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

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

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

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

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

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

What is then the time on the Moon ?

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

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

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

But this is NOT what Einstein had done.

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

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

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

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

TH

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

> mention it with a single word.

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

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

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
> What is then the time on the Moon ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't even misunderstand Einstein's text.

Well done! :-D

>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Thomas Heger wrote:

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

> Einstein made several serious errors.

He made no errors, let alone "serious" ones. He did commit a few instances of
sloppiness but then so does literally every single science paper that ever was.

> One was his method of synchronisation.

> he had (simplified) this picture in mind:

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

> The error:

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

I won't even comment on that. Besides, I have just posted an article explaining
in detail why clock synchronisation is actually an inessential part of special
relativity. The beef lies elsewhere.

> Another serious error:

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

Gobbledygook.

> Annoying were Einstein's naming conventions.

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

No, his usage of symbols is standard.

> Seriously unscientific were the lack references to the used materials.

This was normal at the time. Go to the library and leaf through the issues of
Annalen der Physik for the years around 1905 and you'll find many papers there
with no references in them. It just wasn't a big thing at the time.

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

Not needed (see above). The paper was written for professionals, not students.

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

Again, I won't EVEN comment on that. Bottomless incompetence on your part.

Stop wasting your time on this "project". Your document is 100% nonsense.

--
Jan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le 13/02/2024 à 18:18, Python a écrit :
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Coucou, Python!

Te revoilà?

Well...

It is sad to note that human stupidity continues to wreak havoc, filled as
it is with imbecile narcissism and idiotic certainties.

What is saddening is that Python, who does not like Verret, makes the same
mistake as him and covers his ears so as not to hear, that is to say
understand, what Doctor Hachel is saying.

I have said it over and over for four years (oh my God forty years): you
cannot "absolutely" synchronize two watches placed in different places,
it's stupid and it's a simple abstract thought.

What does Python, my little usenet angel, say?

He says:
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

He believes he has found the “most brilliant equation in the universe,
the little angel.

But he will be sad when he learns that good old Doctor Hachel, whose
genius he adores and claims, does not agree and that this stupid equation
makes him laugh.

He poses for the outward journey t(to go)= t_B - t_A
and for the return: t(return)=t'_A - t_B

But WHO measures this time? Is it A? No. Is it B? Neither.

This time is measured by C, a third observer being at the same distance
from A and B, and for whom A and B are necessarily isochronous in nature,
that is to say synchronized, that is to say forming part, for C, of the
same plane of present time.

He then asks:
2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c

Yes, that's right. Because noted with the same watch A.

We put t_B = t_A + (AB)/c but for WHO?

Still for C observing an electronic flash from A to B.

But this is not what A notes, it is not what B notes, nor is it what the
photon notes which notes t=0.

Bon, je vois que comme d'habitude, personne n'y comprend que pouic.

La notion d'anisochronie, que j'avais comprise à neuf ans restera un
profond mystère pour les génies de usenet.

On n'a pas fini d'en causer.

R.H.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My own interpretation is this:

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

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

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

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

Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.

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

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

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

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

....

TH

Am 13.02.2024 um 17:25 schrieb JanPB:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 10.02.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
>>>>> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> annotations).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
>>>>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than
>>>>> useless,
>>>>> they are signs of crackpottery.
>>>>
>>>> I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
>>>
>>> There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
>>> something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor
>>>>
>>>> This is one of the rules of science.
>>>>
>>>> It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
>>>> critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
>>>> might come, is valid.
>>>
>>> You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
>>> to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
>>> anyone in science to look at them.
>>>>
>>>> And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
>>>> valid.
>>>>
>>>> You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
>>>> has not the appropriate title.
>>>
>>> Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
>>> paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
>>> Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
>>> which source will be ignored vs. studied?
>>>>
>>>> But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are
>>>> welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
>>>> the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
>>>> what exactly is wrong with it.
>>>
>>> I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
>>> obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
>>> errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
>>> simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
>>> wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
>>> error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.
>
>
>> Einstein made several serious errors.
>
> He made no errors, let alone "serious" ones. He did commit a few
> instances of
> sloppiness but then so does literally every single science paper that
> ever was.
>
>> One was his method of synchronisation.
>
>> he had (simplified) this picture in mind:
>
>> I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and
>> take that signal as information about the remote time.
>
>> The error:
>
>> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
>> mention it with a single word.
>
> I won't even comment on that. Besides, I have just posted an article
> explaining
> in detail why clock synchronisation is actually an inessential part of
> special
> relativity. The beef lies elsewhere.
>
>> Another serious error:
>
>> he ascribed the effects of motion to the moving object, while it is
>> actually an effect, which is only visible at the side of the observer.
>
> Gobbledygook.
>
>> Annoying were Einstein's naming conventions.
>
>> Especially annoying were the reuse of variable names and the lack of
>> definitions of used symbols.
>
> No, his usage of symbols is standard.

Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!

For instance:
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.

He also defined something, like the axes mof system k (named with large
Greek letters), but didn't use that definition and used large Latin
letters in the text instead.

Also illogic where the names themselves. E.g. I had not understood, why
he didn't use indices to adress different motions, but ' (prime).

He also used no different symbols for different types of mathematical
objects (like: vectors and scalars /functions and values/ cordinate
values and axes names). Different type of objects (like e.g. function
names) should be made distinguishable from values or vectors.

He also used non-standard names like e.g. P for preassure or A_m for
'power of deflection' (whatever that is).

In all cases he wrote no proper definitions and simply expected the
reader to know his intentions.

He also wrote equations, but no description, what these equations shall
express.

To make matters worse, he also changed the type of object occasionally
without notice.

For instance the speed of light is a scalar value, while velocity is a
vector quantity. If you subtract c from v, you implicitly convert v to a
scalar.

These are all very nasty habits and definetely not standard in science.

....

TH

On Tuesday 13 February 2024 at 17:26:09 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> > Am 10.02.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney:
> >> On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
> >>>> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
> >>>>> annotations).
> >>>>
> >>>> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
> >>>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
> >>>> they are signs of crackpottery.
> >>>
> >>> I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
> >>
> >> There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
> >> something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor
> >>>
> >>> This is one of the rules of science.
> >>>
> >>> It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
> >>> critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
> >>> might come, is valid.
> >>
> >> You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
> >> to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
> >> anyone in science to look at them.
> >>>
> >>> And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
> >>> valid.
> >>>
> >>> You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
> >>> has not the appropriate title.
> >>
> >> Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
> >> paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
> >> Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
> >> which source will be ignored vs. studied?
> >>>
> >>> But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
> >>>
> >>> Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
> >>> the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
> >>> what exactly is wrong with it.
> >>
> >> I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
> >> obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
> >> errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
> >> simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
> >> wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
> >> error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.
>
>
> > Einstein made several serious errors.
> He made no errors, let alone "serious" ones.

The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
You've got a proof, your ravings won't change anything,
poor trash.

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

'nuff said!

Your confusion is beyond what I thought was possible.

No point in going on.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

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

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

--
Mikko

Le 14/02/2024 à 02:46, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 13/02/2024 à 18:18, Python a écrit :
> [snip garbage]

> He says:
>  t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>
> [snip more garbage]

> He poses for the outward journey t(to go)= t_B - t_A
> and for the return: t(return)=t'_A - t_B
>
> But WHO measures this time? Is it A? No. Is it B? Neither.

You've still not read this part of Einstein paper?

Your question is pointless: all measured times here is
measure by a given clock for an event happening at this
very clock place!

t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted.
t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives
t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives.

See? The question "measured by who" is stupid (it makes sense only
when remote clocks are involved, this is not the case here. Einstein
take much care about that in order to not rely on any arbitrary
synchronization scheme).

For any observer the time marked by a given clock when a given
event happens at the very same place of this clock is the SAME!

How can you cranks be thaaat stupid???

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

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

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

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

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

It is :

"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in
*all respects resembling* the one at A."

Seriously Thomas, what's wrong with you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le 14/02/2024 à 18:12, Python a écrit :

> t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted.

Je suis d'accord, t_A est l'heure indiquée quand le rayon est émis par
A.

> t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives

Magnifique.

t_B est l'heure indiquée par B quand le rayon arrive sur B.

> t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives.

t'_A est l'heure indiquée par A quand le retour de l'information arrive.

Python, tu es génial!

J'y avais pas pensé à ça.

En plus, tu expliques vachement bien. Je vais te proposer pour le Nobel.

Je crois que tu as loupé ta vocation, tu aurais pu faire un très grand
vulgarisateur scientifique.

Dommage que pour le reste, tu sois si bête.

R.H.

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

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

Le 14/02/2024 à 19:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 14/02/2024 à 18:12, Python a écrit :
>
>> t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted.
>
> Je suis d'accord, t_A est l'heure indiquée quand le rayon est émis par A.

Marked by A clock, you missed the crucial point.

>> t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives > t_B est l'heure indiquée par B quand le rayon arrive sur B.

Marked by B clock, you, again, missed the point.

>> t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives.
>
> t'_A est l'heure indiquée par A quand le retour de l'information arrive.

Notice that this time it is marked by a clock at A.

> [snip garbage]

You still fail to understand that there is no kind of C observer,
and that the POINT of the procedure is to only consider time marked
by clocks for events happening at the same time of the involved
clock.

We had the same discussion twenty years ago, go figure!!! And
still you didn't get the point.

How can you cranks be soooo stupid???

Le 14/02/2024 à 20:07, Python a écrit :
....
> You still fail to understand that there is no kind of C observer,
> and that the POINT of the procedure is to only consider time marked
> by clocks for events happening at the same time of the involved
> clock.

typo: at the same *place*.

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

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

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

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

Poor fools.

R.H.

Le 14/02/2024 à 20:07, Python a écrit :
> Le 14/02/2024 à 19:59, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Le 14/02/2024 à 18:12, Python a écrit :
>>
>>> t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted.
>>
>> Je suis d'accord, t_A est l'heure indiquée quand le rayon est émis par A.
>
> Marked by A clock, you missed the crucial point.

Bieeeeeen !!!

>>> t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives > t_B est l'heure
>>> indiquée par B quand le rayon arrive sur B.
>
> Marked by B clock, you, again, missed the point.

Bieeeeen !

>>> t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives.
>>
>> t'_A est l'heure indiquée par A quand le retour de l'information arrive.
>
> Notice that this time it is marked by a clock at A.

Bieeeeen !

> You still fail to understand that there is no kind of C observer,
> and that the POINT of the procedure is to only consider time marked
> by clocks for events happening at the same time of the involved
> clock.
>
> We had the same discussion twenty years ago, go figure!!! And
> still you didn't get the point.
>
> How can you cranks be soooo stupid? ? ?

The opposite is more true.

We've been having this discussion for 20 or 30 years.
You are perfectly right.

Except it's YOU who says: "You don't understand me, you're a crank".

Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're saying
to me?

Yes, yes, you're still really sick.

Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization.

But I say it's bullshit.

Get that into your head and finally ask yourself the real question.

What python am I unable to understand in what Hachel has been saying for
40 years? and why can't I understand? Did this come from him? Is this
coming from me?”

Ask yourself the question first.

Uses Descartes' methodical doubt.

R.H.

Le 14/02/2024 à 20:21, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> [snip garbage]

> Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're
> saying to me?

You are. You've shown that you don't understand it. You're not
even trying because of stupidity AND hubris.

> Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization.

Definitely NOT. You've shown you do not by mentioning
your observer "C".

Le 14/02/2024 à 20:26, Python a écrit :
> Le 14/02/2024 à 20:21, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> [snip garbage]
>
>> Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're
>> saying to me?
>
> You are. You've shown that you don't understand it. You're not
> even trying because of stupidity AND hubris.
>
>> Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization.
>
> Definitely NOT. You've shown you do not by mentioning
> your observer "C".

C'est toi qui ne comprends pas en quoi Einstein se trompe.

Il postule sans le dire qu'il existe dans son référentiel un plan du
temps présent absolu.

Il postule que si je me place en M (milieu de AB) et que j'envoie un
signal de même vitesse (qu'importe la vitesse)
en A et en B, alors A et B le recevront simultanément.

L'idée est fort simple, mais complétement fausse.

Seul un observateur placé à égale distance de A et B considèrera que
les deux signaux sont arrivés au même instant présent.

D'où l'observateur C nécessaire.

Idem pour le GPS basé sur un observateur C abstrait, mais fort utile.

Mais bon, je sais, tu t'en fous, ça ne t'intéresse pas.

Je sais tout ça.

R.H.

Le 14/02/2024 à 21:23, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 14/02/2024 à 20:26, Python a écrit :
>> Le 14/02/2024 à 20:21, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>>> [snip garbage]
>>
>>> Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're
>>> saying to me?
>>
>> You are. You've shown that you don't understand it. You're not
>> even trying because of stupidity AND hubris.
>>
>>> Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization.
>>
>> Definitely NOT. You've shown you do not by mentioning
>> your observer "C".
>
> C'est toi qui ne comprends pas en quoi Einstein se trompe.
>
> Il postule sans le dire qu'il existe dans son référentiel un plan du
> temps présent absolu.
> Il postule que si je me place en M (milieu de AB) et que j'envoie un
> signal de même vitesse (qu'importe la vitesse) en A et en B, alors A et
> B le recevront simultanément.

This is absolutely not how Einstein's synchronization procedure
is done.

> Idem pour le GPS basé sur un observateur C abstrait, mais fort utile.

This is also 100% wrong.

> Je sais tout ça.

You don't "know" that, because that is only stuff you made up.

Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>
> Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
>
> For instance:
> he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.

What is the single not annoying use of the letter 'A' ?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

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

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

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

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

Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.

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

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

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

But in any case:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is another reason why you should know the delay.

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

TH

....