XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Sonntag000014, 14.09.2025 um 22:21 schrieb Python:   
   > Le 14/09/2025 à 10:21, Thomas Heger a écrit :   
   >> Am Samstag000013, 13.09.2025 um 10:45 schrieb Python:   
   >>> Le 13/09/2025 à 08:29, Thomas Heger a écrit :   
   >>>> Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 07:56 schrieb Python:   
   >>>> ...   
   >>>>>>> Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a   
   >>>>>>> complete bunch of nonsense from start to finish.   
   >>>>>>>> For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed   
   >>>>>>>> that.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On   
   >>>>>> the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation   
   >>>>>> function of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in   
   >>>>>> my view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an   
   >>>>>> error).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I wrote more than 420 annotations.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors   
   >>>>>> of all kinds.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> About those comments I had several discussions in this group of   
   >>>>>> the UseNet in a period of about two years.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and   
   >>>>>> rethink a number of comments.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> But the total number of annotation was only reduced   
   >>>>>> insignificantly in this process.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The vast majority remained unchallenged.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where   
   >>>>>> the text itself could not be defended against critique.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst   
   >>>>>> articles ever printed in a scientific journal.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 100% of your "comments" are idiotic garbage. You failed at   
   >>>>> understanding the most obvious basic statements.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Especially about synchronization of clocks. Remember?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, not at all.   
   >>>   
   >>> Are you kidding ? It was a few days ago !   
   >>>   
   >>> See:   
   >>>   
   >>> Le 04/09/2025 à 17:40, Python a écrit :   
   >>>> Le 02/09/2025 à 12:28, Python a écrit :   
   >>>>> Le 02/09/2025 à 11:39, Python a écrit :   
   >>>>>> Le 01/09/2025 à 08:23, Thomas Heger a écrit :   
   >>>>>> ...   
   >>>>>>> station 'A' is located in Houston, Texas and station 'B' upon the   
   >>>>>>> Moon.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> A-time is usual Texas-time and 'B-time' was named 'Moon mean time'.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Now we have a huge clock on the Moon and also an 'Apollo' crew to   
   >>>>>>> maintain the clock there.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> No reason for this clock to be huge.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You wrote, that a number of methods would be possible by which   
   >>>>>>> Houston could be informed about t_B, which included also letters   
   >>>>>>> sent by mail.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And I have written, that you should explain to me, what a letter   
   >>>>>>> with the time 'it's now 13:00:00 Moon mean time' arriving one   
   >>>>>>> week later would say.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> But you are in fact correct and t_B was defined as time of   
   >>>>>>> arrival of the signal in B, which was the meaning of t_B.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Therefore the letter from the Moon should contain the message '   
   >>>>>>> your signal arrived here at 13:00:00 Moon mean time'.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Now: how do you synchronize the clock on the Moon with that   
   >>>>>>> information?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The message is sent to A in your scenario, so it is the clock on   
   >>>>>> Earth that could be synchronized, by applying a computed offset,   
   >>>>>> with clock B.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> In order to do so A also need to uses t_A and t'_A. As both are   
   >>>>>> values that have been read on clock A before, there is no   
   >>>>>> communication issues here. Right?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Let's suppose that these values are:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> t_A = 12:30:00   
   >>>>>> t'_A = 11:30:2.56444   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Typo: t_A  = 12:30:00   
   >>>>> t'_A = 12:30:2.56444   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> t_B = 13:00:00   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> A few questions now:   
   >>>>>> 1. Can you check if 2*d/(tpA - tA) = c [d is the Earth-Moon   
   >>>>>> distance] ?   
   >>>>>> 2. Can you check if t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B ? What does this means   
   >>>>>> in term of clocks synchronization according to Einstein?   
   >>>>>> 3. Can you compute an offset to be applied to clock A so that   
   >>>>>> clocks A & B will be, then, synchronized?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No answer? How weird...   
   >   
   > Still no answer?   
      
      
      
      
   >   
   >>>> I have criticized Einstein's method, because Einstein didn't mention   
   >>>> any means to correct the error caused by the finite speed of light   
   >>>> and the resulting delay.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is not an "error", it is what it is. And Einstein take this (what   
   >>> you call "delay") into account in this explicit equation :  t_B - t_A   
   >>> = t'_A - t_B   
   >>   
   >> This is the delay, but only under certain conditions.   
   >   
   > Sure. It is the delay under a specific condition. This condition il :   
   >   
   > t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B   
      
   You hallucinate, what should be there but simply isn't.   
      
   That equation "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B" isn't delay, but an equation.   
      
   And it does not even contain a variable, which could eventually   
   represent delay.   
      
   You simply added 'delay', because you think that this would be obvious.   
      
   But there are no 'obvious' extensions allowed in theoretical physics.   
      
   Instead you should stick to the text as it is and not as you like it to be.   
      
   >   
   >> Main requirements: A and B should not move in respect to each other   
   >> and the speed of light on the way had always to be the same.   
   >   
   > Sure. It is explicitly stated by Einstein.   
      
   BUT: light does NOT travel with the same velocity all the time, because   
   light speed is depending on the medium.   
      
   E.g. light speed in air or water is slower than in vacuum.   
      
   And Einstein didn't mention that.>   
   >> But there ain't no variables for delay (like e.g. 'd') in Einstein's   
   >> text.   
   >   
   > I don't need a "variable" called d. I can grasp that the difference   
   > between two time measures is a delay.   
      
   There is no room for your extensions, if you analyze a paper.   
      
   > Are you that dump that you missed the obvious: t_whatever -   
   > t_whatever_else IS A DELAY !!!? ? ?   
   >   
   > Your stupidity is properly amazing Thomas.   
   >   
   >> What was also missing, that is a connection between delay and clock-   
   >> setting.   
   >   
   > Quite the opposite: the condition t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is the   
   > definition of synchronization: i.e. correct clock settings.   
      
   No.   
      
   It starts with the lack of a proper definition of t_A and t_B.   
      
   If disconnected local times are meant with 'A-time' and 'B-time' and t_A   
   was measured in 'A-time' and t_B by means of 'B-time', than   
   t_B-t_A would be an illegal operation to begin with.   
      
   Therefore t_A and t_B must be based on 'A-time' only. And that in turn   
   would make 'B-time' irrelevant.   
      
   That isn't bad at all, because the clock in B shall be synchronized with   
   the clock in A, anyhow.   
      
      
   ...   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)