Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #641703 > unrolled thread

Re: New version of my annotations to SRT

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-11 11:00 +0100
    Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-13 07:44 +0100
      Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-13 14:50 +0100
        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-14 08:17 +0100
          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-14 11:05 +0100
          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-14 19:05 +0200
          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-14 18:41 +0100
            Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-15 06:58 +0100
              Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-15 01:21 -0500
                Re: New version of my annotations to SRT mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) - 2024-02-15 11:19 +0000
                  Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-16 06:56 +0100
                    Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-16 13:50 -0500
                      Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Josey Forakis Stamatelos <ks@osfisek.gr> - 2024-02-16 20:19 +0000
                        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-17 10:28 +0100
          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-14 13:47 -0500
            Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-14 13:59 -0500
              Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-14 19:12 +0000
              Re: New version of my annotations to SRT mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) - 2024-02-15 06:16 +0000
    Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-13 13:40 +0100
      Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-13 18:18 +0100
        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-14 01:46 +0000
          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-14 18:12 +0100
            Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-14 18:59 +0000
              Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-14 20:07 +0100
                Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-14 20:09 +0100
                Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-14 19:21 +0000
                  Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-14 20:26 +0100
                    Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-14 20:23 +0000
                      Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-14 21:26 +0100
    Re: New version of my annotations to SRT film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) - 2024-02-13 16:25 +0000
      Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-14 08:34 +0100
        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-14 21:28 +0100
          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-15 07:10 +0100
            Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-15 11:32 +0100
              Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-15 19:04 +0100
              Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-16 07:20 +0100
                Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-16 09:43 +0100
                Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-16 09:46 +0100
                  Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-17 10:36 +0100
                    Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-17 12:47 +0200
                      Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-17 14:33 +0100
                        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-17 16:40 +0200
                          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-17 15:55 +0100
                          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-17 17:16 +0100
                            Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-18 06:48 +0100
                              Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-18 10:21 +0100
                              Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-18 13:00 +0200
                        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) - 2024-02-17 15:13 +0000
                          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-17 17:15 +0100
                            Re: New version of my annotations to SRT mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) - 2024-02-17 17:17 +0000
                        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-18 06:25 +0100
                          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-18 13:05 +0200
                          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-18 12:56 +0100
                          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-18 22:05 +0100
                            Re: New version of my annotations to SRT mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) - 2024-02-18 21:36 +0000
                              Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-18 22:59 +0100
                      Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-18 05:47 +0100
                        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-18 01:07 -0500
                          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) - 2024-02-18 08:15 +0000
                          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Preston Voß von Grimmelshausen <rsqt@osonevnpv.de> - 2024-02-18 12:35 +0000
                        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-18 13:08 +0200
                        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Royal Iñíguez Ortega <ygerr@oratoytra.es> - 2024-02-18 12:10 +0000
                        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-18 13:28 +0100
                          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-19 06:56 +0100
                            Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-19 11:35 +0200
                            Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-19 21:47 +0100
                              Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Cheng Huang Zhong <sksn@nnoghz.cn> - 2024-02-19 21:59 +0000
                              Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-20 09:01 +0100
                    Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-18 11:30 -0500
                      Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Wilbert Oláh Barabás <rfbml@otrb.hu> - 2024-02-18 19:39 +0000
                      Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-19 07:02 +0100
                        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-19 13:31 -0500
                          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-20 09:11 +0100
                            Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-21 11:52 +0200
                Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-16 11:53 +0200
                Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-16 13:59 +0100
      Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2024-02-14 00:11 -0800

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#641703 — Re: New version of my annotations to SRT

Am 10.02.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney:
> On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>>>> annotations).
>>>
>>> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
>>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
>>> they are signs of crackpottery.
>>
>> I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
>
> There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
> something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor
>>
>> This is one of the rules of science.
>>
>> It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
>> critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
>> might come, is valid.
>
> You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
> to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
> anyone in science to look at them.
>>
>> And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
>> valid.
>>
>> You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
>> has not the appropriate title.
>
> Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
> paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
> Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
> which source will be ignored vs. studied?
>>
>> But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
>>
>> Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
>> the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
>> what exactly is wrong with it.
>
> I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
> obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
> errors. It was ignored.  Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
> simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
> wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
> error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.


Einstein made several serious errors.

One was his method of synchronisation.

he had (simplified) this picture in mind:

I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and take 
that signal as information about the remote time.

The error:

that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time 
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't 
mention it with a single word.

Another serious error:

he ascribed the effects of motion to the moving object, while it is 
actually an effect, which is only visible at the side of the observer.

That is very similar to the Doppler effect, which is also not audible at 
the side of the moving source of a sound, but audible at the side of the 
road, where someone listens to a sirene of a police car passing by.

Annoying were Einstein's naming conventions.

Especially annoying were the reuse of variable names and the lack of 
definitions of used symbols.

Seriously unscientific were the lack references to the used materials.

Especially missing were quotes or references to Poincaré and Heinrich Hertz.

This is so, because a few of Einstein's equations were seemingly 
inspired by Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de l'electron' (or something 
similar in French).

Heinrich-Hertz was also used, but no references were provided.

Also the quotes from Hertz were not verbatim, because Hertz used total 
derivatives and Einstein partial (in an apparently quoted equation).

It ook me quite a while to identify, what Einstein called 'Maxwell-Hertz 
equation', but found his quote was different to the origional (besides 
of the obviously missing reference).

...


TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#643689

Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 10.02.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney:
>> On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>>>>> annotations).
>>>>
>>>> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
>>>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than
>>>> useless,
>>>> they are signs of crackpottery.
>>>
>>> I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
>>
>> There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
>> something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor
>>>
>>> This is one of the rules of science.
>>>
>>> It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
>>> critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
>>> might come, is valid.
>>
>> You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
>> to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
>> anyone in science to look at them.
>>>
>>> And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
>>> valid.
>>>
>>> You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
>>> has not the appropriate title.
>>
>> Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
>> paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
>> Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
>> which source will be ignored vs. studied?
>>>
>>> But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
>>>
>>> Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
>>> the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
>>> what exactly is wrong with it.
>>
>> I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
>> obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
>> errors. It was ignored.  Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
>> simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
>> wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
>> error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.
>
>
> Einstein made several serious errors.
>
> One was his method of synchronisation.
>
> he had (simplified) this picture in mind:
>
> I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and take
> that signal as information about the remote time.
>
> The error:
>
> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
> mention it with a single word.

I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is 
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.



So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a 
HUGE clock on the Moon.

Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic 
watch on the Moon.

We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.


Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero 
seconds.

What is then the time on the Moon ?

It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is 
one light second away).



Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote time, 
but we need to add the delay.

To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.


But this is NOT what Einstein had done.

In fact he made no efforts at all, to calculate, let alone measure that 
delay.

Therefore we are allowed to assume, that he didn't want to do this and 
simply forgot the delay.


BTW: A very similar problem occurs in common cosmology, because 
'stargazers' simply ignore, that the stars seen do not belong to the 
same time 'sheet'.

This is a very serious and VERY obscure error, because you certainly do 
not want to assume, that events at different times would influence each 
other both ways.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#643976

Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>> The error:
>>
>> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
>> mention it with a single word.
> 
> I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is 
> actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
> 
> 
> 
> So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a 
> HUGE clock on the Moon.

Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.

> 
> Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic 
> watch on the Moon.
> 
> We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.

And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.

> 
> 
> Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero 
> seconds.

The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
the clock in the telescope shows tB.

> 
> What is then the time on the Moon ?

The time on the Moon is obviously:
the point in time t'A + the duration (t'A-tB).
Where (t'A-tB) = D/c where D is the distance Earth-Moon.

> 
> It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is 
> one light second away).
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote time, 
> but we need to add the delay.
> 
> To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.

The 'delay' IS obviously measured!
It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
(t'A-tB)


> 
> 
> But this is NOT what Einstein had done.

So what is (t'A-tB) in Einstein's definition:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
  tB − tA = t'A − tB
"
?

> 
> In fact he made no efforts at all, to calculate, let alone measure that 
> delay.

Is the 'professor' a bit confused? :-D

> 
> Therefore we are allowed to assume, that he didn't want to do this and 
> simply forgot the delay.
> 
> 
> BTW: A very similar problem occurs in common cosmology, because 
> 'stargazers' simply ignore, that the stars seen do not belong to the 
> same time 'sheet'.
> 
> This is a very serious and VERY obscure error, because you certainly do 
> not want to assume, that events at different times would influence each 
> other both ways.
> 
> 
> TH
> 

You don't even misunderstand Einstein's text.

Well done! :-D


> 

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644369

Am 13.02.2024 um 14:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>> The error:
>>>
>>> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
>>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
>>> mention it with a single word.
>>
>> I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
>> actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
>> HUGE clock on the Moon.
>
> Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
> simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
> on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
> to said definition.
>
>>
>> Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
>> watch on the Moon.
>>
>> We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
>
> And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
> when the light left the clock on the Moon.


The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', but 
instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on the 
local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).


Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use 
anything else than his own time measure.

It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.

It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon would 
show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time from 
such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.

therefore both measures (t_A and t'_A) are measured on Earth and what 
clocks say on the Moon is unknown.

This is no problem, because t_B (the time of arrival of the signal on 
the Moon) didn't make it into the equation in question.

>>
>>
>> Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
>> seconds.
>
> The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
> the clock in the telescope shows tB.

No.

One reason: there is no clock on the Moon, you could possibly read.

But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the 
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.

That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly not 
synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use different 
units.

But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not 
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.

Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in 
Earth-time-units.

>>
>> What is then the time on the Moon ?
>
> The time on the Moon is obviously:
> the point in time t'A + the duration (t'A-tB).
> Where (t'A-tB) = D/c where D is the distance Earth-Moon.


Would you please make some kind of interpretable statement, like which 
time measure is used on the Moon and which time is meant as equivalent 
Earth time.

My own interpretation is this:

there exist a hypothetical 'timelike sheet', where events happen, which 
are synchronous with our own events on planet Earth.

These events are those, that a hypothetical signal with infinite 
velocity would connect.

Such a signal does not exist, hence such events are initially invisible 
and get visible with a certain delay, which is based on the distance in 
space to those events.

>>
>> It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
>> one light second away).
>>
>>
>>
>> Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
>> time, but we need to add the delay.
>>
>> To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.
>
> The 'delay' IS obviously measured!

Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.

Actually the word 'delay' or anything equivalent does not occur in his text.

> It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
> minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
> (t'A-tB)

A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is not 
baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.

t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.


...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644421

Den 14.02.2024 08:17, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am 13.02.2024 um 14:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>> So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
>>> HUGE clock on the Moon.
>>
>> Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
>> simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
>> on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
>> to said definition.
>>
>>>
>>> Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
>>> watch on the Moon.
>>>
>>> We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
>>
>> And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
>> when the light left the clock on the Moon.
> 
> 
> The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', but 
> instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on the 
> local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).

'nuff said!

Your confusion is beyond what I thought was possible.

No point in going on.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644553

On 2024-02-14 07:17:50 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 13.02.2024 um 14:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>>> The error:
>>>> 
>>>> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
>>>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
>>>> mention it with a single word.
>>> 
>>> I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
>>> actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
>>> HUGE clock on the Moon.
>> 
>> Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
>> simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
>> on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
>> to said definition.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
>>> watch on the Moon.
>>> 
>>> We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
>> 
>> And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
>> when the light left the clock on the Moon.
> 
> 
> The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', but 
> instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on the 
> local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).
> 
> 
> Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use 
> anything else than his own time measure.
> 
> It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.
> 
> It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon 
> would show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time 
> from such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.

Perhaps you should go back to the message you tried to answer
with that irrelevancy and answer again without any irrelevances.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644579

Thomas Heger wrote:
[snip]
> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the 
> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
> 
> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly not 
> synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use different 
> units.
> 
> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not 
> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
> 
> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in 
> Earth-time-units.
[snip]
> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is not 
> baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.

*facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.

Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.

Moreover measures made by clock A and made by clock B can
be communicated to the other clock in order to set them
up properly. THIS IS THE VERY POINT OF THIS PART OF THE
ARTICLE!!! How can you so miserably fail to understand
the obvious.

> t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.

It 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."

Seriously Thomas, what's wrong with you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644774

Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> [snip]
>> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
>> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
>>
>> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
>> different units.
>>
>> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
>>
>> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
>> Earth-time-units.
> [snip]
>> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
>
> *facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
> not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
>
> Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
> it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
> operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
> ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.


If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to 
synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the problem, 
that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.

Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far 
stranger than the assumption of aliens.

But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is patently 
irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.

SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.

Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.

This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought experiments'.

If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).

But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all 
spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar 
clocks onboard of their ships.

But in any case:

you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to synchronize 
clocks.

(In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)

This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to each 
other.

In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true and 
you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by deviding 
t'_A-t_A by two.

The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at 
the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate 
t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.

This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value t_B), 
needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and coding the 
result into the signal.

That is another reason why you should know the delay.

But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.


TH


...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644791

On 2/15/2024 12:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
>>> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
>>>
>>> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
>>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
>>> different units.
>>>
>>> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
>>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
>>>
>>> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
>>> Earth-time-units.
>> [snip]
>>> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
>>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
>>
>> *facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
>> not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
>>
>> Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
>> it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
>> operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
>> ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
> 
> 
> If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to 
> synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the problem, 
> that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
> 
> Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far 
> stranger than the assumption of aliens.
> 
> But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is patently 
> irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
> 
> SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.
> 
> Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
> 
> This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought experiments'.
> 
> If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
> 
> But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all 
> spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar 
> clocks onboard of their ships.
> 
> But in any case:
> 
> you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to synchronize 
> clocks.
> 
> (In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
> 
> This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to each 
> other.
> 
> In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true and 
> you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by deviding 
> t'_A-t_A by two.
> 
> The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at 
> the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate 
> t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
> 
> This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value t_B), 
> needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and coding the 
> result into the signal.
> 
> That is another reason why you should know the delay.
> 
> But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.
> 
> 
Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL. That 
essentially rules out alien monkey business. Also, Einstein never 
mentioned cosmological distances. SR works fine for two clocks in a lab 
10' apart. So your whining is bogus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644920

Volney wrote:

> On 2/15/2024 12:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
>>>> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
>>>>
>>>> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
>>>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
>>>> different units.
>>>>
>>>> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
>>>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
>>>> Earth-time-units.
>>> [snip]
>>>> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
>>>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
>>>
>>> *facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
>>> not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
>>>
>>> Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
>>> it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
>>> operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
>>> ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
>> 
>> 
>> If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to 
>> synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the problem, 
>> that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
>> 
>> Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far 
>> stranger than the assumption of aliens.
>> 
>> But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is patently 
>> irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
>> 
>> SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.
>> 
>> Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
>> 
>> This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought experiments'.
>> 
>> If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
>> 
>> But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all 
>> spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar 
>> clocks onboard of their ships.
>> 
>> But in any case:
>> 
>> you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to synchronize 
>> clocks.
>> 
>> (In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
>> 
>> This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to each 
>> other.
>> 
>> In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true and 
>> you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by deviding 
>> t'_A-t_A by two.
>> 
>> The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at 
>> the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate 
>> t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
>> 
>> This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value t_B), 
>> needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and coding the 
>> result into the signal.
>> 
>> That is another reason why you should know the delay.
>> 
>> But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.
>> 
>> 
> Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL. 

And you, stupid Mike, explicitely stated that IDENTIOCAL
clocks are some "Newton mode". You're such an agnorant 
idiot...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645678

Am 15.02.2024 um 12:19 schrieb MaciejWozniak:
> Volney wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2024 12:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
>>>>> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
>>>>>
>>>>> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
>>>>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
>>>>> different units.
>>>>>
>>>>> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
>>>>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
>>>>> Earth-time-units.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
>>>>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
>>>>
>>>> *facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
>>>> not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
>>>>
>>>> Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
>>>> it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
>>>> operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
>>>> ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
>>> synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the
>>> problem, that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
>>>
>>> Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
>>> stranger than the assumption of aliens.
>>>
>>> But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is
>>> patently irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
>>>
>>> SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.
>>>
>>> Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
>>>
>>> This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought
>>> experiments'.
>>>
>>> If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
>>>
>>> But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
>>> spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
>>> clocks onboard of their ships.
>>>
>>> But in any case:
>>>
>>> you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to
>>> synchronize clocks.
>>>
>>> (In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
>>>
>>> This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to
>>> each other.
>>>
>>> In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true
>>> and you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by
>>> deviding t'_A-t_A by two.
>>>
>>> The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
>>> the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
>>> t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
>>>
>>> This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value
>>> t_B), needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and
>>> coding the result into the signal.
>>>
>>> That is another reason why you should know the delay.
>>>
>>> But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.
>>>
>>>
>> Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL.
>
> And you, stupid Mike, explicitely stated that IDENTIOCAL
> clocks are some "Newton mode". You're such an agnorant idiot...

'Identical' clocks (actually mentioned were watches) are mechanically 
the same.

But watches of 1905 were adjustable in the rate of ticks, hence could be 
synchronized to the local environment.

That's why it is complicated to synchronize clocks.

First you need to establish an agreement about the time units and tick 
rates.

Theses tick rates already differ with hight (already on planet Earth).

This would require (already on Earth) agrements about the length of the 
second.

To do this we could use some sort of 'master clock', located on or near 
sea-level.

This master station would send out radio signals with timing information 
and all other clocks can adjust themselves to these signals.

But this would still require to know the delay, which is caused by the 
finite speed of light.


A radio signals travel about 7.5 times round the globe in one second.

Since half of an equator length is the maximal distance you could have 
on Earth, you could have a maximum of discrepancy of 1/14 of a second.

This is a very large discrepancy for precision timing purposes, hence 
needs to be corrected.

This is actually simple: simply add the delay to the coded time, which 
is coming with the signal from the master clock.

But you need to know the delay in the first place, if you like to add it.

But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't mention this, even if 
synchronization over long distances was his topic.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#646136

On 2/16/2024 12:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.02.2024 um 12:19 schrieb MaciejWozniak:
>> Volney wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/15/2024 12:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
>>>>>> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
>>>>>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
>>>>>> different units.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would 
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
>>>>>> Earth-time-units.
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
>>>>>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
>>>>>
>>>>> *facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
>>>>> not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
>>>>> it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
>>>>> operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
>>>>> ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
>>>> synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the
>>>> problem, that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
>>>>
>>>> Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
>>>> stranger than the assumption of aliens.
>>>>
>>>> But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is
>>>> patently irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
>>>>
>>>> SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without 
>>>> gravity.
>>>>
>>>> Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
>>>>
>>>> This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought
>>>> experiments'.
>>>>
>>>> If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
>>>>
>>>> But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
>>>> spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
>>>> clocks onboard of their ships.
>>>>
>>>> But in any case:
>>>>
>>>> you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to
>>>> synchronize clocks.
>>>>
>>>> (In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
>>>>
>>>> This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to
>>>> each other.
>>>>
>>>> In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true
>>>> and you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by
>>>> deviding t'_A-t_A by two.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
>>>> the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
>>>> t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
>>>>
>>>> This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value
>>>> t_B), needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and
>>>> coding the result into the signal.
>>>>
>>>> That is another reason why you should know the delay.
>>>>
>>>> But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL.
>>
>> And you, stupid Mike, explicitely stated that IDENTIOCAL
>> clocks are some "Newton mode". You're such an agnorant idiot...
> 
> 'Identical' clocks (actually mentioned were watches) are mechanically 
> the same.
> 
> But watches of 1905 were adjustable in the rate of ticks, hence could be 
> synchronized to the local environment.

And if the tick rate is adjusted, they are no longer identical, are they.
> 
> That's why it is complicated to synchronize clocks.

In these thought experiments, it is assumed either the clocks are 
'perfect' or they have a specified margin of error.
> 
> First you need to establish an agreement about the time units and tick 
> rates.

Since the clocks are identical, they are already in agreement.
> 
> Theses tick rates already differ with hight (already on planet Earth).

Now you are talking about GR when discussing an SR problem. In SR either 
there is no gravity or the effects of gravity are smaller than 
measurement errors, so is irrelevant.
> 
> This would require (already on Earth) agrements about the length of the 
> second.

This was already defined during Einstein's time.

In Einstein's time it was based on the rotation of the earth, now it is 
defined in terms of the Cs atom in a local clock.

But this isn't relevant, the clocks are identical so they have the same 
definition for the length of the second.
> 
[snip nonsense]

> This is actually simple: simply add the delay to the coded time,

Which is what Einstein does when determining t_B for the remote clock.
> 
> But you need to know the delay in the first place, if you like to add it.

Which Einstein calculates, it's 1/2 times t'_a - t_a.
> 
> But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't mention this, even if 
> synchronization over long distances was his topic.
> 
What do you think his calculations for t_B are?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#646199

Volney wrote:

> On 2/16/2024 12:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> But you need to know the delay in the first place, if you like to add
>> it.
> 
> Which Einstein calculates, it's 1/2 times t'_a - t_a.

so true indeed. Watch this picture, and remark Khazaria. What these "germans" want to do, right now, as it was those days. The unbelievable truth about relativity you don't want to see. And certify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#/media/File:Greater_Germanic_Reich.png

 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_‘𝘇𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱’_𝗯𝘆_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆’𝘀_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_–_𝗲𝘅-𝗣𝗠 lol
The country’s citizens are constantly hammered by news of ‘Russian orcs,’ but they still want peace, Nikolay Azarov said 
https://r%74.com/russia/592554-ukrainians-zombified-propaganda-azarov/
However, Azarov also pointed out that a significant part of Ukrainian society has been “zombified” by national TV. “Every 5–10 minutes they get pummeled by news about ‘Russian orcs’. Many are now being brought up in the spirit of hatred, resentment, and so on,” he noted.

He added, however, that this does not mean 90% of Ukrainians are “ready to grab a weapon and run into the trenches and die for no reason.”

Azarov lamented that the Ukrainian political elite has been virtually wiped out over the past 10 years. “There are practically no people there who have even an ounce of common sense left. There are [only] opportunists, blank spaces. They will do whatever the Americans tell them”.

“Ukraine can only recover if its current leaders are replaced, the ex-PM argued.” The same can be said of every Anglo Saxon country. They are khazar goys.

The Ukrainians don't want conflict, why does the military not take out Zelensky? Apparently the far right is protecting the khazar goy mafia in Kiev. Hard to beat those 2 together, and the same is going to happen in the west.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#646700

Am 16.02.2024 um 21:19 schrieb Josey Forakis Stamatelos:
> Volney wrote:
>
>> On 2/16/2024 12:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> But you need to know the delay in the first place, if you like to add
>>> it.
>>
>> Which Einstein calculates, it's 1/2 times t'_a - t_a.
>
> so true indeed. Watch this picture, and remark Khazaria. What these "germans" want to do, right now, as it was those days. The unbelievable truth about relativity you don't want to see. And certify.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#/media/File:Greater_Germanic_Reich.png
>

It's an interesting topic, but definetely historic, since present 
Germany has absolutely no intentions to fulfill the plans of the former 
kanzler 'Hitler'.

I personally think, that Greg Hallet was actually correct and 'Hitler' 
was actually an English spy.

https://www.amazon.de/Hitler-Britischer-Agent-Solving-History/dp/0985227818

My own guess was (in extension of the book of Hallet), that it was Noel 
Trevenen Huxley, who went to Germany already in 1913 (together with his 
brother Julian Huxley) and stayed at the home of Isolde Beidler 
(daughter of Richard Wagner) in Munich (Prinzregentplatz 16), to learn 
good German.

The real Hitler was later captured and replaced by the spy in the early 
1920th.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644619

On 2/14/2024 2:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 13.02.2024 um 14:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>>> The error:
>>>>
>>>> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
>>>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
>>>> mention it with a single word.
>>>
>>> I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
>>> actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
>>> HUGE clock on the Moon.
>>
>> Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
>> simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
>> on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
>> to said definition.
>>
>>>
>>> Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
>>> watch on the Moon.
>>>
>>> We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
>>
>> And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
>> when the light left the clock on the Moon.
> 
> 
> The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', but 
> instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on the 
> local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).

What the hell is it that you call 'Moon-time'? If the moon is considered 
stationary (or moving slow enough not to matter) there is no time 
dilation so 'Moon-time' ticks the same as 'Earth-Time'.
> 
> 
> Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use 
> anything else than his own time measure.
> 
> It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.

But you just said there is a HUGE clock on the moon measuring the time.
> 
> It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon would 
> show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time from 
> such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.
> 
> therefore both measures (t_A and t'_A) are measured on Earth and what 
> clocks say on the Moon is unknown.
> 
> This is no problem, because t_B (the time of arrival of the signal on 
> the Moon) didn't make it into the equation in question.

This will be t_B if the clocks are synchronized, or considered set to 
t_B to synchronize them.
> 
>>>
>>>
>>> Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
>>> seconds.
>>
>> The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
>> the clock in the telescope shows tB.
> 
> No.
> 
> One reason: there is no clock on the Moon, you could possibly read.

But you said there was.
> 
> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the 
> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.

It wouldn't matter, since there will be a conversion between 
Moon-time-units and Earth time units (better known as the second).  If 
there are no Moon residents and no (earth origin) clocks there, there 
isn't even such a thing as Moon-time-units so we can use anything we 
want, such as the second. Even if there were little green men using 
Moon-time-units we can *still* use Earth units for Earthbound users, 
converting to Moon-time-units if and when necessary to communicate with 
the little green men.

It appears you are confusing clocks with time. Clocks measure time, not 
clocks are time. The janitor has the very same problem when whining 
about old time definitions based on earth rotation.
> 
> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly not 
> synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use different 
> units.

We can synchronize the clocks using Einstein's method, so that some 
clock on the moon reading whatever it reads when we measure it is t_B.
> 
> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not 
> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
> 
> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in 
> Earth-time-units.

Irrelevant.
> 
>>>
>>> It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
>>> one light second away).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
>>> time, but we need to add the delay.
>>>
>>> To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.
>>
>> The 'delay' IS obviously measured!
> 
> Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.
> 
> Actually the word 'delay' or anything equivalent does not occur in his 
> text.

He is using the time it takes the signal to travel (D/c) as the delay.
> 
>> It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
>> minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
>> (t'A-tB)
> 
> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is not 
> baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.

Yet you are talking about some HUGE clock on the moon viewed using a 
HUGE telescope on earth.
> 
> t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.

Because it is calculated on earth to see what time it is on the moon.

Your obvious confusion here extends to your "420 errors" which are 
nothing more than 420 examples of your confusion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644623

On 2/14/2024 1:47 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 2/14/2024 2:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 13.02.2024 um 14:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>> Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>> Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>>>> The error:
>>>>>
>>>>> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
>>>>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
>>>>> mention it with a single word.
>>>>
>>>> I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
>>>> actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
>>>> HUGE clock on the Moon.
>>>
>>> Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
>>> simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
>>> on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
>>> to said definition.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
>>>> watch on the Moon.
>>>>
>>>> We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
>>>
>>> And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
>>> when the light left the clock on the Moon.
>>
>>
>> The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', 
>> but instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on 
>> the local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).
> 
> What the hell is it that you call 'Moon-time'? If the moon is considered 
> stationary (or moving slow enough not to matter) there is no time 
> dilation so 'Moon-time' ticks the same as 'Earth-Time'.
>>
>>
>> Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use 
>> anything else than his own time measure.
>>
>> It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.
> 
> But you just said there is a HUGE clock on the moon measuring the time.
>>
>> It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon 
>> would show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time 
>> from such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.
>>
>> therefore both measures (t_A and t'_A) are measured on Earth and what 
>> clocks say on the Moon is unknown.
>>
>> This is no problem, because t_B (the time of arrival of the signal on 
>> the Moon) didn't make it into the equation in question.
> 
> This will be t_B if the clocks are synchronized, or considered set to 
> t_B to synchronize them.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
>>>> seconds.
>>>
>>> The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
>>> the clock in the telescope shows tB.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> One reason: there is no clock on the Moon, you could possibly read.
> 
> But you said there was.
>>
>> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the 
>> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
> 
> It wouldn't matter, since there will be a conversion between 
> Moon-time-units and Earth time units (better known as the second).  If 
> there are no Moon residents and no (earth origin) clocks there, there 
> isn't even such a thing as Moon-time-units so we can use anything we 
> want, such as the second. Even if there were little green men using 
> Moon-time-units we can *still* use Earth units for Earthbound users, 
> converting to Moon-time-units if and when necessary to communicate with 
> the little green men.
> 
> It appears you are confusing clocks with time. Clocks measure time, not 
> clocks are time. The janitor has the very same problem when whining 
> about old time definitions based on earth rotation.
>>
>> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly 
>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use 
>> different units.
> 
> We can synchronize the clocks using Einstein's method, so that some 
> clock on the moon reading whatever it reads when we measure it is t_B.
>>
>> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not 
>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
>>
>> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in 
>> Earth-time-units.
> 
> Irrelevant.
>>
>>>>
>>>> It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
>>>> one light second away).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
>>>> time, but we need to add the delay.
>>>>
>>>> To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.
>>>
>>> The 'delay' IS obviously measured!
>>
>> Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.
>>
>> Actually the word 'delay' or anything equivalent does not occur in his 
>> text.
> 
> He is using the time it takes the signal to travel (D/c) as the delay.
>>
>>> It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
>>> minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
>>> (t'A-tB)
>>
>> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is 
>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
> 
> Yet you are talking about some HUGE clock on the moon viewed using a 
> HUGE telescope on earth.
>>
>> t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.
> 
> Because it is calculated on earth to see what time it is on the moon.
> 
> Your obvious confusion here extends to your "420 errors" which are 
> nothing more than 420 examples of your confusion.

As Python points out, both clocks are assumed IDENTICAL by Einstein, so 
any hokum about little green men on the moon or Moon-time-units is 
irrelevant so much of what I wrote here isn't applicable to anything. 
The Moon clock is identical to the Earth clock.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644629

Le 14/02/2024 à 19:59, Volney a écrit :
> As Python points out, both clocks are assumed IDENTICAL by Einstein, so 
> any hokum about little green men on the moon or Moon-time-units is 
> irrelevant so much of what I wrote here isn't applicable to anything. 
> The Moon clock is identical to the Earth clock.

The lunar clock is mechanically identical to the terrestrial clock. That 
is to say that it has the same chronotropy.
It is completely ridiculous and completely absurd to take two clocks that 
beat at different rates.
No one would think of putting a clock on the Eiffel Tower that beats six 
times faster than another, placed at the Arc de Triomphe, simply to fool 
around or to distance themselves from science.
As everyone knows, chronotropy is obviously invariant by positional change 
in the same frame of reference.
Now comes HAchl (a true genius in the history of humanity), and he says: 
"Yes, it's true, chronotropy is invariant."

What a man! What a cock! What a God!!!

Problem: the poor idiots who squat on this forum saying, full of 
stupidity, their narcissism, even their hatred: "No, no, Hachel is a 
troll".

Poor fools.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644789

Volney wrote:

> On 2/14/2024 1:47 PM, Volney wrote:
>> On 2/14/2024 2:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 13.02.2024 um 14:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>>> Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>> Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>>>>> The error:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
>>>>>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
>>>>>> mention it with a single word.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
>>>>> actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
>>>>> HUGE clock on the Moon.
>>>>
>>>> Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
>>>> simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
>>>> on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
>>>> to said definition.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
>>>>> watch on the Moon.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
>>>>
>>>> And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
>>>> when the light left the clock on the Moon.
>>>
>>>
>>> The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', 
>>> but instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on 
>>> the local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).
>> 
>> What the hell is it that you call 'Moon-time'? If the moon is considered 
>> stationary (or moving slow enough not to matter) there is no time 
>> dilation so 'Moon-time' ticks the same as 'Earth-Time'.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use 
>>> anything else than his own time measure.
>>>
>>> It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.
>> 
>> But you just said there is a HUGE clock on the moon measuring the time.
>>>
>>> It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon 
>>> would show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time 
>>> from such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.
>>>
>>> therefore both measures (t_A and t'_A) are measured on Earth and what 
>>> clocks say on the Moon is unknown.
>>>
>>> This is no problem, because t_B (the time of arrival of the signal on 
>>> the Moon) didn't make it into the equation in question.
>> 
>> This will be t_B if the clocks are synchronized, or considered set to 
>> t_B to synchronize them.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
>>>>> seconds.
>>>>
>>>> The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
>>>> the clock in the telescope shows tB.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> One reason: there is no clock on the Moon, you could possibly read.
>> 
>> But you said there was.
>>>
>>> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the 
>>> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
>> 
>> It wouldn't matter, since there will be a conversion between 
>> Moon-time-units and Earth time units (better known as the second).  If 
>> there are no Moon residents and no (earth origin) clocks there, there 
>> isn't even such a thing as Moon-time-units so we can use anything we 
>> want, such as the second. Even if there were little green men using 
>> Moon-time-units we can *still* use Earth units for Earthbound users, 
>> converting to Moon-time-units if and when necessary to communicate with 
>> the little green men.
>> 
>> It appears you are confusing clocks with time. Clocks measure time, not 
>> clocks are time. The janitor has the very same problem when whining 
>> about old time definitions based on earth rotation.
>>>
>>> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly 
>>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use 
>>> different units.
>> 
>> We can synchronize the clocks using Einstein's method, so that some 
>> clock on the moon reading whatever it reads when we measure it is t_B.
>>>
>>> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not 
>>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
>>>
>>> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in 
>>> Earth-time-units.
>> 
>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
>>>>> one light second away).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
>>>>> time, but we need to add the delay.
>>>>>
>>>>> To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.
>>>>
>>>> The 'delay' IS obviously measured!
>>>
>>> Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.
>>>
>>> Actually the word 'delay' or anything equivalent does not occur in his 
>>> text.
>> 
>> He is using the time it takes the signal to travel (D/c) as the delay.
>>>
>>>> It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
>>>> minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
>>>> (t'A-tB)
>>>
>>> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is 
>>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
>> 
>> Yet you are talking about some HUGE clock on the moon viewed using a 
>> HUGE telescope on earth.
>>>
>>> t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.
>> 
>> Because it is calculated on earth to see what time it is on the moon.
>> 
>> Your obvious confusion here extends to your "420 errors" which are 
>> nothing more than 420 examples of your confusion.

> As Python points out, both clocks are assumed IDENTICAL by Einstein, so 


so your moronic ravings of "GR" ,corrections are just
some moronic ravings. Yes, identical clocks are whar
your idiot guru was assuming - and GPS has verified
his absurd assumption and switched it off.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#643937

Den 11.02.2024 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger:
> 
> Einstein made several serious errors.
> 
> One was his method of synchronisation.
> 
> he had (simplified) this picture in mind:
> 
> I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and take 
> that signal as information about the remote time.
> 
> The error:
> 
> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time 
> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't 
> mention it with a single word.
> 

 > mention it with a single word.

Einstein's definition of simultaneity:
"Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
  let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
  and arrive again at A at the “A time” t'A.

  In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
  tB − tA = t'A − tB.
"
What is the time (tB − tA), and what is the time (t'A − tB)?



-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644118

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 11.02.2024 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>
>> Einstein made several serious errors.
>>
>> One was his method of synchronisation.
>>
>> he had (simplified) this picture in mind:
>>
>> I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and 
>> take that signal as information about the remote time.
>>
>> The error:
>>
>> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time 
>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't 
>> mention it with a single word.
>>
> 
>  > mention it with a single word.
> 
> Einstein's definition of simultaneity:
> "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
>   let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
>   and arrive again at A at the “A time” t'A.
> 
>   In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>   tB − tA = t'A − tB.
> "
> What is the time (tB − tA), and what is the time (t'A − tB)?

This has been explained to Thomas several times, for instance there:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/H4eAqzd4OVA/m/q14EU8u3AQAJ

Python wrote:
> It is an obvious fact that the equations in part I.1. :
> 
> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
> 
> implies:
> 
> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
> 
> which is a way to express that the light propagation time is taken
> into account when synchronizing clocks. (AB)/c is *exactly*
> this very delay. 

Thomas has never understood a single word of this part of Einstein's
paper, while it is obvious to anyone with a minimal intelligence that
the whole point is about light taking propagation time in clock
synchronization. What expose his profound dishonesty is that he
continues to spread the same nonsense *after* it has been shown
to him, in details, how wrong he is.

His arguments is that the word "delay" is not written down explicitly
(LOL!!!) and that clocks A and B could be made by aliens on Alpha
Centaury as if part. I.1 in Einstein's article was about extra-
terrestrial with unknown units and unknown rates. This is pathetically
stupid.

Einstein's paper does not mention that the Moon is not made of cheese,
hence he assumes that the Moon is made of cheese, this is the kind
of "reasoning" Thomas is familiar with.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web