Am 16.01.2024 um 11:59 schrieb Python:
> Le 16/01/2024 à 09:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> fast.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
>>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
>>>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
>>>>>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
>>>>>>> deleay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
>>>>>>> the remote clock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
>>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
>>>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
>>>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
>>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
>>>>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
>>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
>>>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
>>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
>>>
>>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
>>> Where does the 2 come from?

That equation has a different form in Einstein's text:

2AB/(t'_A - t_A )= c

It's no big deal, of course, but quotes should be verbatim.

The difference is: Einstein meant c and not the delay with this equation.

You changed the order of terms and concluded, that Einstein meant the delay.

But there is no evidence at all, that Einstein even considered the
delay, because the word 'delay' or something equivalent is missing in
the entire text.

>>
>> I know, of course, what that equation means.
>>
>> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
>>
>> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
>> and a position vector B is not a distance.
>>
>> But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
>>
>> Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional
>> physicist?
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Besides of this:
>>
>> Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
>> the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
>> again' (or something equivalent).
>>
>> Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.
>
> 1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is

Formal requirements are also valid for geniusses!

so: Einstein had to make clear, what he meant with 2AB.

It is obvious from the context, that twice the distance from A to B was
meant.

Such distances have actually a common notation, (which I cannot easily
replicate in ASCII), but has a line on top of AB.

If no such line is present, then AB must be interpreted as scalar
product of two position vectors A and B.

Actually A and B denote points. But you cannot multiply points, because
points are physical entities, which cannot be multiplied (like e.g. you
cannot multiply an egg with an apople).

So A and B must be interpreted as position vectors.

Vectors can be multiplied, hence that would be a valid interpretation of
2AB.

But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.

....

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
>>>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term
>>>> means? Where does the 2 come from?
>
> That equation has a different form in Einstein's text:
> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A )= c
> It's no big deal, of course, but quotes should be verbatim.

of course it's a big deal, me friend. When the big 𝗟𝗲𝗯𝗼𝘄𝘀𝗸𝘆 differentiate
𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 instead of 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲. Actually crucial in relativity, what you do.
The Einstine 𝗹𝗲𝗯𝗼𝘄𝘀𝗸𝘆 did the same, in america. He was thinking work in
𝗻𝗮𝘀𝗮, with the nazis. In bed with his cousin, married in own family. Which
is a sin, in many countries. What a disgrace. Here is what capitalist
america did.

'𝗪𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲_𝘀𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝘄𝗲_𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗡𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗼𝗲𝘀':
It took this man 200 days to become a legend in the fight against Western
exploitation. Sixty-three years ago, the first prime minister of an
independent Congo, Patrice Lumumba, 𝘄𝗮𝘀_𝗯𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆_𝗺𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 on the orders of
the West for supposedly being a danger to the very system it was upholding
https://r%74.com/africa/590746-patrice-lumumba-independent-congo/

Le 17/01/2024 à 07:54, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 16.01.2024 um 11:59 schrieb Python:
>> Le 16/01/2024 à 09:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> fast.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
>>>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
>>>>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
>>>>>>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
>>>>>>>> deleay.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
>>>>>>>> the remote clock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
>>>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
>>>>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
>>>>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
>>>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
>>>>>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
>>>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
>>>>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
>>>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
>>>>
>>>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
>>>> Where does the 2 come from?
>
> That equation has a different form in Einstein's text:
>
> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A )= c
>
> It's no big deal, of course, but quotes should be verbatim.
>
> The difference is: Einstein meant c and not the delay with this equation.
>
> You changed the order of terms and concluded, that Einstein meant the delay.
>
> But there is no evidence at all, that Einstein even considered the
> delay, because the word 'delay' or something equivalent is missing in
> the entire text.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> I know, of course, what that equation means.
>>>
>>> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
>>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
>>>
>>> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
>>> and a position vector B is not a distance.
>>>
>>> But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
>>>
>>> Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional
>>> physicist?
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Besides of this:
>>>
>>> Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
>>> the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
>>> again' (or something equivalent).
>>>
>>> Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.
>>
>> 1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is
>
>
> Formal requirements are also valid for geniusses!
>
> so: Einstein had to make clear, what he meant with 2AB.
>
> It is obvious from the context, that twice the distance from A to B was
> meant.
>
> Such distances have actually a common notation, (which I cannot easily
> replicate in ASCII), but has a line on top of AB.
>
> If no such line is present, then AB must be interpreted as scalar
> product of two position vectors A and B.
>
> Actually A and B denote points. But you cannot multiply points, because
> points are physical entities, which cannot be multiplied (like e.g. you
> cannot multiply an egg with an apople).
>
> So A and B must be interpreted as position vectors.
>
> Vectors can be multiplied, hence that would be a valid interpretation of
> 2AB.
>
> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
>
> ...
>
>
> TH

It is clear that the distance 2AB is worth twice AB.

Let's stay reasonable.

Einstein correctly measures Euclid's ametric.

But where Einstein makes a dramatic error (I know that I am attacking a
God, and that it is not nice) is when he believes that t(AB)=t(BA) for all
observers of the frame . He is completely unaware, it seems, of the notion
of spatial anisochrony like all physicists today.

Certainly, if I place myself at a point placed equidistant from A and B,
for example on the perpendicular which passes through M in the middle of
AB, I would have t(AB)=t(BA) like Eisntein says it.

But not if I'm in A, and not if I'm in B.

It is this difficulty that physicists today do not seem to understand, due
to their abstract religious belief in a “plan of present time”.

Although I have explained to them how the RR has worked for 40 years, and
why many things are wrong with their geometry, they are absolutely
incapable of questioning or even listening without seeking to humiliate or
even threaten death.

It's simply incredible and worthy of the greatest Hollywood films.

R.H.

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 20:02:45 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Let's stay reasonable.
>
> Einstein correctly measures Euclid's ametric.

Sure, even he wasn't stupid enough to treat his anti-Euclid
absurds seriously.

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 8:38:02 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 5:37:34 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 15/01/2024 à 08:08, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> > >
> > > This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
> > > word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
> > >
> > > This is a VERY (!!!) serious error, because Einstein also made efforts
> > > to compensate the delay by adjusting the tick-rate of the remote clock
> > > or by adjusting the time of the clock or the time of the remote system
> > > per se.
> > >
> > > This was all wrong, while the correct solution was never mentioned.
> > >
> > > this would be:
> > >
> > > measure the delay and add it to the reading od the remote clock.
> > >
> > >
> > > This solution is so simple and obvious, that hardly anybody will be able
> > > to reject it.
> > >
> > > But instead of a simple and obvious solution a pompouse nonsense was
> > > produced and forcefully shuffled into the minds of the defenseless public.
> > >
> > >
> > > TH
> > The problem of synchronization is a problem of temporal reference.
> > We will say: "This event occurred at five o'clock" but what does that
> > mean?
> > This means that, for example, we placed in various places in a city, at
> > noon, all kinds of watches which we artificially set to noon, and that at
> > a crossroads, an accident occurred. when the small hand of a watch was on
> > five and the big hand on twelve.
> > In relativity, things are less simple because the time depends on the
> > location of the observer in relation to the event. The further away from
> > the event, the greater the anisochrony will be.
> >
> > What is important to understand is that synchronization, useful for
> > subsequent discussions, can therefore only be done for a single observer,
> > and that it is always on a previously chosen observer that the watches are
> > synchronized.
> >
> > This is similar to choosing the Greenwich meridian to determine the
> > geographic position of an event.
> >
> > By convention, you need a base. If I say that the event occurred at
> > 43°14'27", I know by definition that it is relative to the Greenwich
> > meridian. Everything is only relative to something.
> >
> > If I now take GPS synchronization, and if I correctly understand the
> > theory of relativity, I will first realize that it is absolutely
> > impossible to synchronize even two watches in the universe. Each will
> > advance on the other by a value delta_t=x/c.
> >
> > However, the GPS works. For what?
> >
> > Because we took, for GPS, as we did for Greenwich, a basic reference.
> >
> > What is this basic reference?
> >
> > It is an abstract point, located in a hypothetical fourth spatial
> > dimension, placed very far from all the three D points of the universe,
> > but equidistant from each of them.
> >
> > That's GPS.
> >
> > But àa b absolutely does not mean that between them, all the points of a
> > universe, even a fixed one, "coexist absolutely at the same instant, and
> > that the notion of universal anisochrony does not exist.
> >
> > On the contrary, it is the basis of our world, and it is even possible
> > that our world could not exist without it?
> >
> > Would the notion of energy, and therefore of life, precisely, exist
> > without universal anisochrony?
> >
> > R.H.
> Phaselock.
>
>
> Einstein sets his clock by it.
>
>
> It's pretty well established the universe is flat, i.e., doesn't have an anisotropy.
>
> Then as with regards Zenos' paradoxes of motion, those are exercises to be
> resolved by continuum mechanics, not excuses your dog ate your homework.
>
> Heh, your dog ate your homework.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
>
> That number 21 of Philosophical Foreground, describes and explains
> "the three replete central continuous domains of mathematics",
> in the first fifteen minutes, and, where they come from.

Indeed, it's all the way back to Zeno's paradox, rehabilitating the conscious resolution
of the natures of continuity, that mathematics owes physics, then to explain the
quasi-invariant of the pseudo-degenerate, to explain this concept "symmetry flex",
with models of flow and flux, that are equipped thusly their own "superclassical".

It's not so directly obvious and indeed it's a bit counterintuitive,
yet at the same time there's that Zeno's archer's arrow arrives to a mirror as well,
and meets in the middle, the middle of what was nowhere, for it arrives.

This then is a true sort of completion for otherwise that the "close enough"
was also "distant enough", Zeno's or Zenon's or Xenon's rams butting, or
the cross-fire. but gently enough, the meeting in the middle.

On 1/16/2024 3:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
>> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very
>>>>>> fast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
>>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
>>>>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
>>>>>> deleay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
>>>>>> the remote clock.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
>>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
>>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
>>>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
>>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
>>>
>>>
>>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
>>
>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
>> Where does the 2 come from?
>
> I know, of course, what that equation means.
>
> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts from
> A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
>
> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A and
> a position vector B is not a distance.

Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
used the scalar products, those are distances.
>
> But distance from A to B was obviously meant.

Again, why the goofy statement about scalar products?
> > Besides of this:
>
> Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
> the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
> again' (or something equivalent).

Which is essentially what he wrote.
>
> Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.

Why would it be wrong?

Am 17.01.2024 um 20:02 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 17/01/2024 à 07:54, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am 16.01.2024 um 11:59 schrieb Python:
>>> Le 16/01/2024 à 09:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
>>>>> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> fast.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
>>>>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to
>>>>>>>>> travel
>>>>>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
>>>>>>>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is
>>>>>>>>> seemingly no
>>>>>>>>> deleay.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
>>>>>>>>> the remote clock.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method
>>>>>>>> works. It
>>>>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
>>>>>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a
>>>>>>>> signal to
>>>>>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
>>>>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
>>>>>>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that
>>>>>>> delay
>>>>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay
>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a
>>>>>> single
>>>>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term
>>>>> means?
>>>>> Where does the 2 come from?
>>
>> That equation has a different form in Einstein's text:
>>
>> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A )= c
>>
>> It's no big deal, of course, but quotes should be verbatim.
>>
>> The difference is: Einstein meant c and not the delay with this equation.
>>
>> You changed the order of terms and concluded, that Einstein meant the
>> delay.
>>
>> But there is no evidence at all, that Einstein even considered the
>> delay, because the word 'delay' or something equivalent is missing in
>> the entire text.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I know, of course, what that equation means.
>>>>
>>>> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
>>>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
>>>>
>>>> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
>>>> and a position vector B is not a distance.
>>>>
>>>> But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
>>>>
>>>> Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional
>>>> physicist?
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Besides of this:
>>>>
>>>> Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
>>>> the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
>>>> again' (or something equivalent).
>>>>
>>>> Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.
>>>
>>> 1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is
>>
>>
>> Formal requirements are also valid for geniusses!
>>
>> so: Einstein had to make clear, what he meant with 2AB.
>>
>> It is obvious from the context, that twice the distance from A to B
>> was meant.
>>
>> Such distances have actually a common notation, (which I cannot easily
>> replicate in ASCII), but has a line on top of AB.
>>
>> If no such line is present, then AB must be interpreted as scalar
>> product of two position vectors A and B.
>>
>> Actually A and B denote points. But you cannot multiply points,
>> because points are physical entities, which cannot be multiplied (like
>> e.g. you cannot multiply an egg with an apople).
>>
>> So A and B must be interpreted as position vectors.
>>
>> Vectors can be multiplied, hence that would be a valid interpretation
>> of 2AB.
>>
>> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> It is clear that the distance 2AB is worth twice AB.
>
> Let's stay reasonable.
>
> Einstein correctly measures Euclid's ametric.
>
> But where Einstein makes a dramatic error (I know that I am attacking a
> God, and that it is not nice) is when he believes that t(AB)=t(BA) for
> all observers of the frame . He is completely unaware, it seems, of the
> notion of spatial anisochrony like all physicists today.
One point is:
the time for travel from A to B is not t(AB)
You could, of course, reduce the notation of t_B - t_A to t(AB).
But I'm actually against such short hands.

second point

Einstein actually assumed t(AB)=t(BA), but didn't mention the requirements.

Which are:
Euclidean space
'isochrony'
stationary situation (neither A nor B shall move)

This is especially interesting, because Einstein actually dealt with
movement in subsequent chapters and rejected absolute (Euclidean) space
and isochrony.

TH

>
> Certainly, if I place myself at a point placed equidistant from A and B,
> for example on the perpendicular which passes through M in the middle of
> AB, I would have t(AB)=t(BA) like Eisntein says it.
>
> But not if I'm in A, and not if I'm in B.
>
> It is this difficulty that physicists today do not seem to understand,
> due to their abstract religious belief in a “plan of present time”.
>
> Although I have explained to them how the RR has worked for 40 years,
> and why many things are wrong with their geometry, they are absolutely
> incapable of questioning or even listening without seeking to humiliate
> or even threaten death.
>
> It's simply incredible and worthy of the greatest Hollywood films.
>
> R.H.

Am 18.01.2024 um 06:06 schrieb Volney:
> On 1/16/2024 3:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> fast.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
>>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
>>>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
>>>>>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
>>>>>>> deleay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
>>>>>>> the remote clock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
>>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
>>>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
>>>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
>>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
>>>>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
>>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
>>>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
>>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
>>>
>>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
>>> Where does the 2 come from?
>>
>> I know, of course, what that equation means.
>>
>> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
>>
>> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
>> and a position vector B is not a distance.
>
> Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
> used the scalar products, those are distances.

What do you mean are distances?

'A' is actually a character from the ASCII-character set and was used by
Einstein in this context as name of a point.

This point is not a distance (otherwise it would not be named 'point').

Possibly you mean 'Euclidean coordinates'.

But such coordinates are not distances neither, but actually vectors
with three components.

Eventually you had spherical coordinates in mind and mean the distance
of that point towards the origin of the coordinate system.

Well, that's not really bad, but would still require two additional
angles, which were missing in your interpretation.

....

TH

Le 18/01/2024 à 07:41, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> One point is:
> the time for travel from A to B is not t(AB)
> You could, of course, reduce the notation of t_B - t_A to t(AB).
> But I'm actually against such short hands.
>
> second point
>
> Einstein actually assumed t(AB)=t(BA), but didn't mention the requirements.
>
> Which are:
> Euclidean space
> 'isochrony'
> stationary situation (neither A nor B shall move)
>
> This is especially interesting, because Einstein actually dealt with
> movement in subsequent chapters and rejected absolute (Euclidean) space
> and isochrony.

The rejection of isochrony was Einstein's most serious error. He caused
the theory of relativity, well initiated by Henri Poincaré (a
mathematician of genius), to drift rather than take it further.
So there is something I don't understand.
How is it that men teach a theory of general relativity when their special
relativity is not even correct, and becomes completely false for
accelerated frames and rotating frames?
This amazes me.

R.H.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 10:41:24 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.01.2024 um 20:02 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> > Le 17/01/2024 à 07:54, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> >> Am 16.01.2024 um 11:59 schrieb Python:
> >>> Le 16/01/2024 à 09:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> >>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
> >>>>> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is
> >>>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>>> fast.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
> >>>>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to
> >>>>>>>>> travel
> >>>>>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
> >>>>>>>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is
> >>>>>>>>> seemingly no
> >>>>>>>>> deleay.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
> >>>>>>>>> the remote clock.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method
> >>>>>>>> works. It
> >>>>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
> >>>>>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a
> >>>>>>>> signal to
> >>>>>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
> >>>>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
> >>>>>>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that
> >>>>>>> delay
> >>>>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay
> >>>>>>> should be
> >>>>>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a
> >>>>>> single
> >>>>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term
> >>>>> means?
> >>>>> Where does the 2 come from?
> >>
> >> That equation has a different form in Einstein's text:
> >>
> >> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A )= c
> >>
> >> It's no big deal, of course, but quotes should be verbatim.
> >>
> >> The difference is: Einstein meant c and not the delay with this equation.
> >>
> >> You changed the order of terms and concluded, that Einstein meant the
> >> delay.
> >>
> >> But there is no evidence at all, that Einstein even considered the
> >> delay, because the word 'delay' or something equivalent is missing in
> >> the entire text.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> I know, of course, what that equation means.
> >>>>
> >>>> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
> >>>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
> >>>> and a position vector B is not a distance.
> >>>>
> >>>> But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional
> >>>> physicist?
> >>>>
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Besides of this:
> >>>>
> >>>> Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
> >>>> the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
> >>>> again' (or something equivalent).
> >>>>
> >>>> Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.
> >>>
> >>> 1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is
> >>
> >>
> >> Formal requirements are also valid for geniusses!
> >>
> >> so: Einstein had to make clear, what he meant with 2AB.
> >>
> >> It is obvious from the context, that twice the distance from A to B
> >> was meant.
> >>
> >> Such distances have actually a common notation, (which I cannot easily
> >> replicate in ASCII), but has a line on top of AB.
> >>
> >> If no such line is present, then AB must be interpreted as scalar
> >> product of two position vectors A and B.
> >>
> >> Actually A and B denote points. But you cannot multiply points,
> >> because points are physical entities, which cannot be multiplied (like
> >> e.g. you cannot multiply an egg with an apople).
> >>
> >> So A and B must be interpreted as position vectors.
> >>
> >> Vectors can be multiplied, hence that would be a valid interpretation
> >> of 2AB.
> >>
> >> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> > It is clear that the distance 2AB is worth twice AB.
> >
> > Let's stay reasonable.
> >
> > Einstein correctly measures Euclid's ametric.
> >
> > But where Einstein makes a dramatic error (I know that I am attacking a
> > God, and that it is not nice) is when he believes that t(AB)=t(BA) for
> > all observers of the frame . He is completely unaware, it seems, of the
> > notion of spatial anisochrony like all physicists today.
> One point is:
> the time for travel from A to B is not t(AB)
> You could, of course, reduce the notation of t_B - t_A to t(AB).
> But I'm actually against such short hands.
>
> second point
>
> Einstein actually assumed t(AB)=t(BA), but didn't mention the requirements.
>
> Which are:
> Euclidean space
> 'isochrony'
> stationary situation (neither A nor B shall move)
>
> This is especially interesting, because Einstein actually dealt with
> movement in subsequent chapters and rejected absolute (Euclidean) space
> and isochrony.
>
> TH
> >
> > Certainly, if I place myself at a point placed equidistant from A and B,
> > for example on the perpendicular which passes through M in the middle of
> > AB, I would have t(AB)=t(BA) like Eisntein says it.
> >
> > But not if I'm in A, and not if I'm in B.
> >
> > It is this difficulty that physicists today do not seem to understand,
> > due to their abstract religious belief in a “plan of present time”.
> >
> > Although I have explained to them how the RR has worked for 40 years,
> > and why many things are wrong with their geometry, they are absolutely
> > incapable of questioning or even listening without seeking to humiliate
> > or even threaten death.
> >
> > It's simply incredible and worthy of the greatest Hollywood films.
> >
> > R.H.

Actually Einstein's last word on relativity includes a "the time".

I read Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and it's his last word on relativity.

Volney wrote:

> On 1/16/2024 3:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A and
>> a position vector B is not a distance.
> Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
> used the scalar products, those are distances.
>> But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
>
> Again, why the goofy statement about scalar products?

absolutely unqualified. Positions are not vectors, unless they have an
apart coordinate system to relate two. You two sisters misundrestand
Einstine completely. The poor man had no choice, since those positions
were not vectors in his theory.

On 1/18/2024 1:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.01.2024 um 06:06 schrieb Volney:
>> On 1/16/2024 3:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> fast.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
>>>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
>>>>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
>>>>>>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
>>>>>>>> deleay.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
>>>>>>>> the remote clock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
>>>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
>>>>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a
>>>>>>> signal to
>>>>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
>>>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
>>>>>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
>>>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
>>>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
>>>>
>>>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
>>>> Where does the 2 come from?
>>>
>>> I know, of course, what that equation means.
>>>
>>> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
>>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
>>>
>>> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
>>> and a position vector B is not a distance.
>>
>> Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
>> used the scalar products, those are distances.
>
> What do you mean are distances?

As Einstein stated, AB is the distance from A to B and BA is the
distance from B to A. Since he was discussing the simple one dimensional
light beam from A to B and back, there's absolutely no reason for
obfuscation like scalar products and position vectors.
>
> 'A' is actually a character from the ASCII-character set and was used by
> Einstein in this context as name of a point.
>
> This point is not a distance (otherwise it would not be named 'point').
>
> Possibly you mean 'Euclidean coordinates'.
>
> But such coordinates are not distances neither, but actually vectors
> with three components.
>
> Eventually you had spherical coordinates in mind and mean the distance
> of that point towards the origin of the coordinate system.
>
> Well, that's not really bad, but would still require two additional
> angles, which were missing in your interpretation.
>

More obfuscation. It is a simple beam of light going from Point A to
Point B and back to Point A.

On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.

And why do you claim that?

Volney wrote:

> On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
>
> And why do you claim that?

as a white arab from Morocco, I think, if not mistaken, from flat
spacetime, it can't be that. Not even locally, along a different path.
Actually the poor Einstine proves that in his first lesson on his
𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗸𝗼𝗲r𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀. Actually rather 𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝘄𝗶𝗳𝗲 (the former legit). Not my
fault.

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵_𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
https://r%74.com/russia/590958-paris-involved-in-ukraine/
the strike conducted earlier this week killed 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 60 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻
𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀, predominantly French nationals.

They are now fighting alongside Napoleon Bonaparte

Had France minded their own business, these mercenaried would be home
with their families.

Poetic justice. The missile strike ripped those little Napoleon's Bones-
Apart

amazing, 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗴𝗮𝘆_𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗻 didn't expect his french to be killed, and is now
very angry. The lying smile is gone from his face.

Le 19/01/2024 à 18:52, Barbaro Bertrand Jacqueline a écrit :

> Had France minded their own business, these mercenaried would be home
> with their families.
>
> Poetic justice. The missile strike ripped those little Napoleon's Bones-
> Apart
>

French deads : 62

But...

The French did not elect Macron in 2017, nor re-elected in 2022. The
elections were rigged and no one could run. It is the American Democrats
who impose the French president (Biden, Obama, Clinton) so that he has a
woke, pro-immigrationist, Europeanist, Atlanticist, and Russophobic
philosophy.
Macron really only represents 9% of the real french electorate (now :
abstentions = 60% !!!)
He is hated by a majority of French people who do not understand his
hateful policy towards the Russians, and humiliating towards the French
industry sold to the Americans.
It is hidden from the French that French soldiers are in Ukraine (even
though there is no clear reason).
But we are outside the charter. Even if the problem is geopolitically
crucial.

R.H.

On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 8:01:24 AM UTC-8, Archie Rusnak Dunajski wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>
> > On 1/16/2024 3:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A and
> >> a position vector B is not a distance.
> > Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
> > used the scalar products, those are distances.
> >> But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
> >
> > Again, why the goofy statement about scalar products?
> absolutely unqualified. Positions are not vectors, unless they have an
> apart coordinate system to relate two. You two sisters misundrestand
> Einstine completely. The poor man had no choice, since those positions
> were not vectors in his theory.

If you don't know Einstein's later theory, he sort of does declare "multi-pole".

Obviously you don't know and are simply spouting.

Read "Out of My Later Years", it's Einstein's best theory of relativity.

On 1/19/2024 11:52 AM, Barbaro Bertrand Jacqueline wrote:
>
> 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵_𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
> https://r%74.com/russia/590958-paris-involved-in-ukraine/
> the strike conducted earlier this week killed 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 60 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻
> 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀, predominantly French nationals.
>
> They are now fighting alongside Napoleon Bonaparte
>
> Had France minded their own business, these mercenaried would be home
> with their families.
>
> Poetic justice. The missile strike ripped those little Napoleon's Bones-
> Apart
>
> amazing, 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗴𝗮𝘆_𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗻 didn't expect his french to be killed, and is now
> very angry. The lying smile is gone from his face.

Being the USA's Bitches can cost your lives.

On 1/19/2024 12:56 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/01/2024 à 18:52, Barbaro Bertrand Jacqueline a écrit :
>
>>  Had France minded their own business, these mercenaried would be home
>> with their families.
>>
>> Poetic justice. The missile strike ripped those little Napoleon's Bones-
>> Apart
>>
>
> French deads : 62
> But...
> The French did not elect Macron in 2017, nor re-elected in 2022. The
> elections were rigged and no one could run. It is the American Democrats
> who impose the French president (Biden, Obama, Clinton) so that he has a
> woke, pro-immigrationist, Europeanist, Atlanticist, and Russophobic
> philosophy.
> Macron really only represents 9% of the real french electorate (now :
> abstentions = 60% !!!)
> He is hated by a majority of French people who do not understand his
> hateful policy towards the Russians, and humiliating towards the French
> industry sold to the Americans.
> It is hidden from the French that French soldiers are in Ukraine (even
> though there is no clear reason).
> But we are outside the charter. Even if the problem is geopolitically
> crucial.
>
> R.H.

Bullshit.

You Europeans are nothing but the USA's Bitches. Proof? You're dying for
the USA now. The more so, the better. Fewer stupid cro-magnons around.

foot in his mouth Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 1/19/2024 11:52 AM, Barbaro Bertrand Jacqueline wrote:
>> 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵_𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
>> https://r%74.com/russia/590958-paris-involved-in-ukraine/
>> the strike conducted earlier this week killed 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 60 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻
>> 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀, predominantly French nationals.
>>
>> amazing, 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗴𝗮𝘆_𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗻 didn't expect his french to be killed, and is
>> now very angry. The lying smile is gone from his face.
>
> Being the USA's Bitches can cost your lives.

it 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀, idiot. Can't you fucking read.

𝙃𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨_𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢_𝙣𝙚𝙬_‘𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩_𝙝𝙞𝙩’_𝙤𝙣_𝘼𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙣_𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙥 lol
A chemical tanker was sailing from Saudi Arabia to Kuwait when it came
under attack https://r%74.com/news/590922-houthi-attack-us-ship/

Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
> On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
>
> And why do you claim that?

Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
variables in an equation.

This is standard in usual mathematics.

Since A and B are variables, '2AB' means in long form:

2 * A * B

But that was, of course, not meant.

Actually meant was:

2*distance (A, B)

(with 'distancce' as name of a function with two parameters, which are
the endpoints of a streigth line in euclidean space.

In this case the function 'distance' spits out the length of the
connecting line between two points, which are here A and B.)

TH

Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 1/19/2024 12:56 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> It is hidden from the French that French soldiers are in Ukraine (even
>> though there is no clear reason).
>> But we are outside the charter. Even if the problem is geopolitically
>> crucial. R.H.
>
> B̶̖̓̎͝u̸̲͓̫̙̘͉̾̈̎̇̃̽̍̃͝͝l̷̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝l̷̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕h̷͓̗̜͚̤̣͉̦̐̈͊͗͒̓͋̑͆̕i̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅ.
> You Europeans a̶r̶e̶ n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ b̶u̶t̶ t̶h̶e̶ U̶S̶A̶'s̶ B̶i̶t̶c̶h̶e̶s̶. P̶r̶o̶o̶f̶? Y̶o̶u̶'r̶e̶ d̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ f̶o̶r̶
> t̶h̶e̶ U̶S̶A̶ n̶o̶w̶. T̶h̶e̶ m̶o̶r̶e̶ s̶o̶, t̶h̶e̶ b̶e̶t̶t̶e̶r̶. F̶e̶w̶e̶r̶ s̶t̶u̶p̶i̶d̶ c̶r̶o̶-m̶a̶g̶n̶o̶n̶s̶ a̶r̶o̶u̶n̶d̶.

you fucking braindead unskilled and unqualified idiot. You dirty
𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗲𝘀 will be send back to what is left from polakia and ukurina.
Look.

𝙒𝙀'𝙍𝙀_𝙉𝙀𝘼𝙍𝙄𝙉𝙂_𝙅𝙐𝘿𝙂𝙀𝙈𝙀𝙉𝙏_𝘿𝘼𝙔_𝙁𝙊𝙍_𝙏𝙃𝙀_𝘿𝙀𝙈𝙊𝙉𝙎_2024-01-17_𝙆𝙀𝙉𝘼𝙉_(𝙑𝙄𝘿𝙀𝙊)
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/Kh6E0AG0qrJ1

On 1/20/2024 6:34 AM, Raydel Walentowicz Dubanowski wrote:
> 𝙒𝙀'𝙍𝙀_𝙉𝙀𝘼𝙍𝙄𝙉𝙂_𝙅𝙐𝘿𝙂𝙀𝙈𝙀𝙉𝙏_𝘿𝘼𝙔_𝙁𝙊𝙍_𝙏𝙃𝙀_𝘿𝙀𝙈𝙊𝙉𝙎_2024-01-17_𝙆𝙀𝙉𝘼𝙉_(𝙑𝙄𝘿𝙀𝙊)
> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/Kh6E0AG0qrJ1
>

Hahhahah :) Heil fucking Hitler!

Hanson, go screw yourself. You're a baby compared to a Jew. Hang
yourself, that's better.

On 1/20/2024 4:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
>> On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
>>
>> And why do you claim that?
>
> Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
> variables in an equation.

No, it is also a common way to indicate the distance between two points
A and B, as long as they were previously identified as being points,
which Einstein did.
>
> This is standard in usual mathematics.

One standard.
>
> Since A and B are variables, '2AB' means in long form:
>
> 2 * A * B

No, it means twice the distance between points A and B.
>
> But that was, of course, not meant.

Exactly. Why are you trying to introduce garbage?
>
> Actually meant was:
>
> 2*distance (A, B)

Exactly. Why did you bring up crap like 2*A*B, which makes no sense if A
and B are predefined as two points?
>
>
> (with 'distancce' as name of a function with two parameters, which are
> the endpoints of a streigth line in euclidean space.

Babble.
>
> In this case the function 'distance' spits out the length of the
> connecting line between two points, which are here A and B.)
>
More babble.

Am 21.01.2024 um 06:31 schrieb Volney:
> On 1/20/2024 4:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
>>>
>>> And why do you claim that?
>>
>> Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
>> variables in an equation.
>
> No, it is also a common way to indicate the distance between two points
> A and B, as long as they were previously identified as being points,
> which Einstein did.
>>
>> This is standard in usual mathematics.
>
> One standard.
>>
>> Since A and B are variables, '2AB' means in long form:
>>
>> 2 * A * B
>
> No, it means twice the distance between points A and B.
That was meant, but not written.

The real name is actually 'line segment':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_segment

this is the part of a streigth line through A and B, which is between A
and B.

A and B are symbols, which were used as names of points by Einstein.

But points cannot be put into an equation (like 2AB), because points are
physical objects and equations can only deal with mathematical objects.

The closest thing to a mathematical object named 'A' would be the
position vector of point A, because vectors are mathematical objects and
could be multiplied.

Since Einstein didn't say that often, how his symbols had to be
interpreted, he left it essentially to the reader to make sense out of
his text.

Since I'm a reader, too, I had chosen the next possible mathematical
interpretation of A and B, which is the position vector.

If Einstein wanted that, he could, but had to make a statement, what he
wanted instead.

Because he didn't, I'm free to interpret his text in the next plausible
way, which leads to a wrong equation.
....

TH

Am 19.01.2024 um 17:37 schrieb Volney:

>>>>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term
>>>>> means?
>>>>> Where does the 2 come from?
>>>>
>>>> I know, of course, what that equation means.
>>>>
>>>> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
>>>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
>>>>
>>>> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
>>>> and a position vector B is not a distance.
>>>
>>> Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
>>> used the scalar products, those are distances.
>>
>> What do you mean are distances?
>
> As Einstein stated, AB is the distance from A to B and BA is the
> distance from B to A. Since he was discussing the simple one dimensional
> light beam from A to B and back, there's absolutely no reason for
> obfuscation like scalar products and position vectors.

A and B were defined as points in space.

But since when is space one dimensional?

....

TH

....