Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: [SR and synchronization] Cognitive Dissonances and Mental
 Blockage
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:27:37 +0200
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <liqodsFr49eU4@mid.individual.net>
References: <v9q6eu$1tlm9$1@dont-email.me> <liduroFtbroU2@mid.individual.net>
 <v9sh1e$2apq2$3@dont-email.me> <lig7svF8jpgU10@mid.individual.net>
 <v9vfe6$2qll6$10@dont-email.me> <liirfvFlcbgU4@mid.individual.net>
 <va1dn4$38k24$5@dont-email.me> <va1dti$38k24$6@dont-email.me>
 <lilfqlF2nlqU6@mid.individual.net> <va453m$3p3aa$4@dont-email.me>
 <lio5duFf36mU6@mid.individual.net> <va763d$blq6$7@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net FmS1zAzq+3u7wHATEtfqjA9T7R9c+e1lcm5c5acG0f9BaWYGhi
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TCkqrE9gFbL2oIH+5Af6w7RgSTI= sha256:RqwWZcpCN2DRLb943B3TKSFwddpnYP2PZgzwSDULxzM=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <va763d$blq6$7@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4161

Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:
> Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:
>>
>>>>> Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
>>>>> x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
>>>>> general, the distance between origins of K and k.
>>>>
>>>> 'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from 
>>>> the center of K to a point on the x-axis.
>>>>
>>>> Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in 
>>>> the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x.
>>>
>>> Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was
>>> placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k"
>>> is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article.
>>
>> Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire paper, 
>> unless stated otherwise.
> 
> Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
> part I.3.

Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.

I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the 
author states otherwise.


> 
>> If an author defines some variable or other setting and later 
>> 'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.
> 
> And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover
> neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form part 
1.3 on page 3.

That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.


> 
>> What you apparently want is simply inexaptable:
>> you want the reader to find out, which definition is valid at a 
>> certain position of the text and which one already expired.
> 
> What I want is perfectly acceptable: that the reader has a functional
> brain.


It is a VERY bad idea, to 'fill the blancs' in a scientific text, 
because it would invite to see, what simply isn't there.


>> The author needs to stick to a certain setting, because otherwise a 
>> reader could not jump backwards with reading in a paper, if the 
>> setting changes.
> 
> It is not needed here, neither backwards nor forwards.


Sure, you need to skip backwards, if you encounter a statement and 
simply forgot, what a certain symbol means.

In Einstein's case, this was often necessary, because Einstein used very 
strange naming conventions.

A very simple example would be the symbols for the four used coordinate 
systems: K, k, K' and k'.

It is very difficult, to identify the intended meaning from the names 
alone, hence one need to remember, what some variable should express.

Since Einstein had also the odd habit to reuse variable names, it would 
require also attempts to remember the validity realm of each variable 
name and which interpretation is valid in which contxt.


This is simply unacceptable.

TH



....