Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #665208 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-07-22 12:33 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-08-01 19:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 211 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-22 12:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-22 15:08 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-22 18:17 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-22 17:56 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-22 21:11 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-22 19:53 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-23 09:01 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-23 11:28 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-07-22 16:41 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Victo Balahovsky <ihio@tiv.ru> - 2025-07-22 18:50 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-29 09:48 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-29 22:02 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-30 07:08 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-02 12:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 13:52 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 12:01 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 14:17 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 12:36 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 17:26 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 17:14 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 19:29 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 18:28 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-02 21:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Herman Katsushika <shek@unrkaas.jp> - 2025-08-02 22:13 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-06 22:39 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-07 08:54 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-07 22:52 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-08 07:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-08 13:51 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-08 15:09 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Hyram Dubanowski <akaao@dhswua.pl> - 2025-08-08 17:03 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-08 20:58 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 00:58 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-09 13:46 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 20:18 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-10 20:54 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-10 23:14 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Leron Warszawski <nkan@rwsirr.pl> - 2025-08-03 14:08 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-08-08 22:52 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 00:55 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-30 10:54 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-02 12:35 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-03 08:13 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-03 07:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-04 14:04 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-05 08:48 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-05 15:14 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-05 16:53 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-06 08:34 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-06 22:17 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-07 08:41 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-07 22:13 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Abner Habibulaev <baee@lvl.ru> - 2025-08-07 22:07 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-08 16:04 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-08 20:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-08 18:41 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-09 12:44 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 18:13 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-09 19:40 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-09 20:18 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-09 11:22 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-09 15:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-09 13:40 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-09 14:49 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-09 14:58 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-09 15:19 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-10 06:54 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 08:20 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Shane Dubenkov <bdneb@nbanb.ru> - 2025-08-10 15:33 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 09:46 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 09:55 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-21 20:34 -0800
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:03 -0800
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-11 07:02 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Freeman Vandroogenbroeck <dronn@reaea.nl> - 2025-08-12 21:42 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-10 21:05 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-11 10:17 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-13 09:53 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-10 06:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-10 21:11 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Murel Kartuzov <kv@ltel.ru> - 2025-08-10 20:35 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-11 10:41 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-11 11:20 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Darby Myachkov <vkbcm@yaycvbbm.ru> - 2025-08-12 20:45 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-13 10:00 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-14 07:54 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Bladimir Natalenko <ilr@el.ru> - 2025-08-14 09:07 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-14 12:17 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-17 22:34 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-18 07:52 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-18 09:36 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-18 20:56 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-18 21:30 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-18 21:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-19 06:12 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:16 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-19 08:03 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 14:36 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:18 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:20 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:20 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-19 07:55 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-19 19:47 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 20:54 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-20 09:36 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-20 10:20 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:18 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:27 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-20 15:36 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:51 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:56 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:58 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:59 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-21 11:14 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-21 14:42 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-20 15:56 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:58 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-20 13:51 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:56 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-21 08:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-20 10:15 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-20 19:00 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-21 08:39 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-21 11:48 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-22 08:20 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-22 17:07 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-23 09:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-21 13:37 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-21 14:57 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-22 08:26 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-22 16:53 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-23 09:02 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-21 21:11 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Samsath Bakalov <msml@svalsa.ru> - 2025-08-21 19:32 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-21 21:40 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-21 21:37 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-22 08:43 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-22 19:59 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-24 08:05 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-24 22:49 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-25 08:26 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-25 11:41 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-25 14:43 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-26 09:55 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-26 10:43 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-27 10:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Khalil Yablochkov <cvb@laoi.ru> - 2025-08-26 20:33 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-26 22:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-27 06:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-27 10:47 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-27 12:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-27 09:35 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-28 09:47 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-28 21:38 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-29 09:40 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-29 10:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-29 07:29 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-30 09:33 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-30 10:35 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-27 20:27 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-28 10:05 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-28 09:47 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-28 12:09 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-28 14:57 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-29 09:36 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-29 12:00 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-29 07:42 -0700
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-30 09:32 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-30 13:33 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-31 09:53 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-31 10:36 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-29 09:19 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-29 10:00 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-29 12:24 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-29 10:33 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-29 13:50 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-30 09:02 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-30 09:53 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Slobodan Miheenkov <so@kobn.ru> - 2025-08-30 10:23 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-31 09:13 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-31 11:50 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-01 08:27 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-01 08:31 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-02 08:42 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-02 09:40 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-02 09:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-02 10:28 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Antone De la fontaine <tle@aandot.fr> - 2025-09-02 19:56 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-04 15:40 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-30 10:44 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-31 09:28 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-29 11:38 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-30 09:12 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-30 12:46 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-31 09:35 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-30 13:11 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-30 13:19 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-30 15:40 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-30 13:44 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-28 14:47 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-25 22:22 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Chayne Prokurorov <nhp@ruurkrr.ru> - 2025-08-20 19:14 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:41 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-19 02:46 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-30 19:25 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-31 21:59 +0200
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 16:50 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 16:51 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-01 19:25 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 19:39 +0000
Re: About the difference between "time dilation" and "clock error" Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 19:52 +0000
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 11:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <27jHz-v5kjoqlJJIhkdKTE7MUGg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665435 |
Le 08/08/2025 à 20:41, Python a écrit : > Le 08/08/2025 à 20:30, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python: >>> Le 07/08/2025 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>> >>>> 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." >>> >>> This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the time >>> coordinate attached to such an event. >>> >> You probably meant Heger. > > 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 😂 Doctor Hachel is the best theorist of special relativity of all time. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 15:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1077in6$1aobb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665442 |
On 2025-08-09 11:22:10 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > Le 08/08/2025 à 20:41, Python a écrit : >> Le 08/08/2025 à 20:30, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>> Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python: >>>> Le 07/08/2025 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> 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." >>>> >>>> This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the time >>>> coordinate attached to such an event. >>>> >>> You probably meant Heger. >> >> 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 😂 > > 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. -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 38 years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <-ImxEOjFspCFNQcCnt63lh0Syrg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665445 |
Le 09/08/2025 à 15:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : > On 2025-08-09 11:22:10 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > >> Le 08/08/2025 à 20:41, Python a écrit : >>> Le 08/08/2025 à 20:30, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>> Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python: >>>>> Le 07/08/2025 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> 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." >>>>> >>>>> This is also what Hachel considers the "right" way to consider the time >>>>> coordinate attached to such an event. >>>>> >>>> You probably meant Heger. >>> >>> 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 😂 >> >> 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. Here is a rare photograph of "Doctor" Hachel/Lengrand: <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?-ImxEOjFspCFNQcCnt63lh0Syrg@jntp/Data.Media:1> https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Snake-oil_salesman_Professor_Thaddeus_Schmidlap_at_Enchanted_Springs_Ranch,_Boerne,_Texas,_USA_28650a.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 14:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FOH_7Qo18YM8P8RCXtUFSsMH4go@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665446 |
Le 09/08/2025 à 15:40, Python a écrit : > Le 09/08/2025 à 15:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : The professor Python. Anti-hachelian doctor. > <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?-ImxEOjFspCFNQcCnt63lh0Syrg@jntp/Data.Media:1> R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 14:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jtQeO0j0d3Mx_Zo8Wrh1K53HXsY@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665448 |
Le 09/08/2025 à 16:49, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 09/08/2025 à 15:40, Python a écrit : >> Le 09/08/2025 à 15:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : > > The professor Python. > > Anti-hachelian doctor. Not "anti-hachelian" : anti-liars, anti-idiots, anti-cranks. You fall in all categories, not my fault.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <G-s-j8e6ctg_80z23sURgs483vs@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665449 |
Le 09/08/2025 à 16:58, Python a écrit : > Le 09/08/2025 à 16:49, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> Le 09/08/2025 à 15:40, Python a écrit : >>> Le 09/08/2025 à 15:33, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : >> >> The professor Python. >> >> Anti-hachelian doctor. > > Not "anti-hachelian" : anti-liars, anti-idiots, anti-cranks. You fall in all > categories, not my fault. C'est clair. Ce ne sera jaaaaaamais de ta faute. L'excuse du diable. Sauf qu'un jour, il s'est fait enculer. - Pourquoi as-tu mangé de l'arbre, dont je t'avais dit qu'il était mortel? - C'est ma femme, elle m'a dit que c'était bon quand même. -Et toi, femme, pourquoi lui as-tu dis que c'était bon? -Le serpent m'a trompé, c'est lui qui m'a dit que c'était bon. Et là un phénomène étrange apparait : le bon Dieu ne convoque pas le serpent. Il ne l'entend pas. Il juge tout de suite : "Parce que tu as fais cette chose, tu ramperas sur ton ventre tous les jours de ta vie". Il ne l'entend même pas et ne veut rien savoir. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 06:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfqmpiFjf55U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665434 |
Am Freitag000008, 08.08.2025 um 20:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 08.08.2025 18:04, skrev Python:
>> Le 07/08/2025 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>
>>> 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 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.
>>
> 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 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 08:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c_ucne5Yg-1VJQX1nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #665457 |
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 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>>
>> 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 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".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shane Dubenkov <bdneb@nbanb.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107ae3q$1vrkc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665458 |
Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 08/09/2025 09:54 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> 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". shut the fuck up, fool; piss off. I fuck your mother in she ass when I shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <U1GdnbLVoqRzUQX1nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #665458 |
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 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> 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 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".
>
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."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <V9WcnRBt9qdtUwX1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #665460 |
On 08/10/2025 09:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 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 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> 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 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".
>>
>
> 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."
>
>
>
>
>
Here in one of my recend podcasts "Logos 2000: Foundations briefly" you
can find an hour or so spoken description of the requirements and
desiderata of mathematical foundations of continuity, then infinity,
more and better and required and paleo-classical and post-modern,
"A Theory", a study of Foundations so briefly, that things like
"giant mechanical thorough reasoners" arrive at.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjtXZ5mBVOc
One of my favorite books of Einstein is "Out of My Later Years",
he most thoroughly if delicately establishes a "the time" and
two separate "spacial" and "spatial" definitions for SR and GR,
and _does_ establish that RoS is non-local, since his requirements
of "a good theory, eventually" is a total field theory.
Since it's his last word, Einstein's, "Out of My Later Years",
then is for making both a critical and a generous reading of it,
if it's supposed to be right at all and not merely so much nothing.
Yeah I figure I've written some thousands of essays to
sci.math.relativity, many quite longer than this one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-21 20:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <WOadnQa_sLohNez0nZ2dnZfqnPhi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #665461 |
On 08/10/2025 09:55 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 08/10/2025 09:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> 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 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 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".
>>>
>>
>> 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."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Here in one of my recend podcasts "Logos 2000: Foundations briefly" you
> can find an hour or so spoken description of the requirements and
> desiderata of mathematical foundations of continuity, then infinity,
> more and better and required and paleo-classical and post-modern,
> "A Theory", a study of Foundations so briefly, that things like
> "giant mechanical thorough reasoners" arrive at.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjtXZ5mBVOc
>
> One of my favorite books of Einstein is "Out of My Later Years",
> he most thoroughly if delicately establishes a "the time" and
> two separate "spacial" and "spatial" definitions for SR and GR,
> and _does_ establish that RoS is non-local, since his requirements
> of "a good theory, eventually" is a total field theory.
>
> Since it's his last word, Einstein's, "Out of My Later Years",
> then is for making both a critical and a generous reading of it,
> if it's supposed to be right at all and not merely so much nothing.
>
> Yeah I figure I've written some thousands of essays to
> sci.math.relativity, many quite longer than this one.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 13:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <z5-cnYlfO7e_oKr0nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #665460 |
On 08/10/2025 09:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 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 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> 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 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".
>>
>
> 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."
>
>
>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 07:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mftbl6F2lq3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665458 |
Am Sonntag000010, 10.08.2025 um 17:20 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> 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 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> 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 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".
>
Well, possibly...
But I simply doen't care how fast his mind goes, because I'm not
thinking about his mind, but about an articles, which he had written.
This is why I anaylsed his statements and tried to interpret them in a
possible way.
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.
It is not allowed to expect the reader to 'develop' the author's hints
like a photographic film.
Therefore any statement of the author is taken as if they were cast in
stone.
Also previous or subsequent statements in other media or on other
occasions are irrelevant, because the article is take as if it would be
the only thing an author had ever written.
If this sounds unfair, than I suggest other topics then theoretical physics.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Freeman Vandroogenbroeck <dronn@reaea.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107gcgc$3i7bj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665469 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > 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. good point, when you start writing a paper you already know the paper, as the reason for, you start writing it. 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗸𝗲_𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱_𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻_𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲__𝗡𝗬𝗧 US, Colombian, and Danish nationals were reportedly among those who died in an attack on a training camp in central Ukraine https://r%74.com/ru%73sia/622814-russian-strike-foreign-fighters-ukraine/ A Russian strike in late July dealt a major blow to foreign mercenaries in Ukraine, when it hit a training camp set up by Ukrainian military intelligence, the 𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗬𝗼𝗿𝗸_𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 reported on Tuesday. It didn’t end for them like in that TV series, didn’t it? Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yugoslavia etc Us military is just as much talk as their supreme leader Of course! Shit scared of ground wars!!!. But fucking mighty on bombing innocent people. Soldiers of fortune, Come and die in Ukraine for 3000 devaluated US dollars a month I would be happy to see Russia liberate Odessa ASAP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 21:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107aqho$23boc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665457 |
Den 10.08.2025 06:54, skrev Thomas Heger:
> 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.
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.
" >
> 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.
So you know that the clock at B wasn't visually observed by
the observer at A.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 10:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107c8u7$2dp95$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665457 |
On 2025-08-10 04:54:29 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> Am Freitag000008, 08.08.2025 um 20:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>
>> [ … ]
>>
>> 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?
>
> 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
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 38 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 09:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mg2ud2FabqU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665471 |
Am Montag000011, 11.08.2025 um 10:17 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: ... >>> 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? I don't give a shit about what Einstein actually wanted to say and didn't, because I'm dealing with a printed text. This text 'is as it is', meaning, that what is printed, that is part of the text and what is not printed isn't. That could eventually sound unfair, but those are the rules in science. It is therefor not my intention to 'beautify' the text in any way. I have to deal with the text as it is. The author has some duties, too, mainly to tell his story in a comprehensive way. (I as a reader have no duties at all, because reading is voluntarily.) Now we are dealing with 'theoretical physics' here, which has some extra rules. Especially this branch of physics requires mathematical correctness and doesn't allow any kind of error. This is why you can separate any statement from it's 'environement', because theoretical physics requires, that all statements the text is composed of are also valid themselves. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 06:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfqleeFjf55U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665422 |
Am Donnerstag000007, 07.08.2025 um 22:13 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > 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 >>>>> 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"! > > 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. > " 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. 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 21:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107aqs2$23boc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665456 |
Den 10.08.2025 06:31, skrev Thomas Heger: > 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: >> "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. >> " > > 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. So it has nothing to do with Einstein's synchronisation method. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web