in a legal way. (if not, that would be my error, of course)
That's why I have all rights to make guesses about what the author
actually tries to say by searching for an interpretation, which would
fit to his words.
Upon the interpretation of Einstein's synchronization method I had to
chew for a while.
But the only fitting solution was, that Einstein actually wanted to
ignore the delay and take the apparent reading of the remote time by 'visually'* reading the remote clock as remote time.
That is, of course, nonsense, but is actually the only way that
Einstein's text could be interpreted.
*('visually' is meant as any kind of receiving and decoding a signal,--
also by some kind of radio transmission).
Entirely irrelevant is, what an author actually wanted to say, but has
not written, because the reader isn't supposed to read the authors
mind.>
When Heger has got one idea into his head, he will never admitI wrote several times already already, that this would be wrong, but wouldn't be my fault, because I'm NOT the author of the text under consideration.
that it is wrong.
TH
But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there wasn't anybody to read a clock on the Moon.
If there are actually observers at the remote station with clocks and at least some intelligence, we would get a lot of now problems.
For instance we need to find ways to communicate with these observers at
the remote station to beginn with.
Then we need to negotiate the meaning of time and of time units and how
long those units are.
It makes no sense to assume, that observers at a place near, say, Alpha Centaaury are very interested in Earth time.
But we could eventually convince them to set up a special 'Earth clock' there, which is synchronized with Earth time.
Be then we need to tell them 'Earth time', if we want them to set this 'Earth clock' to Earth time.
This would require from the Earth station to measure the delay from here
to there.
Then we would add this value to our current time, encode the result and
send that to the remote station.
But, of course, that wasn't, what Einstein wanted to do.
...
TH
Den 10.08.2025 06:31, skrev Thomas Heger:
But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there
wasn't anybody to read a clock on the Moon.
If there are actually observers at the remote station with clocks and
at least some intelligence, we would get a lot of now problems.
For instance we need to find ways to communicate with these observers
at the remote station to beginn with.
Then we need to negotiate the meaning of time and of time units and
how long those units are.
It makes no sense to assume, that observers at a place near, say,
Alpha Centaaury are very interested in Earth time.
But we could eventually convince them to set up a special 'Earth
clock' there, which is synchronized with Earth time.
Be then we need to tell them 'Earth time', if we want them to set this
'Earth clock' to Earth time.
This would require from the Earth station to measure the delay from
here to there.
Then we would add this value to our current time, encode the result
and send that to the remote station.
But, of course, that wasn't, what Einstein wanted to do.
...
TH
And this is why Einstein's synchronisation method is:
"total nonsense and full of errrors from start to finish" ?
Den 10.08.2025 06:31, skrev Thomas Heger:
Then we would add this value to our current time, encode the result and
send that to the remote station.
But, of course, that wasn't, what Einstein wanted to do.
... TH
And this is why Einstein's synchronisation method is: "total nonsense
and full of errrors from start to finish" ?
If this interpretation isn't, what Einstein had in mind, even if my interpretation is possible, then it's Einstein's fault, not mine,
because it's the authors story, which he tells and not the story of the reader.
This is why I would request from a scientific author to make clear, what
he wants to say and write it down in 'finished' form.
You probably meant Heger.
But Heger doesn't know what a time coordinate is.
Heger's problem is that when he read Einstein's sync method
for the first time, he didn't understand that clock A
and clock B were read by local observers, he thought they
both were visually observed by an observer at A.
And then the transit time must be added to the time observed
in the telescope to find what the B clock showed simultaneous
with the observation.
Well, I read a text and assume, that the author actually meant what he
wrote.
So, I take every single word verbatim, whether that makes sense or
not, because it isn't my duty to correct a text which I'm reading.
Did you forget your duty when you assembled your list of 400 or more
errors in Einstein's paper that you thought you had found?
Den 10.08.2025 06:31, skrev Thomas Heger:
But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there
wasn't anybody to read a clock on the Moon.
If there are actually observers at the remote station with clocks and
at least some intelligence, we would get a lot of now problems.
For instance we need to find ways to communicate with these observers
at the remote station to beginn with.
Then we need to negotiate the meaning of time and of time units and
how long those units are.
It makes no sense to assume, that observers at a place near, say,
Alpha Centaaury are very interested in Earth time.
But we could eventually convince them to set up a special 'Earth
clock' there, which is synchronized with Earth time.
Be then we need to tell them 'Earth time', if we want them to set this
'Earth clock' to Earth time.
This would require from the Earth station to measure the delay from
here to there.
Then we would add this value to our current time, encode the result
and send that to the remote station.
But, of course, that wasn't, what Einstein wanted to do.
...
TH
And this is why Einstein's synchronisation method is:
"total nonsense and full of errrors from start to finish" ?
Am Montag000011, 11.08.2025 um 10:41 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 10.08.2025 06:31, skrev Thomas Heger:
But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there
wasn't anybody to read a clock on the Moon.
If there are actually observers at the remote station with clocks and
at least some intelligence, we would get a lot of now problems.
For instance we need to find ways to communicate with these observers
at the remote station to beginn with.
Then we need to negotiate the meaning of time and of time units and
how long those units are.
It makes no sense to assume, that observers at a place near, say,
Alpha Centaaury are very interested in Earth time.
But we could eventually convince them to set up a special 'Earth
clock' there, which is synchronized with Earth time.
Be then we need to tell them 'Earth time', if we want them to set
this 'Earth clock' to Earth time.
This would require from the Earth station to measure the delay from
here to there.
Then we would add this value to our current time, encode the result
and send that to the remote station.
But, of course, that wasn't, what Einstein wanted to do.
...
TH
And this is why Einstein's synchronisation method is:
"total nonsense and full of errrors from start to finish" ?
This was a quote from me, but not about the method to synchronize clocks.
This one second you would add to, say, 1:00:00 pm, which is the currect
time here.
Therefore you need to encode 01:00:01 pm into the signal, which you need
to send to the Moon.
There the Man-on-the-Moon reads the signal and dials the Moon-time-clock
to 01:00:01 pm. Now both clocks are synchronized (supposed the tick rate
is also equal).
Am Mittwoch000013, 13.08.2025 um 10:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000011, 11.08.2025 um 10:41 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 10.08.2025 06:31, skrev Thomas Heger:
But I took an Earth Moon communication as an example, where there
wasn't anybody to read a clock on the Moon.
If there are actually observers at the remote station with clocks and >>>> at least some intelligence, we would get a lot of now problems.
For instance we need to find ways to communicate with these observers >>>> at the remote station to beginn with.
Then we need to negotiate the meaning of time and of time units and
how long those units are.
It makes no sense to assume, that observers at a place near, say,
Alpha Centaaury are very interested in Earth time.
But we could eventually convince them to set up a special 'Earth
clock' there, which is synchronized with Earth time.
Be then we need to tell them 'Earth time', if we want them to set
this 'Earth clock' to Earth time.
This would require from the Earth station to measure the delay from
here to there.
Then we would add this value to our current time, encode the result
and send that to the remote station.
But, of course, that wasn't, what Einstein wanted to do.
...
TH
And this is why Einstein's synchronisation method is:
"total nonsense and full of errrors from start to finish" ?
This was a quote from me, but not about the method to synchronize clocks.
But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong.
This caan be seen, if you compare Einstein's text ('On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies') and what Einstein wrote there about
this method in comparison to how that should actually be done.
I wrote about how the method should be (but wasn't), that you need to measure the delay for the 'round trip', devide that by two and use the result as correction of the own time value.
E.g. you want to adjust a clock on the Moon, which is one light-second away.
Then you first need to send a signal there, which gets reflected on the
Moon and sent back to Earth.
The round trip shall last, say, two seconds, then the delay would be one second.
This one second you would add to, say, 1:00:00 pm, which is the currect
time here.
Therefore you need to encode 01:00:01 pm into the signal, which you need
to send to the Moon.
There the Man-on-the-Moon reads the signal and dials the Moon-time-clock
to 01:00:01 pm. Now both clocks are synchronized (supposed the tick rate
is also equal).
But Einstein used an entirely different method and didn't even mention delay.
But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong.
This caan be seen, if you compare Einstein's text ('On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies') and what Einstein wrote there about
this method in comparison to how that should actually be done.
I wrote about how the method should be (but wasn't), that you need to measure the delay for the 'round trip', devide that by two and use the result as correction of the own time value.
E.g. you want to adjust a clock on the Moon, which is one light-secondaway.
Then you first need to send a signal there, which gets reflected on the
Moon and sent back to Earth.
The round trip shall last, say, two seconds, then the delay would be one second.
This one second you would add to, say, 1:00:00 pm, which is the currect
time here.
Therefore you need to encode 01:00:01 pm into the signal, which you need
to send to the Moon.
There the Man-on-the-Moon reads the signal and dials the Moon-time-clock
to 01:00:01 pm. Now both clocks are synchronized (supposed the tick rate
is also equal).
But Einstein used an entirely different method and didn't even mention delay.
Den 14.08.2025 07:54, skrev Thomas Heger:
But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong.
Let's review what "Einstein's method to synchronize clocks" is.
The very first paragraph of Einstein's paper is:
-o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
The definition is:
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
A _definition_ can't be wrong.
Den 14.08.2025 07:54, skrev Thomas Heger:Sure, that's correct!
But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong.
Let's review what "Einstein's method to synchronize clocks" is.
The very first paragraph of Einstein's paper is:
-a -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
The definition is:
-a"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are
-a simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of
-a space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
-a it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values
-a of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B.
-a . . .
-a Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
-a let it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
-a and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC# A.
-a-a In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-a-a-a-a tB reAtA = trC#A reAtB.
-a "
This equation can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
The transit time for the ray to go from A to B or from B to A is
"delay" = (t'A-tA)/2
In words:
If the clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent,
then the clock at B is synchronous with the clock at A if it
shows t plus the transit time (delay) when the pulse is received.
Note. Einstein only give the definition of simultaneity,
he say what the clocks should read to be synchronous.
He does not say anything about how to sync non-synchronous clocks.
This depends on the available instruments etc., and doesn't belong
in a _definition_ of simultaneity.
This caan be seen, if you compare Einstein's text ('On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies') and what Einstein wrote there about
this method in comparison to how that should actually be done.
A _definition_ can't be wrong.
I wrote about how the method should be (but wasn't), that you need to
measure the delay for the 'round trip', devide that by two and use the
result as correction of the own time value.
Right.
According to Einstein the clocks are synced if tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
'delay' = (t'A-tA)/2
E.g. you want to adjust a clock on the Moon, which is one light-secondaway.
I note with interest that you now have realised that you must have
an observer on the Moon, and you are using Einstein's definition
of simultaneity, the definition you claimed was wrong.
I used an example and that was to place point B on the Moon and point Ain Houston, Texas.
Am Sonntag000017, 17.08.2025 um 22:34 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 14.08.2025 07:54, skrev Thomas Heger:
But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong.
Let's review what "Einstein's method to synchronize clocks" is.
The very first paragraph of Einstein's paper is:
-a-a -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
The definition is:
-a-a"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
-a-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
-a-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are
-a-a simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of
-a-a space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
-a-a it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values
-a-a of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B.
-a-a . . .
-a-a Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
-a-a let it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, >> -a-a and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC# A.
-a-a-a In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reAtA = trC#A reAtB.
-a-a "
This equation can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
The transit time for the ray to go from A to B or from B to A is
"delay" = (t'A-tA)/2
In words:
If the clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent,
then the clock at B is synchronous with the clock at A if it
shows t plus the transit time (delay) when the pulse is received.
Sure, that's correct!
I have actually written that several times already, but you have always rejected my demand.
But the question wasn't, what I think or you, but what Einstein wrote in
his paper.
And there ain't no such thing as 'delay'.
Einstein's definition of simultaneity in Einstein's words:
"We establish by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light
-ato travel from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel
-afrom B to A."
Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB."
On 8/18/2025 8:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Einstein's definition of simultaneity in Einstein's words:
"We establish by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light
-ato travel from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel
-afrom B to A."
Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB."
Einstein's definition of a shark:
shark
noun [ C ]
a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its wool, skin, and meat
Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger:
Case closed!
Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger:
Case closed!
Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger:
Case closed!
Le 18/08/2025 |a 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger:
Case closed!
LOL.
J'aurais quand m|-me eu affaire |a de biens belles bandes de cr|-tins sur usenet, mais nous tournons en rond.
Sinon je rappelle que :
"It is not possible to synchronize two distant watches because they will never
share the same notion of universal simultaneity.
The plane of absolute present time does not exist.
This notion, however deeply rooted in our minds it may be, does not exist. Our
universe is not made like that; it is made according to the principle of universal
anisochrony. "The time here cannot absolutely correspond with the time there." The
plane of absolute present time is a fantasy.
Let's take the example of a mountain. Its altitude is 3,645 meters. Much lower
down, in the valley, we have an altitude of 1,250 meters. The two points can NEVER
be measured at the same height.
Let's say I set my altimeter to 3,645 meters. I'll have the same height as the
other altimeter by this subterfuge, but as soon as I go up there, my altimeter
will no longer agree with the other one. Their agreement in principle was artificial; the two points were not at the same height, period.
This is what physics theorists seem to fail to understand when discussing the
nature of time. We CANNOT AGREE the notions of local simultaneity. It may be that
an event in B occurs at the same time as an event in A for A. But this will not be
simultaneous for B.
It is quite incredible that physicists were able to understand the notion of relativity of chronotropy by a change of reference frame, but without understanding that of anisochrony by a simple change of position."
-o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
The definition is:
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are
simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of
space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values
of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B.
. . .
Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
let it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC# A.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB reAtA = trC#A reAtB.
"
This equation can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
The transit time for the ray to go from A to B or from B to A is
"delay" = (t'A-tA)/2
-o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
The definition is:
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are
simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of
space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values
of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B.
. . .
Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
let it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC# A.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB reAtA = trC#A reAtB.
"
This equation can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
The transit time for the ray to go from A to B or from B to A is
"delay" = (t'A-tA)/2
Le 18/08/2025 |a 21:30, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/18/2025 8:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Einstein's definition of simultaneity in Einstein's words:
"We establish by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light
-a-ato travel from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel
-a-afrom B to A."
Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB."
Einstein's definition of a shark:
shark
noun [ C ]
a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its
wool, skin, and meat
In Aleut language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleut_language) the
word for what is called sheep in London is pronounced in a way that
could be written in latin alphabet as "shark".
But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually also wrong.
Let's review what "Einstein's method to synchronize clocks" is.
The very first paragraph of Einstein's paper is:
-a-a -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity
The definition is:
-a-a"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
-a-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
-a-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are
-a-a simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of
-a-a space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A,
-a-a it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values
-a-a of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B.
-a-a . . .
-a-a Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
-a-a let it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, >>> -a-a and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC# A.
-a-a-a In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reAtA = trC#A reAtB.
-a-a "
This equation can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
The transit time for the ray to go from A to B or from B to A is
"delay" = (t'A-tA)/2
In words:
If the clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent,
then the clock at B is synchronous with the clock at A if it
shows t plus the transit time (delay) when the pulse is received.
Sure, that's correct!
Of course it is.
So why do you keep insisting it is wrong?
I have actually written that several times already, but you have
always rejected my demand.
Your 'demand' which I have 'rejected' was that Einstein's
definition above was wrong because he had ignored the 'delay'.
But the question wasn't, what I think or you, but what Einstein wrote
in his paper.
And there ain't no such thing as 'delay'.
This is too stupid!
Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light
to go from A to B, or from B to A.
Einstein's definition of simultaneity in Einstein's words:
"We establish by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light
-ato travel from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel
-afrom B to A."
Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB."
Expressed in words:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-athe transit time from A to B is equal to the transit time
-afrom B to A."
The equation above can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
So Einstein's definition can be written:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-a-a tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2"
Le 18/08/2025 |a 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger:
Case closed!
LOL.
J'aurais quand m|-me eu affaire |a de biens belles bandes de cr|-tins sur usenet, mais nous tournons en rond.
Sinon je rappelle que :
"It is not possible to synchronize two distant watches because they will never share the same notion of universal simultaneity.
The plane of absolute present time does not exist.
This notion, however deeply rooted in our minds it may be, does not
exist. Our universe is not made like that; it is made according to the principle of universal anisochrony. "The time here cannot absolutely correspond with the time there." The plane of absolute present time is a fantasy.
Let's take the example of a mountain. Its altitude is 3,645 meters. Much lower down, in the valley, we have an altitude of 1,250 meters. The two points can NEVER be measured at the same height.
Let's say I set my altimeter to 3,645 meters. I'll have the same height
as the other altimeter by this subterfuge, but as soon as I go up there,
my altimeter will no longer agree with the other one. Their agreement in principle was artificial; the two points were not at the same height, period.
This is what physics theorists seem to fail to understand when
discussing the nature of time. We CANNOT AGREE the notions of local simultaneity. It may be that an event in B occurs at the same time as an event in A for A. But this will not be simultaneous for B.
It is quite incredible that physicists were able to understand the
notion of relativity of chronotropy by a change of reference frame, but without understanding that of anisochrony by a simple change of position."
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 04:16 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 18/08/2025 |a 20:55, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 18.08.2025 09:36, skrev Thomas Heger:
Case closed!
LOL.
J'aurais quand m|-me eu affaire |a de biens belles bandes de cr|-tins sur >> usenet, mais nous tournons en rond.
Sinon je rappelle que :
"It is not possible to synchronize two distant watches because they will
never share the same notion of universal simultaneity.
The plane of absolute present time does not exist.
This notion, however deeply rooted in our minds it may be, does not
exist. Our universe is not made like that; it is made according to the
principle of universal anisochrony. "The time here cannot absolutely
correspond with the time there." The plane of absolute present time is a
fantasy.
Let's take the example of a mountain. Its altitude is 3,645 meters. Much
lower down, in the valley, we have an altitude of 1,250 meters. The two
points can NEVER be measured at the same height.
Let's say I set my altimeter to 3,645 meters. I'll have the same height
as the other altimeter by this subterfuge, but as soon as I go up there,
my altimeter will no longer agree with the other one. Their agreement in
principle was artificial; the two points were not at the same height,
period.
This is what physics theorists seem to fail to understand when
discussing the nature of time. We CANNOT AGREE the notions of local
simultaneity. It may be that an event in B occurs at the same time as an
event in A for A. But this will not be simultaneous for B.
It is quite incredible that physicists were able to understand the
notion of relativity of chronotropy by a change of reference frame, but
without understanding that of anisochrony by a simple change of position."
I agree to the idea of local time, but would not reject a 'plane of simultaneity'.
In relativity lingo a 'plane of simultaneity' is called 'spacelike'.
That is technically a hyperplane (commonly called 'present').
It could be defined by a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity.
This hyperplane is comoving with the observer and connects a realm,
which actually invisible, though real.
TH
Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
...
Am Mittwoch000013, 13.08.2025 um 10:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
But Einstein's method to synchronize clocks was actually
also wrong.
This caan be seen, if you compare Einstein's text
('On the electrodynamics of moving bodies') and what
Einstein wrote there about this method in comparison
to how that should actually be done.
I wrote about how the method should be (but wasn't),
that you need to measure the delay for the 'round trip',
devide that by two and use the result as correction of
the own time value.
But Einstein used an entirely different method and didn't even
mention delay.
Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light
to go from A to B, or from B to A.
Einstein's definition of simultaneity in Einstein's words:
"We establish by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light
-a-ato travel from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel
-a-afrom B to A."
Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB."
Expressed in words:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-athe transit time from A to B is equal to the transit time
-a-afrom B to A."
The equation above can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
So Einstein's definition can be written:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2"
Expressed in words:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
the clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent, and
the clock at B shows t plus the transit time when the ray
is received."
But where is this equation in Einstein's paper??
It is not sufficiant, that the equation could be derived with ease, but
that the author derived this equation.
And Einstein didn't. YOU did!
Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
(tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB)
Le 19/08/2025 |a 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
-a (tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB)
This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of
information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given observer.
It is not.
R.H.
The equation above can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
So Einstein's definition can be written:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-a-a tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2"
Expressed in words:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-athe clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent, and
-athe clock at B shows t plus the transit time-a when the ray
-ais received."
Is the 'delay' mentioned?
Is this wrong?
But where is this equation in Einstein's paper??
-a(tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB) rei (tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2)
It is not sufficiant, that the equation could be derived with ease,
but that the author derived this equation.
And Einstein didn't. YOU did!
And that's why Einstein didn't even menton delay,
and his defition of sumultaneity is wrong? :-D
Le 19/08/2025 |a 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
-a (tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB)
This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of
information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given observer.
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 19/08/2025 |a 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
-a (tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB)
This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of
information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given observer.
This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the middle.
Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point.
It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper.
I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write
subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA.
But otherwise the equation is a correct quote.
(I had tripple checked this right now).
TH
Le 20/08/2025 |a 10:16, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 19/08/2025 |a 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the middle.
Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
-a (tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB)
This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of
information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given observer. >>
Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point.
It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper.
I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write
subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA.
But otherwise the equation is a correct quote.
(I had tripple checked this right now).
TH
Le probl|?me n'est pas de savoir si l'|-quation est bonne ou pas.
Le probl|?me, c'est qu'apr|?s avoir lu Poincar|-, c'est particuli|?rement cr|-tin.
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:18, Richard Hachel-a a |-crit :
Le 20/08/2025 |a 10:16, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 19/08/2025 |a 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
-a (tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB)
This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of
information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given
observer.
This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the
middle.
Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point.
It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper.
I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write
subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA.
But otherwise the equation is a correct quote.
(I had tripple checked this right now).
TH
Le probl|?me n'est pas de savoir si l'|-quation est bonne ou pas.
Le probl|?me, c'est qu'apr|?s avoir lu Poincar|-, c'est particuli|?rement >> cr|-tin.
Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincar|- wrote is 100% equivalent to
what Einstein wrote.
Hence the name: "Einstein-Poincar|- synchronization method".
https://noedge.net/e/
On 8/20/2025 3:27 PM, Python wrote:
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:18, Richard Hachel-a a |-crit :
Le 20/08/2025 |a 10:16, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 19/08/2025 |a 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
-a (tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB)
This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of
information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given
observer.
This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the
middle.
Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point.
It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper.
I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write
subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA.
But otherwise the equation is a correct quote.
(I had tripple checked this right now).
TH
Le probl|?me n'est pas de savoir si l'|-quation est bonne ou pas.
Le probl|?me, c'est qu'apr|?s avoir lu Poincar|-, c'est particuli|?rement >>> cr|-tin.
Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincar|- wrote is 100% equivalent to
what Einstein wrote.
Lie as much as you wish
Poincare had enough wit to understand
what a nonsense rejecting Euclidean
geometry would be and wrote it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even
if not clearly enough for you).
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:18, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
Le probl|?me n'est pas de savoir si l'|-quation est bonne ou pas.
Le probl|?me, c'est qu'apr|?s avoir lu Poincar|-, c'est particuli|?rement >> cr|-tin.
Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincar|- wrote is 100% equivalent to what Einstein wrote.
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/20/2025 3:27 PM, Python wrote:
what Einstein wrote.
Lie as much as you wish
I do have Poincar|-'s writing right in front of me.
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :No, poor stinker, he wasn't,
On 8/20/2025 3:27 PM, Python wrote:
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:18, Richard Hachel-a a |-crit :
Le 20/08/2025 |a 10:16, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 19/08/2025 |a 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
-a (tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB)
This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of
information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given
observer.
This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the
middle.
Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point.
It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper.
I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write
subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA.
But otherwise the equation is a correct quote.
(I had tripple checked this right now).
TH
Le probl|?me n'est pas de savoir si l'|-quation est bonne ou pas.
Le probl|?me, c'est qu'apr|?s avoir lu Poincar|-, c'est
particuli|?rement cr|-tin.
Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincar|- wrote is 100% equivalent to
what Einstein wrote.
Lie as much as you wish
I do have Poincar|-'s writing right in front of me.
Poincare had enough wit to understand
what a nonsense rejecting Euclidean
geometry would be and wrote it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even
if not clearly enough for you).
He didn't write it would be "nonsense", and he was wrong for once,
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:27, Python a |-crit :
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:18, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
Le probl|?me n'est pas de savoir si l'|-quation est bonne ou pas.
Le probl|?me, c'est qu'apr|?s avoir lu Poincar|-, c'est particuli|?rement >>> cr|-tin.
Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincar|- wrote is 100% equivalent to what >> Einstein wrote.
Je me contrefous bien pas mal de ce que ce cr|-tin
a |-crit, et ce qu'il fallait |-crire, je pr|-f|?re l'|-crire moi-m|-me, car c'est beaucoup moins con.
Il a l'air fin, |a c||t|- de moi, ton guignol avec son |-quation de bouffon tB-tA=t'A-tB.
Attends, je r|-ve, l|a...
Cela veut dire qu'Einstein trouve que les montres sont synchronis|-es si elles
battent |a la m|-me vitesse? ? ?
C'est |oa que tu veux dire? ? ?
Parce que l'|-quation dite ici dessus, c'est |oa.
Mais j'en ai rien |a foutre de |oa! Je le sais implicitement, |oa! N'importe quel abruti (m|-me Vicnent t'as qu'|a voir) le sait implicitement!
Mais c'est PAS DU TOUT mon propos. J'en parle m|-me pas de |oa. C'est tellement
|-vident que je n'en parle pas.
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:51, Python a |-crit :
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/20/2025 3:27 PM, Python wrote:
Poincar|- wrote is 100% equivalent to
what Einstein wrote.
Lie as much as you wish
I do have Poincar|-'s writing right in front of me.
You are a liar.
On 8/20/2025 3:51 PM, Python wrote:
He didn't write it would be "nonsense", and he was wrong for once,No, poor stinker, he wasn't,
you are.
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:56, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
I do have Poincar|-'s writing right in front of me.
You are a liar.
I already showed you the photographs of the pages. Do you want me to repost them
?
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light
to go from A to B, or from B to A.
Einstein's definition of simultaneity in Einstein's words:
"We establish by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light
to travel from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel
from B to A."
Is the 'delay' mentioned?
Is this wrong?
Einstein's definition of simultaneity with math:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB."
Expressed in words:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
the transit time from A to B is equal to the transit time
from B to A."
Is the 'delay' mentioned?
Is this wrong?
The equation above can be written: tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2
So Einstein's definition can be written:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2"
Expressed in words:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
the clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent, and
the clock at B shows t plus the transit time when the ray
is received."
Is the 'delay' mentioned?
No, the word 'delay' didn't occur in Einstein's paper.
Is this wrong?
Sure, it should have been mentioned.
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
So Einstein's definition can be written:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-a-a-a tB = tA + (t'A-tA)/2"
Expressed in words:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
-athe clock at A shows t when a ray of light is sent, and the clock
-aat B shows t plus the transit time-a when the ray is received."
Is the 'delay' mentioned?
No, the word 'delay' didn't occur in Einstein's paper.
Is this wrong?
Sure, it should have been mentioned.
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:18, Richard Hachel-a a |-crit :
Le 20/08/2025 |a 10:16, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 22:54 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 19/08/2025 |a 19:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 19.08.2025 07:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
-a (tB reAtA = trC#A reA tB)
This equation is false and could only be true if the speed of
information were isotropic in all directions relative to a given
observer.
This equation occurs in Einstein's text on page 3, roughly in the
middle.
Whether it is correct or not, that wasn't my point.
It's a correct quote, however, and stemed from Einstein's paper.
I personally prefer a small difference, because usually I write
subscripts as e.g. t_A and not as tA.
But otherwise the equation is a correct quote.
(I had tripple checked this right now).
TH
Le probl|?me n'est pas de savoir si l'|-quation est bonne ou pas.
Le probl|?me, c'est qu'apr|?s avoir lu Poincar|-, c'est particuli|?rement >> cr|-tin.
Ze problem, Richard, is zat what Poincar|- wrote is 100% equivalent to
what Einstein wrote.
Hence the name: "Einstein-Poincar|- synchronization method".
https://noedge.net/e/
Den 20.08.2025 10:15, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light
to go from A to B, or from B to A.
Do you think that pretending not to understand that
the 'transit time' is the same as your 'delay' can
make it correct that the your 'delay' is never mentioned? :-D
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:58, Python a |-crit :
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:56, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
I do have Poincar|-'s writing right in front of me.
You are a liar.
I already showed you the photographs of the pages. Do you want me to repost them
?
Yes.
Am Mittwoch000020, 20.08.2025 um 19:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 20.08.2025 10:15, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light
to go from A to B, or from B to A.
Do you think that pretending not to understand that
the 'transit time' is the same as your 'delay' can
make it correct that the your 'delay' is never mentioned? :-D
But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither!
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:59, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:58, Python a |-crit :
Le 20/08/2025 |a 15:56, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
I do have Poincar|-'s writing right in front of me.
You are a liar.
I already showed you the photographs of the pages. Do you want me to repost them
?
Yes.
Here you are: https://noedge.net/Poincar%C3%A9/
Herr Thomas Heger, while waiting for the call for his train departure in some
German station, then it is announced that the train will depart at 12:30 instead
of 12:00.
Arrived at destination, Thomas went to Deutsche Bahn deck to complain: "You didn't announce that my train would be delayed!"
- But it was announced that your train will depart at 12:30 instead of 12:00 !
- Right, but you didn't mention the word "delay"! I'm suing you!
Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light
to go from A to B, or from B to A.
But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither!
But if you want to treat Einstein's paper properly, you need to search
for what Einstein had actually written and must ignore, what you think
he should have written.
And after very careful search I haven't found, what you wrote the text
would contain.
So, you should take the possibility into consideration, that your guess about the text was wrong.
Den 21.08.2025 08:39, skrev Thomas Heger:
But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither!
Quite right.
Einstein never mentioned 'transit time' in his paper which was written
in German. https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamik.pdf
Einstein wrote:
"die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"
and: "der "Zeit", welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen."
Translated to English:
"the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel from A to B"
and: "the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from B to A.
Den 21.08.2025 08:39, skrev Thomas Heger:
The two clocks are synchronous if the transit time of light
is the same in both direction.
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
"the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel from A to B"
and: "the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from B to A.
not true, it reveals the imbecile Einstine didnt know what propagation delay is.
Le 21/08/2025 |a 08:35, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000020, 20.08.2025 um 19:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 20.08.2025 10:15, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light
to go from A to B, or from B to A.
Do you think that pretending not to understand that
the 'transit time' is the same as your 'delay' can
make it correct that the your 'delay' is never mentioned? :-D
But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither!
If you cannot spot that when t_A, t_B and t'_A are defined as such :
"Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY t_A from A towards B, let it at the rCLB timerCY t_B be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY $t'_A."
And then that when t_B - t_A, t'_A - t_B and t'_A - t_A (all being subtractions of times) are mentioned they all are (on some conditions
that Einstein specified) TRANSIT TIME i.e. delay then you definitely are
not part of the intended audience of this article.
Your interpretation of the text, which has absolutely no ground in the
paper itself, is even ruled out at the very beginning of this section:
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined byI interpreted Einstein's word, as if he wanted to take the actually
an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co- ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands
with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching
him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage
that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the
watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought."
Einstein EXPLICITLY rejects the interpretation you pulled out of nowhere.
Herr Thomas Heger, while waiting for the call for his train departure in some German station, then it is announced that the train will depart at 12:30 instead of 12:00.
Arrived at destination, Thomas went to Deutsche Bahn deck to complain:
"You didn't announce that my train would be delayed!"
- But it was announced that your train will depart at 12:30 instead of
12:00 !
- Right, but you didn't mention the word "delay"! I'm suing you!
Den 21.08.2025 08:39, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light
to go from A to B, or from B to A.
But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither!
Quite right.
Einstein never mentioned 'transit time' in his paper
which was written in German.
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamik.pdf
Einstein wrote:
"die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"
and:
"der "Zeit", welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen."
Translated to English:
"the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel from A to B"
and:
"the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from B to A.
Is your 'delay' anything different from: "die Zeit, welche
das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"?
In that case, please explain what 'delay' means.
Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 15:37 schrieb Python:
Herr Thomas Heger, while waiting for the call for his train departure inWell, we were still talking about a certain text of some fame, which has
some German station, then it is announced that the train will depart at
12:30 instead of 12:00.
Arrived at destination, Thomas went to Deutsche Bahn deck to complain:
"You didn't announce that my train would be delayed!"
- But it was announced that your train will depart at 12:30 instead of
12:00 !
- Right, but you didn't mention the word "delay"! I'm suing you!
the title 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
Now you apparently want to say, that Einstein used other means to
express the meant delay in his paper.
Well,the delay is:
delay=(t'_A - t_A)/2
Were exactly have you found that in this article?
Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 13:48 schrieb Python:
Le 21/08/2025 |a 08:35, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000020, 20.08.2025 um 19:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 20.08.2025 10:15, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000019, 19.08.2025 um 19:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 20:56 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Your 'delay' is obviously the transit time for the light
to go from A to B, or from B to A.
Do you think that pretending not to understand that
the 'transit time' is the same as your 'delay' can
make it correct that the your 'delay' is never mentioned? :-D
But 'transit time' wasn't mentioned neither!
If you cannot spot that when t_A, t_B and t'_A are defined as such :
"Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY t_A from A towards B, let it >> at the rCLB timerCY t_B be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive >> again at A at the rCLA timerCY $t'_A."
And then that when t_B - t_A, t'_A - t_B and t'_A - t_A (all being
subtractions of times) are mentioned they all are (on some conditions
that Einstein specified) TRANSIT TIME i.e. delay then you definitely are
not part of the intended audience of this article.
No, because Einstein used the symbol 't' for 'points in time', which
were measured in system K as 'A-time'.
The remote system in relative motion had also a local time, but which
had a different symbol 'tau'.
Now it is very important, to keep track of the frames of reference,
which were addressed by Einstein's variables.
We have two coordinate systems (K and k) and two different symbols for
time coordinates (t and tau).
Einstein used the term 'time' not as intervals, but meant 'points in time'.
This was also wrong, of course, because time is always an interval and absolute points in time make no sense.
But Einstein meant actually 'points in time' with t.
Therefore, you were wrong, because those t in "t_B - t_A, t'_A - t_B and t'_A - t_A" were actually not all 'subtractions of times'.
Einstein meant points in time.
Duration was therefore a difference between t'_A and t_A (for instance).
BUT (VERY IMPORTANT!) all of these t were based and measured with
'A-time' and by the observer in A.
This made t_B in measures of 'B-time' irrelevant.
The remote clock at B should be turned to 'A-time' anyhow (what was
regarded as 'synchronization').
But to do this, we would need to tell an observer at point B the value
of t_B, to which he had to set the local clock at the time of arrival of
the signal.
This could be done, if the observer at point A measures the delay, adds
the value to the local time in A, sends the result encoded to the remote station, where the local observer there turns the clock at point B accordingly.
Your interpretation of the text, which has absolutely no ground in the
paper itself, is even ruled out at the very beginning of this section:
Sure, but that wasn't 'interpretation of the text'.
Instead I had created the correct method for synchronization myself and compared Einstein's method with that.
And, sure, there was a difference.
"We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined byI interpreted Einstein's word, as if he wanted to take the actually
an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-
ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands
with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching
him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage
that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the
watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more
practical determination along the following line of thought."
Einstein EXPLICITLY rejects the interpretation you pulled out of nowhere.
reading of the remote clock as remote time.
This follows from his procedure, where he 'reads' the remote clock (apparently by means of a telescope or similar).
This time value, which he reads from the remote clock, was assumed to be depending upon the distance between the observer and the clock.
But that would require, that Einstein didn't want to correct the
received signal of the error caused by the transit delay.
This was in fact my interpretation of Einstein's text.
If you have any other, than, please, let me know.
Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 21:11 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Einstein wrote:
"die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"
Translated to English:
"the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel from A to B"
Is your 'delay' anything different from: "die Zeit, welche
das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"?
In that case, please explain what 'delay' means.
The problem was, that Einstein equated these transit times (from A to B
and from B to A), but didn't take the 'one way delay' into consideration.
Den 22.08.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 21:11 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Einstein wrote:
"die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"
Translated to English:
"the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel from A to B"
Is your 'delay' anything different from: "die Zeit, welche
das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"?
In that case, please explain what 'delay' means.
The problem was, that Einstein equated these transit times (from A to
B and from B to A), but didn't take the 'one way delay' into
consideration.
You didn't answer the question:
Is your 'one way delay' different from: "die Zeit, welche
das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" ?
Am Freitag000022, 22.08.2025 um 19:59 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 22.08.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 21:11 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Einstein wrote:
"die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"
Translated to English:
"the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel from A to B"
Is your 'delay' anything different from: "die Zeit, welche
das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"?
In that case, please explain what 'delay' means.
The problem was, that Einstein equated these transit times (from A to
B and from B to A), but didn't take the 'one way delay' into
consideration.
You didn't answer the question:
sure I did.
I was missing a statement about the transit delay from A to B.
Is your 'one way delay' different from: "die Zeit, welche
das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" ?
(the German part means:
the time which light needs to get from A to B)
Sure, that would have been delay.
You have given the exact quote about what Einstein had actually written about this delay.
But: where is 'delay'?
I mean: how long is that time?
It was, of course, easy to calculate and would be
delay =(t'_A - t_A)/2
This delay should have been used to correct the apparent time at the
remote clock.
But Einstein didn't do that and made absolutely no attempts to do that,
nor even mentioned the requirement or the word 'delay' itself.
Den 24.08.2025 08:05, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Freitag000022, 22.08.2025 um 19:59 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 22.08.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 21:11 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Einstein wrote:
"die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"
Translated to English:
"the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel from A to B"
Is your 'delay' anything different from: "die Zeit, welche
das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"?
In that case, please explain what 'delay' means.
The problem was, that Einstein equated these transit times (from A
to B and from B to A), but didn't take the 'one way delay' into
consideration.
You didn't answer the question:
sure I did.
I was missing a statement about the transit delay from A to B.
Is your 'one way delay' different from: "die Zeit, welche
das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" ?
(the German part means:
the time which light needs to get from A to B)
Sure, that would have been delay.
You have given the exact quote about what Einstein had actually
written about this delay.
But: where is 'delay'?
'delay' is a wrong word used on a transits time.
Webster: delay (noun)
a: the act of postponing, hindering, or causing something
-a-a to occur more slowly than normal : the state of being delayed
b: an instance of being delayed
I mean: how long is that time?
Good grief!
You have been told umpteen time!
Einstein:
"Es gehe n|nmlich ein Lichtstrahl zur "A-Zeit" tA von A nach B ab,
-awerde zur "B-Zeit" tB in B gegen A zu reflektiert und gelange zur
-a"A-Zeit" t'A nach A zur|+ck. Die beiden Uhren laufen definitionsgem|n|f
-asynchron, wenn tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB "
Translated to English:
"Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
-alet it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
-aand arrive-a again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC#A. In accordance with
-adefinition the two clocks are synchronous if tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB "
The 'one way delay' from A to B = tB reA tA
The 'one way delay' from B to A = trC#A reA tB
If tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB, then the two clocks are synchronous
If the 'one way delay', measured with the clocks at A and B,
is the same in both direction, then the clocks at A and B
are synchronous.
Still not got it?
It was, of course, easy to calculate and would be
delay =(t'_A - t_A)/2
This delay should have been used to correct the apparent time at the
remote clock.
Good grief! The 'remote clock' again. Do you never learn?
Einstein:
"Befindet sich in Punkte A des Raumes eine Uhr, so kann ein in A
-abefindlicher Beobachter die Ereignisse in der unmittelbaren
-aUmgebung von A zeitlich werten durch Aufsuchen der mit diesen
-aEreignissen gleichseitigen Uhrsteigerstellungen.
-aBefindet sich in Punkte B des Raumes eine Uhr - wir wollen
-ahinzuf|+gen, "eine Uhr von genau derselben Beschaffenheit wie
-adie in A befindliche" - so ist auch eine zeitliche Wertung
-ader Ereignisse in der unmittelbaren Umgebung von B durch
-aeinen in B befindlicher Beobachter m||glich."
Translated to Enlish:
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A
-acan determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity
-aof A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous
-awith these events. If there is at the point B of space another
-aclock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible
-afor an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
-athe immediate neighbourhood of B."
There is no "apparent time" at the "remote clock" to correct.
The observer at B reads the clock at B to show tB.
There is nothing "apparent" about tB.
But Einstein didn't do that and made absolutely no attempts to do
that, nor even mentioned the requirement or the word 'delay' itself.
'delay' is not the correct word for travel time or transit time.
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is irrelevant
and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
If you want to synchronise two different clocks, you need to adjust at
least one clock to a different value.
But what position would you chose and which clock would you like to adjust?
Usually you tend to adjust the remote clock and keep your own clock as
it is.
The other way round would also be possible, but would be usually much
less pleasant.
It is unknown, anyhow, if A could not read out the clock at B.
B could read ||ut his clock, of course. But how could A make use of B's knowledge?
Still not got it?
No, still not...
To me it sounds like nonsense.
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is irrelevant
and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is
actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read on
the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent to B?
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 24.08.2025 08:05, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Freitag000022, 22.08.2025 um 19:59 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 22.08.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Donnerstag000021, 21.08.2025 um 21:11 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Einstein wrote:
"die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" >>>>>>
Translated to English:
"the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel from A to B"
Is your 'delay' anything different from: "die Zeit, welche
das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen"?
In that case, please explain what 'delay' means.
The problem was, that Einstein equated these transit times (from A
to B and from B to A), but didn't take the 'one way delay' into
consideration.
You didn't answer the question:
sure I did.
I was missing a statement about the transit delay from A to B.
Is your 'one way delay' different from: "die Zeit, welche
das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen" ?
(the German part means:
the time which light needs to get from A to B)
Sure, that would have been delay.
You have given the exact quote about what Einstein had actually
written about this delay.
But: where is 'delay'?
'delay' is a wrong word used on a transits time.
Webster: delay (noun)
a: the act of postponing, hindering, or causing something
-a-a-a to occur more slowly than normal : the state of being delayed
b: an instance of being delayed
I mean: how long is that time?
Good grief!
You have been told umpteen time!
Einstein:
"Es gehe n|nmlich ein Lichtstrahl zur "A-Zeit" tA von A nach B ab,
-a-awerde zur "B-Zeit" tB in B gegen A zu reflektiert und gelange zur
-a-a"A-Zeit" t'A nach A zur|+ck. Die beiden Uhren laufen definitionsgem|n|f >> -a-asynchron, wenn tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB "
Translated to English:
"Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
-a-alet it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, >> -a-aand arrive-a again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC#A. In accordance with
-a-adefinition the two clocks are synchronous if tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB " >>
The 'one way delay' from A to B = tB reA tA
NO!!
The 'one way delay' is not easy to measure.
You can measure only two way delay at a certain spot ('A' for instance).
This delay would have been - say- 2 seconds for a signal from Earth to
the Moon and back.
Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is irrelevant
and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
The 'one way delay' from B to A = trC#A reA tB
If tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB, then the two clocks are synchronous
If the 'one way delay', measured with the clocks at A and B,
is the same in both direction, then the clocks at A and B
are synchronous.
Supposed there is a man on the Mood, he could do the same from the
postion 'B' ('Moon station') and come to a certain value for the delay
in measures of 'B-time'.
But how could he possibly know, that this value is the same as the value measured upon planet Earth?
But supposed he can do that somehow, how would this fact synchronise his clock with that on Earth?
Still not got it?
No, still not...
To me it sounds like nonsense.
It was, of course, easy to calculate and would be
delay =(t'_A - t_A)/2
This delay should have been used to correct the apparent time at the
remote clock.
Good grief! The 'remote clock' again. Do you never learn?
Einstein:
"Befindet sich in Punkte A des Raumes eine Uhr, so kann ein in A
-a-abefindlicher Beobachter die Ereignisse in der unmittelbaren
-a-aUmgebung von A zeitlich werten durch Aufsuchen der mit diesen
-a-aEreignissen gleichseitigen Uhrsteigerstellungen.
-a-aBefindet sich in Punkte B des Raumes eine Uhr - wir wollen
-a-ahinzuf|+gen, "eine Uhr von genau derselben Beschaffenheit wie
-a-adie in A befindliche" - so ist auch eine zeitliche Wertung
-a-ader Ereignisse in der unmittelbaren Umgebung von B durch
-a-aeinen in B befindlicher Beobachter m||glich."
Translated to Enlish:
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A
-a-acan determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity
-a-aof A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous
-a-awith these events. If there is at the point B of space another
-a-aclock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible
-a-afor an observer at B to determine the time values of events in
-a-athe immediate neighbourhood of B."
There is no "apparent time" at the "remote clock" to correct.
If you want to synchronise two different clocks, you need to adjust at
least one clock to a different value.
In case of a wrist watch you would pull out the crown a little bit and
turn the hands to a different position.
But what position would you chose and which clock would you like to adjust?
Usually you tend to adjust the remote clock and keep your own clock as
it is.
The other way round would also be possible, but would be usually much
less pleasant.
So, you decide to take your own time and adjust the remote clock accordingly.
To do this, you need to have a clock and a helper at point B.
The helper needs to have a timing signal, which you need to send to him.
Once the signal arrives at the remote station, the helper turns the
remote clock to your timing value.
This timing value had therefore be a part of the signal, which you need
to send to the remote station, hence you need to know, when the signal
will arrive there in measures of your own clock.
The observer at B reads the clock at B to show tB.
There is nothing "apparent" about tB.
The reading of the observer at position 'B' would not help the observer
at point A.
If A wants to synchronise the remote clock at 'B' with the own clock,
the remote time t_B would become irrelevant.
It is unknown, anyhow, if A could not read out the clock at B.
B could read ||ut his clock, of course. But how could A make use of B's knowledge?
But Einstein didn't do that and made absolutely no attempts to do
that, nor even mentioned the requirement or the word 'delay' itself.
'delay' is not the correct word for travel time or transit time.
Ok, possibly. But actually I think, that delay would fit for 'transit
time', because a remaote clock seen through an extremly large telescope would seem to be too late (by the value called 'delay').
TH
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is
actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read on
the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent to B?
Well, poor stinker - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
Am Montag000025, 25.08.2025 um 14:43 schrieb Maciej Wo?niak:
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 a 08:23, Thomas Heger a ocrit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is
actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read on
the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent to B?
Well, poor stinker - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
The problem is the delay!
This is so, because if you send a message like 'the present time after
the beep is 12:00:00 GMT' to a remote station (like e.g. the Moon'),
the signal will arrive there with a certain delay.
This delay would be measurable on either side, but only makes sense, if
one side serves as 'master clock' and the other station tunes their
clocks to signal time plus delay.
To send an information like 'we have now 13:02:05' somewhere wouldn't
make sense.
(supposed t_A =13:02:05)
We could do that, however. But what should an observer somewhere remote
do with such an information?
TH
Are there canals on Mars or is that just...
a mistake of the word "canals" in a foreign country?
Maybe it means... Leave The Gun, Take The Cannoli.
They are looking for cannolies on Mars.
On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 09:47:48 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Are there canals on Mars or is that just...
a mistake of the word "canals" in a foreign country?
Maybe it means... Leave The Gun, Take The Cannoli.
They are looking for cannolies on Mars.
According to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_canals
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was erroneously
believed that there were "canals" on the planet Mars.
They were first described by a guinea wop astronomer Giovanni
Schiaparelli during the opposition of 1877, and attested to by later >observers. Schiaparelli called these canali ("channels"), which was >mis-translated into English as "canals".
The guinea word canale (plural canali) can mean "canal", "channel",
"duct" or "gully".[1]
Leave The Gun, Take The Cannoli.
Now, How many YEARS did scientist believed there were canals on
Mars????
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/martian-canals
Photographic / Photo Evidence of Lines (Canals) on Mars >https://cdn.carleton.edu/uploads/sites/513/2020/08/583353_orig-scaled.jpg?resize=793,1024
Leave The Gun, Take The Cannoli.
So, How is Mars doing today? Anybody find any ancient Pyrmiads?
a coke bottle on the ocean beach...
If a pebble falls from outer space and makes a hole on somebodys
roof....NASA wants a billion dollars to save the world!
i never seen soooo much garbage from the Science community
A Meteorite Tore Through a Georgia HomeAs Roof. It Turns Out the Space
Rock Is Older Than Our Planet
A planetary geologist finds that the meteorite, which fell in June,
came from the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter >https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-meteorite-tore-through-a-georgia-homes-roof-it-turns-out-the-space-rock-is-older-than-our-planet-180987137/
Older than earth, came from between Mars and Jupiter
retards.
This is so, because if you send a message like 'the present time afterthe
beep is 12:00:00 GMT' to a remote station (like e.g. the Moon'), the
signal will arrive there with a certain delay.
This delay would be measurable on either side, but only makes sense, ifclocks
one side serves as 'master clock' and the other station tunes their
to signal time plus delay.
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is irrelevant
and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is
actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read on
the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent to B?
Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
Le 25/08/2025 |a 14:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is
actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read on
the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent to B?
Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded by a clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"? After you're
both wannabee engineers :-)
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 09:55:45 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Montag000025, 25.08.2025 um 14:43 schrieb Maciej Wo?niak:
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is >>>>> actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read on
the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent to B?
Well, poor stinker - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
The problem is the delay!
This is so, because if you send a message like 'the present time after
the beep is 12:00:00 GMT' to a remote station (like e.g. the Moon'),
the signal will arrive there with a certain delay.
This delay would be measurable on either side, but only makes sense, if
one side serves as 'master clock' and the other station tunes their
clocks to signal time plus delay.
To send an information like 'we have now 13:02:05' somewhere wouldn't
make sense.
(supposed t_A =13:02:05)
We could do that, however. But what should an observer somewhere remote
do with such an information?
TH
Delay????
If the earth slows down it's spinning..is that delay?
Or it speeds up, is that delay?no
I don't understand How you can measure Time using earth's spinning if
the
earth slows down and speeds up. The Time, earth's time is never
correct.
Is there a clock that goes back a second or forward a second accordingThis addresses also an important topic, but not the problem I had in
to earth's time????
It's slowing down, Sir.
It's speeding up sir!
What time is it?
i think i broke my watch...
Le 25/08/2025 |a 14:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is
actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read on
the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent to B?
Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here. Of course
it leads to a lot of approximations, that actually make sense : gravity
is low and the Moon is not moving that fast wrt Earth.
It is not my fault if he fails to grasp that what Einstein described is
more suited to clocks a few centimeters or meters away in a real lab experiment. As I've shown you with a paper from CERN.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded by a clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"? After you're
both wannabee engineers :-)
The idea of Einstein was, that reading of a remote clock by e.g. a large telescope would be the time of the remote clock.
(Einstein "Time is what clocks say")
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 00:39 schrieb Python:
Le 25/08/2025 a 14:43, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 a 08:23, Thomas Heger a ocrit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is >>>>> actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read on >>>> the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent to B?
Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here. Of course
it leads to a lot of approximations, that actually make sense : gravity
is low and the Moon is not moving that fast wrt Earth.
It is not my fault if he fails to grasp that what Einstein described is
more suited to clocks a few centimeters or meters away in a real lab
experiment. As I've shown you with a paper from CERN.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded by a
clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"? After you're
both wannabee engineers :-)
The idea of Einstein was, that reading of a remote clock by e.g. a large >telescope would be the time of the remote clock.
(Einstein "Time is what clocks say")
I meant, that this is not the case, because 'to see' requires light and
that time to travel.
Therefore, you need to add the delay to the value you read from the
remote clock.
With Moon this is rather simple, because it is roughly one second delay.
But 'to see' also would require extremely large magnification of the >telescope or an extremely large clock on the Moon.
TH
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 00:39 schrieb Python:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 14:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is >>>>> actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read on >>>> the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent to B?
Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here. Of course
it leads to a lot of approximations, that actually make sense : gravity
is low and the Moon is not moving that fast wrt Earth.
It is not my fault if he fails to grasp that what Einstein described is
more suited to clocks a few centimeters or meters away in a real lab
experiment. As I've shown you with a paper from CERN.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded by a
clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"? After you're
both wannabee engineers :-)
The idea of Einstein was, that reading of a remote clock by e.g. a large telescope would be the time of the remote clock.
(Einstein "Time is what clocks say")
I meant, that this is not the case, because 'to see' requires light and
that time to travel.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 10:47:01 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 00:39 schrieb Python:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 14:43, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is >>>>>> actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read on >>>>> the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent to B? >>>>
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here. Of course
it leads to a lot of approximations, that actually make sense : gravity
is low and the Moon is not moving that fast wrt Earth.
It is not my fault if he fails to grasp that what Einstein described is
more suited to clocks a few centimeters or meters away in a real lab
experiment. As I've shown you with a paper from CERN.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded by a
clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"? After you're
both wannabee engineers :-)
The idea of Einstein was, that reading of a remote clock by e.g. a large
telescope would be the time of the remote clock.
(Einstein "Time is what clocks say")
I meant, that this is not the case, because 'to see' requires light and
that time to travel.
Therefore, you need to add the delay to the value you read from the
remote clock.
With Moon this is rather simple, because it is roughly one second delay.
But 'to see' also would require extremely large magnification of the
telescope or an extremely large clock on the Moon.
TH
i heard that the Germans are superior to the Irish, ...is that true?
Le 27/08/2025 |a 10:43, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 00:39 schrieb Python:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 14:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference >>>>>> is actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read
on the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent
to B?
Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here. Of
course it leads to a lot of approximations, that actually make
sense : gravity is low and the Moon is not moving that fast wrt Earth.
It is not my fault if he fails to grasp that what Einstein described
is more suited to clocks a few centimeters or meters away in a real
lab experiment. As I've shown you with a paper from CERN.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded by
a clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"? After
you're both wannabee engineers :-)
The idea of Einstein was, that reading of a remote clock by e.g. a
large telescope would be the time of the remote clock.
(Einstein "Time is what clocks say")
I meant, that this is not the case, because 'to see' requires light
and that time to travel.
" If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these
events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. "
the key parts you missed is "immediate proximity" and "immediate neighbourhood".
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 22:27 schrieb Python:
Le 27/08/2025 |a 10:43, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 00:39 schrieb Python:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 14:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>> ...
Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference >>>>>>> is actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't >>>>>>> extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read >>>>>> on the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent >>>>>> to B?
Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here. Of
course it leads to a lot of approximations, that actually make
sense : gravity is low and the Moon is not moving that fast wrt Earth. >>>>
It is not my fault if he fails to grasp that what Einstein described
is more suited to clocks a few centimeters or meters away in a real
lab experiment. As I've shown you with a paper from CERN.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded by >>>> a clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"? After
you're both wannabee engineers :-)
The idea of Einstein was, that reading of a remote clock by e.g. a
large telescope would be the time of the remote clock.
(Einstein "Time is what clocks say")
I meant, that this is not the case, because 'to see' requires light
and that time to travel.
" If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by
finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these
events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to
determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. " >>
the key parts you missed is "immediate proximity" and "immediate
neighbourhood".
Ok, A watches his clock at A and B his clock at B.
Now we want to synchronise both clocks.
How would you like to do that?
a) We could introduce a third observer at C, which is in the exact
middle between A nd B.
C would tell A to turn the hands of his clocks to the own 'C-time' and
do the same with B, which also had to turn the clock to 'C-time'.
Then A and B would also be in synch.
So far, so good.
BUT: this could only be done for two points (here A and B), not for
three, because three points build a triangle and the mid point of the triangle isn't lying upon one of the edges.
Therefore 'midpoint-time' doesn't work for any other case than two points.
Next try:
b) you turn the hands of the clocks at B to A-time.
That method would work, but isn't symmetric, because the time at point B ('B-time') wouldn't be used at all.
Next try:
c) you turn the hands of the clocks at A to B-time.
This would work, but has the same disadvantages as the previous one.
NOw you have three bad options and have to chose one.
I took option b) from above and would synchronise the clock in point B
to 'A-time'.
That would make some sense and isn't violating too many assumptions
about the real world, which are regarded as valid.
Method a) was apparently what Einstein actually wanted, even if he
didn't say so.
I don't like this method, because it would introduce a third observer
(what is 'unnatural') and that would lead to infinite regress, if the
points A and C are also regarded as endpoint of an interval.
so I took method b) as method, which would make the most sense.
TH
Le 28/08/2025 |a 10:01, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 22:27 schrieb Python:
Le 27/08/2025 |a 10:43, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 00:39 schrieb Python:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 14:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>>> ...
Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The
difference is actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't >>>>>>>> extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value
read on the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to >>>>>>> be sent to B?
Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here. Of
course it leads to a lot of approximations, that actually make
sense : gravity is low and the Moon is not moving that fast wrt Earth. >>>>>
It is not my fault if he fails to grasp that what Einstein
described is more suited to clocks a few centimeters or meters away >>>>> in a real lab experiment. As I've shown you with a paper from CERN.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded
by a clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"?
After you're both wannabee engineers :-)
The idea of Einstein was, that reading of a remote clock by e.g. a
large telescope would be the time of the remote clock.
(Einstein "Time is what clocks say")
I meant, that this is not the case, because 'to see' requires light
and that time to travel.
" If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in
all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
neighbourhood of B. "
the key parts you missed is "immediate proximity" and "immediate
neighbourhood".
Ok, A watches his clock at A and B his clock at B.
Now we want to synchronise both clocks.
How would you like to do that?
a) We could introduce a third observer at C, which is in the exact
middle between-a A nd B.
C would tell A to turn the hands of his clocks to the own 'C-time' and
do the same with B, which also had to turn the clock to 'C-time'.
Then A and B would also be in synch.
So far, so good.
BUT: this could only be done for two points (here A and B), not for
three, because three points build a triangle and the mid point of the
triangle isn't lying upon one of the edges.
Therefore 'midpoint-time' doesn't work for any other case than two
points.
Next try:
b) you turn the hands of the clocks at B to A-time.
That method would work, but isn't symmetric, because the time at point
B ('B-time')-a wouldn't be used at all.
Next try:
c) you turn the hands of the clocks at A to B-time.
This would work, but has the same disadvantages as the previous one.
NOw you have three bad options and have to chose one.
I took option b) from above and would synchronise the clock in point B
to 'A-time'.
That would make some sense and isn't violating too many assumptions
about the real world, which are regarded as valid.
Method a) was apparently what Einstein actually wanted, even if he
didn't say so.
I don't like this method, because it would introduce a third observer
(what is 'unnatural') and that would lead to infinite regress, if the
points A and C are also regarded as endpoint of an interval.
so I took method b) as method, which would make the most sense.
TH
Neither of these method makes sense.
The method described by Einstein makes sense :
Le 27/08/2025 |a 10:43, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 00:39 schrieb Python:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 14:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
...Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is >>>>>> actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't
extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read on >>>>> the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent to B? >>>>
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here. Of course
it leads to a lot of approximations, that actually make sense : gravity >>> is low and the Moon is not moving that fast wrt Earth.
It is not my fault if he fails to grasp that what Einstein described is >>> more suited to clocks a few centimeters or meters away in a real lab
experiment. As I've shown you with a paper from CERN.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded by a >>> clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"? After you're
both wannabee engineers :-)
The idea of Einstein was, that reading of a remote clock by e.g. a large
telescope would be the time of the remote clock.
(Einstein "Time is what clocks say")
I meant, that this is not the case, because 'to see' requires light and
that time to travel.
" If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine
the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for
an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. "
the key parts you missed is "immediate proximity" and "immediate neighbourhood".
Le 28/08/2025 |a 10:01, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 22:27 schrieb Python:
Le 27/08/2025 |a 10:43, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 00:39 schrieb Python:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 14:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>>> ...
Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference >>>>>>>> is actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't >>>>>>>> extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read >>>>>>> on the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent >>>>>>> to B?
Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here. Of
course it leads to a lot of approximations, that actually make
sense : gravity is low and the Moon is not moving that fast wrt Earth. >>>>>
It is not my fault if he fails to grasp that what Einstein described >>>>> is more suited to clocks a few centimeters or meters away in a real >>>>> lab experiment. As I've shown you with a paper from CERN.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded by >>>>> a clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"? After
you're both wannabee engineers :-)
The idea of Einstein was, that reading of a remote clock by e.g. a
large telescope would be the time of the remote clock.
(Einstein "Time is what clocks say")
I meant, that this is not the case, because 'to see' requires light
and that time to travel.
" If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by
finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these
events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to >>> determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. " >>>
the key parts you missed is "immediate proximity" and "immediate
neighbourhood".
Ok, A watches his clock at A and B his clock at B.
Now we want to synchronise both clocks.
How would you like to do that?
a) We could introduce a third observer at C, which is in the exact
middle between A nd B.
C would tell A to turn the hands of his clocks to the own 'C-time' and
do the same with B, which also had to turn the clock to 'C-time'.
Then A and B would also be in synch.
So far, so good.
BUT: this could only be done for two points (here A and B), not for
three, because three points build a triangle and the mid point of the
triangle isn't lying upon one of the edges.
Therefore 'midpoint-time' doesn't work for any other case than two points. >>
Next try:
b) you turn the hands of the clocks at B to A-time.
That method would work, but isn't symmetric, because the time at point B
('B-time') wouldn't be used at all.
Next try:
c) you turn the hands of the clocks at A to B-time.
This would work, but has the same disadvantages as the previous one.
NOw you have three bad options and have to chose one.
I took option b) from above and would synchronise the clock in point B
to 'A-time'.
That would make some sense and isn't violating too many assumptions
about the real world, which are regarded as valid.
Method a) was apparently what Einstein actually wanted, even if he
didn't say so.
I don't like this method, because it would introduce a third observer
(what is 'unnatural') and that would lead to infinite regress, if the
points A and C are also regarded as endpoint of an interval.
so I took method b) as method, which would make the most sense.
TH
Neither of these method makes sense.
The method described by Einstein makes sense :
Communicate t_A and t'_A to B and/or t_B to A.
Decide if either A or B should apply an offset to his clock.
Check if t_B - t_A = t_A' - t_B, if true then there is nothing to do : clocks
are synchronized.
If it's not compute the offset to apply so that it would have been true.
Replay the whole procedure if you wish, you should notice that clocks are now
synchronized.
This can be experimented at : https://noedge.net/e/
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 18:35 schrieb The Starmaker:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 10:47:01 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 00:39 schrieb Python:
Le 25/08/2025 a 14:43, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 a 08:23, Thomas Heger a ocrit :Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>> ...
Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The difference is >>>>>>> actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't >>>>>>> extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value read on >>>>>> the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to be sent to B? >>>>>
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here. Of course >>>> it leads to a lot of approximations, that actually make sense : gravity >>>> is low and the Moon is not moving that fast wrt Earth.
It is not my fault if he fails to grasp that what Einstein described is >>>> more suited to clocks a few centimeters or meters away in a real lab
experiment. As I've shown you with a paper from CERN.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded by a >>>> clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"? After you're >>>> both wannabee engineers :-)
The idea of Einstein was, that reading of a remote clock by e.g. a large >>> telescope would be the time of the remote clock.
(Einstein "Time is what clocks say")
I meant, that this is not the case, because 'to see' requires light and
that time to travel.
Therefore, you need to add the delay to the value you read from the
remote clock.
With Moon this is rather simple, because it is roughly one second delay. >>>
But 'to see' also would require extremely large magnification of the
telescope or an extremely large clock on the Moon.
TH
i heard that the Germans are superior to the Irish, ...is that true?
Certainly not.
This problem starts with the term 'the Germans'.
This is a name and means a set of people.
But how would you define this set?
There are a number of different definitions, which all do not really fit.
One meaning of 'German' is: a person, who speaks German as first language.
(this is, btw, the only definition, which does makes some sense)
another meaning: person belonging to an ethnicity named 'the Germans'.
This definition has two problems. first problem: no such ethnicity
exists. second: the people actually named 'Germans' have a number of
very different roots, which would mean, that they do not stem from the
same ancestors or tribes.
another meaning: German is a person, who is citizen of the Federal
Republic of Germany.
This would make sense, but isn't very satisfying, because numerous
Germans are German after this definition, but stem from Turkey or Syria.
TH
Le 28/08/2025 |a 10:01, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 22:27 schrieb Python:
Le 27/08/2025 |a 10:43, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 00:39 schrieb Python:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 14:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>>> ...
Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is
irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The
difference is actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there isn't >>>>>>>> extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value
read on the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to >>>>>>> be sent to B?
Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here. Of
course it leads to a lot of approximations, that actually make
sense : gravity is low and the Moon is not moving that fast wrt Earth. >>>>>
It is not my fault if he fails to grasp that what Einstein
described is more suited to clocks a few centimeters or meters away >>>>> in a real lab experiment. As I've shown you with a paper from CERN.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded
by a clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"?
After you're both wannabee engineers :-)
The idea of Einstein was, that reading of a remote clock by e.g. a
large telescope would be the time of the remote clock.
(Einstein "Time is what clocks say")
I meant, that this is not the case, because 'to see' requires light
and that time to travel.
" If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in
all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
neighbourhood of B. "
the key parts you missed is "immediate proximity" and "immediate
neighbourhood".
Ok, A watches his clock at A and B his clock at B.
Now we want to synchronise both clocks.
How would you like to do that?
a) We could introduce a third observer at C, which is in the exact
middle between-a A nd B.
C would tell A to turn the hands of his clocks to the own 'C-time' and
do the same with B, which also had to turn the clock to 'C-time'.
Then A and B would also be in synch.
So far, so good.
BUT: this could only be done for two points (here A and B), not for
three, because three points build a triangle and the mid point of the
triangle isn't lying upon one of the edges.
Therefore 'midpoint-time' doesn't work for any other case than two
points.
Next try:
b) you turn the hands of the clocks at B to A-time.
That method would work, but isn't symmetric, because the time at point
B ('B-time')-a wouldn't be used at all.
Next try:
c) you turn the hands of the clocks at A to B-time.
This would work, but has the same disadvantages as the previous one.
NOw you have three bad options and have to chose one.
I took option b) from above and would synchronise the clock in point B
to 'A-time'.
That would make some sense and isn't violating too many assumptions
about the real world, which are regarded as valid.
Method a) was apparently what Einstein actually wanted, even if he
didn't say so.
I don't like this method, because it would introduce a third observer
(what is 'unnatural') and that would lead to infinite regress, if the
points A and C are also regarded as endpoint of an interval.
so I took method b) as method, which would make the most sense.
TH
Neither of these method makes sense.
The method described by Einstein makes sense :
Communicate t_A and t'_A to B and/or t_B to A.Sure, that would make sense. But the only thing close to your statement
Decide if either A or B should apply an offset to his clock.
Check if t_B - t_A = t_A' - t_B, if true then there is nothing to do : clocks are synchronized.
If it's not compute the offset to apply so that it would have been true.
Replay the whole procedure if you wish, you should notice that clocks
are now synchronized.
This can be experimented at : https://noedge.net/e/
Le 28/08/2025 |a 11:47, Python a |-crit :
Le 28/08/2025 |a 10:01, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 22:27 schrieb Python:
Le 27/08/2025 |a 10:43, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Mittwoch000027, 27.08.2025 um 00:39 schrieb Python:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 14:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/25/2025 1:41 PM, Python wrote:
Le 25/08/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000024, 24.08.2025 um 22:49 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>>>>> ...
Half of that is assumed to be the one way delay, but t_B is >>>>>>>>> irrelevant and also unknown on Earth.
The Earth station A can only measure t'_A and t_A. The
difference is actually 'two way delay'.
To measure t_B is difficult from Earth, if the clock there
isn't extremly large.
As an "engineer" couldn't you imagine a way for the t_B value >>>>>>>> read on the Moon to be sent to A? Or for t_A and t'_A values to >>>>>>>> be sent to B?
Well [...] - doesn't the nonsense of your
idiot guru require no gravity and Moon not moving
wrt Earth?
This is Thomas' obsession with the Moon that brings us here. Of
course it leads to a lot of approximations, that actually make
sense : gravity is low and the Moon is not moving that fast wrt
Earth.
It is not my fault if he fails to grasp that what Einstein
described is more suited to clocks a few centimeters or meters
away in a real lab experiment. As I've shown you with a paper from >>>>>> CERN.
BTW, do you think, also, that you cannot transmit a value recorded >>>>>> by a clock on the Moon if this clock is not "extremely large"?
After you're both wannabee engineers :-)
The idea of Einstein was, that reading of a remote clock by e.g. a
large telescope would be the time of the remote clock.
(Einstein "Time is what clocks say")
I meant, that this is not the case, because 'to see' requires light >>>>> and that time to travel.
" If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in
all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
neighbourhood of B. "
the key parts you missed is "immediate proximity" and "immediate
neighbourhood".
Ok, A watches his clock at A and B his clock at B.
Now we want to synchronise both clocks.
How would you like to do that?
a) We could introduce a third observer at C, which is in the exact
middle between-a A nd B.
C would tell A to turn the hands of his clocks to the own 'C-time'
and do the same with B, which also had to turn the clock to 'C-time'.
Then A and B would also be in synch.
So far, so good.
BUT: this could only be done for two points (here A and B), not for
three, because three points build a triangle and the mid point of the
triangle isn't lying upon one of the edges.
Therefore 'midpoint-time' doesn't work for any other case than two
points.
Next try:
b) you turn the hands of the clocks at B to A-time.
That method would work, but isn't symmetric, because the time at
point B ('B-time')-a wouldn't be used at all.
Next try:
c) you turn the hands of the clocks at A to B-time.
This would work, but has the same disadvantages as the previous one.
NOw you have three bad options and have to chose one.
I took option b) from above and would synchronise the clock in point
B to 'A-time'.
That would make some sense and isn't violating too many assumptions
about the real world, which are regarded as valid.
Method a) was apparently what Einstein actually wanted, even if he
didn't say so.
I don't like this method, because it would introduce a third observer
(what is 'unnatural') and that would lead to infinite regress, if the
points A and C are also regarded as endpoint of an interval.
so I took method b) as method, which would make the most sense.
TH
Neither of these method makes sense.
The method described by Einstein makes sense :
Communicate t_A and t'_A to B and/or t_B to A.
Decide if either A or B should apply an offset to his clock.
Check if t_B - t_A = t_A' - t_B, if true then there is nothing to do :
clocks are synchronized.
If it's not compute the offset to apply so that it would have been true.
Replay the whole procedure if you wish, you should notice that clocks
are now synchronized.
This can be experimented at : https://noedge.net/e/
Purpipo ridicule.
Mais quel guignol, celui-l|a!
Cette proc|-dure est d|-bile, compl|-tement hors propos en relativit|- restreinte.
La notion de simultan|-it|- absolue n'existant pas, m|-me dans un simple r|-f|-rentiel inertiel.
Juliette assise sur ce banc, Romeo assis sur cet autre, trente m|?tres
plus loin, ne pourront jamais accorder leurs montres.
Certes, dans notre monde macroscopique, il est midi sur les deux
montres, et cela suffit |a leur confort.
Mais |a l'|-chelle relativiste, les deux montres "voient" l'autre montre retarder de 100 nanosecondes en permanence, leur hyperplan de temps
pr|-sent |-tant diff|-rent.
Si tu ne prends pas en compte cette anisochronie universelle, +o=AB.Et
("Et" |-tant l'|-cart-temps ou anisochronie), toutes tes explications resteront finalement newtoniennes et insuffisantes, et tes travaux scientifiques de vulgarisation vou|-s |a l'|-chec au final.
R.H.
i heard that the Germans are superior to the Irish, ...is that true?
Certainly not.
This problem starts with the term 'the Germans'.
This is a name and means a set of people.
But how would you define this set?
There are a number of different definitions, which all do not really fit.
One meaning of 'German' is: a person, who speaks German as first language. >>
(this is, btw, the only definition, which does makes some sense)
another meaning: person belonging to an ethnicity named 'the Germans'.
This definition has two problems. first problem: no such ethnicity
exists. second: the people actually named 'Germans' have a number of
very different roots, which would mean, that they do not stem from the
same ancestors or tribes.
another meaning: German is a person, who is citizen of the Federal
Republic of Germany.
This would make sense, but isn't very satisfying, because numerous
Germans are German after this definition, but stem from Turkey or Syria.
TH
are you an Aryan?
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 06:38 schrieb The Starmaker:
...
i heard that the Germans are superior to the Irish, ...is that true?
Certainly not.
This problem starts with the term 'the Germans'.
This is a name and means a set of people.
But how would you define this set?
There are a number of different definitions, which all do not really fit. >>>
One meaning of 'German' is: a person, who speaks German as first language. >>>
(this is, btw, the only definition, which does makes some sense)
another meaning: person belonging to an ethnicity named 'the Germans'.
This definition has two problems. first problem: no such ethnicity
exists. second: the people actually named 'Germans' have a number of
very different roots, which would mean, that they do not stem from the
same ancestors or tribes.
another meaning: German is a person, who is citizen of the Federal
Republic of Germany.
This would make sense, but isn't very satisfying, because numerous
Germans are German after this definition, but stem from Turkey or Syria. >>>
TH
are you an Aryan?
Don't know.
Germans do not call themselves 'arians' or similar.
Arians stem actually from Iran, India and Afganistan.--
Possibly these people have lived once in what today is Germany.
But I have absolutely no idea, if any of them belonged to my ancestors.
TH
To do that, you would need to have numerical values and some means to do that calculation.
But how would you transfer e.g. t_B from B to A?
Le 29/08/2025 |a 09:15, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
..
To do that, you would need to have numerical values and some means to
do that calculation.
But how would you transfer e.g. t_B from B to A?
Sigh... By carrier pigeon, snail mail, any mean. It doesn't matter.
Thomas you are definitely NOT a member of the intended audience (i.e.
non demented people) of Einstein's article if you cannot guess this at
first read. Sorry.
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 12:00 schrieb Python:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 09:15, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
..
To do that, you would need to have numerical values and some means to
do that calculation.
But how would you transfer e.g. t_B from B to A?
Sigh... By carrier pigeon, snail mail, any mean. It doesn't matter.
Thomas you are definitely NOT a member of the intended audience (i.e.
non demented people) of Einstein's article if you cannot guess this at
first read. Sorry.
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would require, to measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive at the remote side.
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would require, to measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive at the remote side.
This could be done by pigeons, if you like that, but would require to
know the delay in advance, too.
Otherwise you cannot tell the remote station, to what time you want them
to turn their clock.
Le 29/08/2025 |a 12:20, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 12:00 schrieb Python:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 09:15, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
..
To do that, you would need to have numerical values and some means
to do that calculation.
But how would you transfer e.g. t_B from B to A?
Sigh... By carrier pigeon, snail mail, any mean. It doesn't matter.
Thomas you are definitely NOT a member of the intended audience (i.e.
non demented people) of Einstein's article if you cannot guess this
at first read. Sorry.
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would require, to
measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive at the remote side.
No. Everything will be computed later using *values* of t_A, t'_A and t_B.
The 'hyperplane of the present' is not visible, but real.
It is not visible, because it connects infinitively fast, what light
cannot do.
Light is fast, however, but not that fast.
To deal with this discrepancy, we had to reject the actual visual
impression of something remote and must think, that what we see remote
is a picture, we receive from the past.
It is longer ago the further away, hence the picture is actually
'layered in time'.
Therefore the 'hyperplane of the present' is not what we can see in the night sky.
Both differ from each other to a certain degree and cannot become
reunited at all.
This is so, because an event in say 3 ly distance will be visible in
three years and one in 3 million ly distance in three million years.
Therefore those two events can never be seen together, even if they
happen at the same time.
To say, that an event seen in 3 mio ly is happening now, because we can
see it now, would be a horendous mistake.
Therefore the 'hyperplane of the present' is not visible at all.
Only a very small part can actually be seen in the direct vicinity. Everything else can only be seen with a certain delay.
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 06:38 schrieb The Starmaker:
...
i heard that the Germans are superior to the Irish, ...is that true?
Certainly not.
This problem starts with the term 'the Germans'.
This is a name and means a set of people.
But how would you define this set?
There are a number of different definitions, which all do not really fit. >>>
One meaning of 'German' is: a person, who speaks German as first language. >>>
(this is, btw, the only definition, which does makes some sense)
another meaning: person belonging to an ethnicity named 'the Germans'.
This definition has two problems. first problem: no such ethnicity
exists. second: the people actually named 'Germans' have a number of
very different roots, which would mean, that they do not stem from the
same ancestors or tribes.
another meaning: German is a person, who is citizen of the Federal
Republic of Germany.
This would make sense, but isn't very satisfying, because numerous
Germans are German after this definition, but stem from Turkey or Syria. >>>
TH
are you an Aryan?
Don't know.
Germans do not call themselves 'arians' or similar.
Arians stem actually from Iran, India and Afganistan.
Possibly these people have lived once in what today is Germany.
But I have absolutely no idea, if any of them belonged to my ancestors.
TH
Le 29/08/2025 a 09:32, Thomas Heger a ocrit :
The 'hyperplane of the present' is not visible, but real.
It is not visible, because it connects infinitively fast, what light
cannot do.
Light is fast, however, but not that fast.
To deal with this discrepancy, we had to reject the actual visual
impression of something remote and must think, that what we see remote
is a picture, we receive from the past.
It is longer ago the further away, hence the picture is actually
'layered in time'.
Therefore the 'hyperplane of the present' is not what we can see in the
night sky.
Both differ from each other to a certain degree and cannot become
reunited at all.
This is so, because an event in say 3 ly distance will be visible in
three years and one in 3 million ly distance in three million years.
Therefore those two events can never be seen together, even if they
happen at the same time.
To say, that an event seen in 3 mio ly is happening now, because we can
see it now, would be a horendous mistake.
Therefore the 'hyperplane of the present' is not visible at all.
Only a very small part can actually be seen in the direct vicinity.
Everything else can only be seen with a certain delay.
I see that you clearly haven't understood anything I've been saying for >forty years.
R.H.
Le 29/08/2025 |a 12:20, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 12:00 schrieb Python:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 09:15, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
..
To do that, you would need to have numerical values and some means
to do that calculation.
But how would you transfer e.g. t_B from B to A?
Sigh... By carrier pigeon, snail mail, any mean. It doesn't matter.
Thomas you are definitely NOT a member of the intended audience (i.e.
non demented people) of Einstein's article if you cannot guess this
at first read. Sorry.
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would require, to
measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive at the remote side.
No. Everything will be computed later using *values* of t_A, t'_A and t_B.
What A need is the *value* t_B observed by B.
Le 29/08/2025 |a 12:20, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would require, to
measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive at the remote side.
This could be done by pigeons, if you like that, but would require to
know the delay in advance, too.
Otherwise you cannot tell the remote station, to what time you want
them to turn their clock.
But that's absurd.
In relativity, you're no longer in a classical framework.
The notion of absolute simultaneity no longer exists between A and B.
I'm amazed that, after forty years of saying this, no one can truly understand this simple fact that an 11-year-old child should understand.
If you set your watch A to B, assuming spatial isochrony, that is, an absolute present-time plane between the two, you assume that the watches
are in tune if, at the instant B receives the forward signal, it reads tB=AB/c.
In both cases (Newton or Poincar|-), for A, the watches will be in tune.
But only for A.
For B, in Newtonian isochronic mode, B will also be in tune with A.
But in relativistic mode, and it is the theory of relativity that is
true, B will no longer be in tune with A, and the offset for B will
become dt=2AB/c.
I'm surprised no one makes the effort to understand this.
Yet it's both very simple and very obvious if you consider that the
notion of absolute present time within a simple inertial frame of
reference is probably pure fantasy, a scientific whim based on nothing.
R.H.
Le 29/08/2025 |a 09:32, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
The 'hyperplane of the present' is not visible, but real.
It is not visible, because it connects infinitively fast, what light
cannot do.
Light is fast, however, but not that fast.
To deal with this discrepancy, we had to reject the actual visual
impression of something remote and must think, that what we see remote
is a picture, we receive from the past.
It is longer ago the further away, hence the picture is actually
'layered in time'.
Therefore the 'hyperplane of the present' is not what we can see in
the night sky.
Both differ from each other to a certain degree and cannot become
reunited at all.
This is so, because an event in say 3 ly distance will be visible in
three years and one in 3 million ly distance in three million years.
Therefore those two events can-a never be seen together, even if they
happen at the same time.
To say, that an event seen in 3 mio ly is happening now, because we
can see it now, would be a horendous mistake.
Therefore the 'hyperplane of the present' is not visible at all.
Only a very small part can actually be seen in the direct vicinity.
Everything else can only be seen with a certain delay.
I see that you clearly haven't understood anything I've been saying for forty years.
This anisochrony thing is very simple to understand; it simply indicates that the notion of a present-time hyperplane is specific to each
observer, and that two observers only have the same time if they are conjoined (that is, in the same place even if their speeds are very different).
are you an Aryan?
Don't know.
Germans do not call themselves 'arians' or similar.
Arians stem actually from Iran, India and Afganistan.
Possibly these people have lived once in what today is Germany.
But I have absolutely no idea, if any of them belonged to my ancestors.
TH
ain't you one of the... Master Race???
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 12:33 schrieb Python:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 12:20, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 12:00 schrieb Python:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 09:15, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
..
To do that, you would need to have numerical values and some means
to do that calculation.
But how would you transfer e.g. t_B from B to A?
Sigh... By carrier pigeon, snail mail, any mean. It doesn't matter.
Thomas you are definitely NOT a member of the intended audience (i.e. >>>> non demented people) of Einstein's article if you cannot guess this
at first read. Sorry.
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would require, to
measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive at the remote side.
No. Everything will be computed later using *values* of t_A, t'_A and t_B. >>
What A need is the *value* t_B observed by B.
But HOW should B send this value to A?
Le 30/08/2025 |a 08:58, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
What A need is the *value* t_B observed by B.
But HOW should B send this value to A?
It doesn't matter. I told you: pigeon, e-mail, mail, sound, written on
piece of paper and thrown out. This is not a problem.
Another possibility: the crew of Apollo 12 reads the clock on the Moon, writes the value '13:00:00' on a sheet of paper and take that home to Houston, Texas, where they read it roughly one week later.
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 13:38 schrieb Richard Hachel:
In special relativity, what we are discussing in this moment, this is actually the case, because SRT is without acceleration, curved spacetime
and so forth.
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 13:38 schrieb Richard Hachel:It is IMPOSSIBLE to synchronize two watches placed in two different
Le 29/08/2025 |a 12:20, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would require, to
measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive at the remote side. >>>
This could be done by pigeons, if you like that, but would require to
know the delay in advance, too.
Otherwise you cannot tell the remote station, to what time you want
them to turn their clock.
But that's absurd.
In relativity, you're no longer in a classical framework.
In special relativity, what we are discussing in this moment, this is actually the case, because SRT is without acceleration, curved spacetime
and so forth.
The notion of absolute simultaneity no longer exists between A and B.
I'm amazed that, after forty years of saying this, no one can truly
understand this simple fact that an 11-year-old child should understand.
If you set your watch A to B, assuming spatial isochrony, that is, an
absolute present-time plane between the two, you assume that the watches
are in tune if, at the instant B receives the forward signal, it reads
tB=AB/c.
In both cases (Newton or Poincar|-), for A, the watches will be in tune.
But only for A.
This is what I have written several times now.
I wanted to address the problem, that 'synchronization' would need to
tune at least one of the two clocks under consideration.
The best option would be to tune clock B to 'A-time'.
But that isn't symmetric.
If we want the process symmetric, we would need to introduce a third
time 'C-time', which stems from a place in the middle between A and B.
Only this method had several disadvantages.
For instanced the method would only work for two points.
Another method would use a hypothetical signal, which has no delay and
could travel with infinite velocity.
This signal would define synchronicity, but could not be used in
practice (mainly because it doesn't exist).
But we could add the delay 'by hand' and get a convincing story.
THI've already answered all of this, but unfortunately, no one is listening.
Le 30/08/2025 |a 09:08, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 13:38 schrieb Richard Hachel:It is IMPOSSIBLE to synchronize two watches placed in two different locations
Le 29/08/2025 |a 12:20, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would require, to >>>> measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive at the remote side. >>>>
This could be done by pigeons, if you like that, but would require to >>>> know the delay in advance, too.
Otherwise you cannot tell the remote station, to what time you want
them to turn their clock.
But that's absurd.
In relativity, you're no longer in a classical framework.
In special relativity, what we are discussing in this moment, this is
actually the case, because SRT is without acceleration, curved spacetime
and so forth.
The notion of absolute simultaneity no longer exists between A and B.
I'm amazed that, after forty years of saying this, no one can truly
understand this simple fact that an 11-year-old child should understand. >>> If you set your watch A to B, assuming spatial isochrony, that is, an
absolute present-time plane between the two, you assume that the watches >>> are in tune if, at the instant B receives the forward signal, it reads
tB=AB/c.
In both cases (Newton or Poincar|-), for A, the watches will be in tune. >>> But only for A.
This is what I have written several times now.
I wanted to address the problem, that 'synchronization' would need to
tune at least one of the two clocks under consideration.
The best option would be to tune clock B to 'A-time'.
But that isn't symmetric.
If we want the process symmetric, we would need to introduce a third
time 'C-time', which stems from a place in the middle between A and B.
Only this method had several disadvantages.
For instanced the method would only work for two points.
Another method would use a hypothetical signal, which has no delay and
could travel with infinite velocity.
This signal would define synchronicity, but could not be used in
practice (mainly because it doesn't exist).
But we could add the delay 'by hand' and get a convincing story.
THI've already answered all of this, but unfortunately, no one is listening.
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 14:00 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 09:32, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
The 'hyperplane of the present' is not visible, but real.
It is not visible, because it connects infinitively fast, what light
cannot do.
Light is fast, however, but not that fast.
To deal with this discrepancy, we had to reject the actual visual
impression of something remote and must think, that what we see remote
is a picture, we receive from the past.
It is longer ago the further away, hence the picture is actually
'layered in time'.
Therefore the 'hyperplane of the present' is not what we can see in
the night sky.
Both differ from each other to a certain degree and cannot become
reunited at all.
This is so, because an event in say 3 ly distance will be visible in
three years and one in 3 million ly distance in three million years.
Therefore those two events can-a never be seen together, even if they
happen at the same time.
To say, that an event seen in 3 mio ly is happening now, because we
can see it now, would be a horendous mistake.
Therefore the 'hyperplane of the present' is not visible at all.
Only a very small part can actually be seen in the direct vicinity.
Everything else can only be seen with a certain delay.
I see that you clearly haven't understood anything I've been saying for
forty years.
This anisochrony thing is very simple to understand; it simply indicates
that the notion of a present-time hyperplane is specific to each
observer, and that two observers only have the same time if they are
conjoined (that is, in the same place even if their speeds are very
different).
I wanted to define 'in synch' by another system, where the 'hyperplane
of the present' actually represents a connection with infinite velocity.
In 'spacetime terms' it has no 'thickness'. That means, the time across
in the direction of time is zero.
This could imagined, anyhow, by introducing a signal, which does not
exist in reality.
This would connect (if it would exist) across the entire hyperplane of
the present, but without any delay.
This hyperplane of the present would be comoving with the observer under consideration, hence would be 'relative'.
Other observers have therefore other hyperplanes of their present, which
is comoving to them.
Now we have a common experience, that the surface of the Earth is
actually a sperical sheet, which belongs to the same 'time-domain',
because time around the globe streams in roughly the same manner.
But this changes with hight and possibly with other parameters, like
e.g. acceleration.
Now this picture seems not very satisfying.
But there is a very interesting application to this method:
we could associate 'infinitely fast influences' with a static field.
This means, that static fields are 'relative' and only appear to be
static from a certain perspective (which is the timeline of the observer).
We could e.g. call a standing rotation wave 'static', if the observer
moves with it and in the same direction and at the same pace (along the imaginary axis of time).
This would fit now to the description of an atom, if we regard atoms as 'timelike stable patterns' (what I did).
This in turn would allow matter to be created from nothing or to
disappear without a trace.
For both of these possibilities there are examples.
'matter out of nowhere' would fit to big-bang, for instance, but also to 'Growing Earth'.
...
TH
Le 30/08/2025 |a 15:11, Richard Hachel-a a |-crit :
Le 30/08/2025 |a 09:08, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 13:38 schrieb Richard Hachel:It is IMPOSSIBLE to synchronize two watches placed in two different
Le 29/08/2025 |a 12:20, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would require,
to measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive at the
remote side.
This could be done by pigeons, if you like that, but would require
to know the delay in advance, too.
Otherwise you cannot tell the remote station, to what time you want >>>>> them to turn their clock.
But that's absurd.
In relativity, you're no longer in a classical framework.
In special relativity, what we are discussing in this moment, this is
actually the case, because SRT is without acceleration, curved
spacetime and so forth.
The notion of absolute simultaneity no longer exists between A and B.
I'm amazed that, after forty years of saying this, no one can truly
understand this simple fact that an 11-year-old child should
understand.
If you set your watch A to B, assuming spatial isochrony, that is,
an absolute present-time plane between the two, you assume that the
watches are in tune if, at the instant B receives the forward
signal, it reads tB=AB/c.
In both cases (Newton or Poincar|-), for A, the watches will be in
tune. But only for A.
This is what I have written several times now.
I wanted to address the problem, that 'synchronization' would need to
tune at least one of the two clocks under consideration.
The best option would be to tune clock B to 'A-time'.
But that isn't symmetric.
If we want the process symmetric, we would need to introduce a third
time 'C-time', which stems from a place in the middle between A and B.
Only this method had several disadvantages.
For instanced the method would only work for two points.
Another method would use a hypothetical signal, which has no delay
and could travel with infinite velocity.
This signal would define synchronicity, but could not be used in
practice (mainly because it doesn't exist).
But we could add the delay 'by hand' and get a convincing story.
THI've already answered all of this, but unfortunately, no one is
listening.
locations
It is impossible with *your* definition of simultaneity i.e. "synchronization".
It is possible with Poincar|-'s definition which matches with Einstein convention.
Le 30/08/2025 |a 15:11, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
Le 30/08/2025 |a 09:08, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
It is IMPOSSIBLE to synchronize two watches placed in two different locations
It is impossible with *your* definition of simultaneity
It is possible with Poincar|-'s definition which matches with Einstein convention.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 09:40:40 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 06:38 schrieb The Starmaker:
...
i heard that the Germans are superior to the Irish, ...is that true?
Certainly not.
This problem starts with the term 'the Germans'.
This is a name and means a set of people.
But how would you define this set?
There are a number of different definitions, which all do not really fit. >>>>
One meaning of 'German' is: a person, who speaks German as first language. >>>>
(this is, btw, the only definition, which does makes some sense)
another meaning: person belonging to an ethnicity named 'the Germans'. >>>>
This definition has two problems. first problem: no such ethnicity
exists. second: the people actually named 'Germans' have a number of
very different roots, which would mean, that they do not stem from the >>>> same ancestors or tribes.
another meaning: German is a person, who is citizen of the Federal
Republic of Germany.
This would make sense, but isn't very satisfying, because numerous
Germans are German after this definition, but stem from Turkey or Syria. >>>>
TH
are you an Aryan?
Don't know.
Germans do not call themselves 'arians' or similar.
Arians stem actually from Iran, India and Afganistan.
Possibly these people have lived once in what today is Germany.
But I have absolutely no idea, if any of them belonged to my ancestors.
TH
ain't you one of the... Master Race???
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would require,
to measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive at the
remote side.
No. Everything will be computed later using *values* of t_A, t'_A and
t_B.
What A need is the *value* t_B observed by B.
But HOW should B send this value to A?
It doesn't matter. I told you: pigeon, e-mail, mail, sound, written on
piece of paper and thrown out. This is not a problem.
Le 30/08/2025 |a 08:58, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
..
Another possibility: the crew of Apollo 12 reads the clock on the
Moon, writes the value '13:00:00' on a sheet of paper and take that
home to Houston, Texas, where they read it roughly one week later.
It would work very well.
You seem to have forgotten what t_A, t_B and t'_A ARE. They have been
read before in a very well defined procedure described in Einstein's
paper. It could have been days before the astronauts' return. It doesn't matter.
To have to wait a week before having clock A synchronized with clock B
is not a problem.
Le 30/08/2025 |a 09:08, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 13:38 schrieb Richard Hachel:
In special relativity, what we are discussing in this moment, this is
actually the case, because SRT is without acceleration, curved
spacetime and so forth.
There's a huge misunderstanding among relativists about what the theory
of relativity is, and the worst part is that they don't want to hear
about a more coherent, simpler theory that can be taught in high school. There's so much nonsense being said.
For example, you talk about accelerations; yet, for Hachel,
accelerations are always pure special relativity.
So we need to review EVERYTHING: right down to the definitions.
Le 30/08/2025 |a 09:28, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000029, 29.08.2025 um 14:00 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 09:32, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
The 'hyperplane of the present' is not visible, but real.
It is not visible, because it connects infinitively fast, what light
cannot do.
Light is fast, however, but not that fast.
To deal with this discrepancy, we had to reject the actual visual
impression of something remote and must think, that what we see
remote is a picture, we receive from the past.
It is longer ago the further away, hence the picture is actually
'layered in time'.
Therefore the 'hyperplane of the present' is not what we can see in
the night sky.
Both differ from each other to a certain degree and cannot become
reunited at all.
This is so, because an event in say 3 ly distance will be visible in
three years and one in 3 million ly distance in three million years.
Therefore those two events can-a never be seen together, even if they >>>> happen at the same time.
To say, that an event seen in 3 mio ly is happening now, because we
can see it now, would be a horendous mistake.
Therefore the 'hyperplane of the present' is not visible at all.
Only a very small part can actually be seen in the direct vicinity.
Everything else can only be seen with a certain delay.
I see that you clearly haven't understood anything I've been saying
for forty years.
This anisochrony thing is very simple to understand; it simply
indicates that the notion of a present-time hyperplane is specific to
each observer, and that two observers only have the same time if they
are conjoined (that is, in the same place even if their speeds are
very different).
I wanted to define 'in synch' by another system, where the 'hyperplane
of the present' actually represents a connection with infinite velocity.
In 'spacetime terms' it has no 'thickness'. That means, the time
across in the direction of time is zero.
This could imagined, anyhow, by introducing a signal, which does not
exist in reality.
This would connect (if it would exist) across the entire hyperplane of
the present, but without any delay.
This hyperplane of the present would be comoving with the observer
under consideration, hence would be 'relative'.
Other observers have therefore other hyperplanes of their present,
which is comoving to them.
Now we have a common experience, that the surface of the Earth is
actually a sperical sheet, which belongs to the same 'time-domain',
because time around the globe streams in roughly the same manner.
But this changes with hight and possibly with other parameters, like
e.g. acceleration.
Now this picture seems not very satisfying.
But there is a very interesting application to this method:
we could associate 'infinitely fast influences' with a static field.
This means, that static fields are 'relative' and only appear to be
static from a certain perspective (which is the timeline of the
observer).
We could e.g. call a standing rotation wave 'static', if the observer
moves with it and in the same direction and at the same pace (along
the imaginary axis of time).
This would fit now to the description of an atom, if we regard atoms
as 'timelike stable patterns' (what I did).
This in turn would allow matter to be created from nothing or to
disappear without a trace.
For both of these possibilities there are examples.
'matter out of nowhere' would fit to big-bang, for instance, but also
to 'Growing Earth'.
...
TH
Ce n'est pas du tout ce que je tente de t'expliquer.
Am Samstag000030, 30.08.2025 um 15:33 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Now: what means 'simultaneous'?
TH
Am Samstag000030, 30.08.2025 um 11:53 schrieb Python:
...
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would require,
to measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive at the
remote side.
No. Everything will be computed later using *values* of t_A, t'_A and >>>> t_B.
What A need is the *value* t_B observed by B.
But HOW should B send this value to A?
It doesn't matter. I told you: pigeon, e-mail, mail, sound, written on
piece of paper and thrown out. This is not a problem.
Ok, you receive a letter from the Moon, saying 'we have now 13:00:00
Moon mean time'.
Le 31/08/2025 |a 09:09, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Samstag000030, 30.08.2025 um 11:53 schrieb Python:
...
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would require, >>>>>> to measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive at the
remote side.
No. Everything will be computed later using *values* of t_A, t'_A
and t_B.
What A need is the *value* t_B observed by B.
But HOW should B send this value to A?
It doesn't matter. I told you: pigeon, e-mail, mail, sound, written
on piece of paper and thrown out. This is not a problem.
Ok, you receive a letter from the Moon, saying 'we have now 13:00:00
Moon mean time'.
This is NOT what t_B is. You pretend to have read the article, but you
show at every single post that you've forgotten its content.
Am Sonntag000031, 31.08.2025 um 13:50 schrieb Python:
Le 31/08/2025 |a 09:09, Thomas Heger a |-crit :I have used this setting:
Am Samstag000030, 30.08.2025 um 11:53 schrieb Python:
...
To transfer a timing signal from point A to point B would
require, to measure the delay of the signal, once it will arrive >>>>>>> at the remote side.
No. Everything will be computed later using *values* of t_A, t'_A >>>>>> and t_B.
What A need is the *value* t_B observed by B.
But HOW should B send this value to A?
It doesn't matter. I told you: pigeon, e-mail, mail, sound, written
on piece of paper and thrown out. This is not a problem.
Ok, you receive a letter from the Moon, saying 'we have now 13:00:00
Moon mean time'.
This is NOT what t_B is. You pretend to have read the article, but you
show at every single post that you've forgotten its content.
station 'A' is located in Houston, Texas and station 'B' upon the Moon.
A-time is usual Texas-time and 'B-time' was named 'Moon mean time'.
Now we have a huge clock on the Moon and also an 'Apollo' crew to
maintain the clock there.
You wrote, that a number of methods would be possible by which Houston
could be informed about t_B, which included also letters sent by mail.
And I have written, that you should explain to me, what a letter with
the time 'it's now 13:00:00 Moon mean time' arriving one week later
would say.
But you are in fact correct and t_B was defined as time of arrival of
the signal in B, which was the meaning of t_B.
Therefore the letter from the Moon should contain the message ' your
signal arrived here at 13:00:00 Moon mean time'.
Now: how do you synchronize the clock on the Moon with that information?
