| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<cW7kBxK7is3AGzsBVTP7dAEvmMg@jntp> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp Message-ID: <cW7kBxK7is3AGzsBVTP7dAEvmMg@jntp> JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net JNTP-DataType: Article Subject: Re: [SR and synchronization] Cognitive Dissonances and Mental Blockage References: <v9q6eu$1tlm9$1@dont-email.me> <lilfqlF2nlqU6@mid.individual.net> <va453m$3p3aa$4@dont-email.me> <lio5duFf36mU6@mid.individual.net> <va763d$blq6$7@dont-email.me> <liqodsFr49eU4@mid.individual.net> <litdi4F8oi1U4@mid.individual.net> <vaem2l$1q24g$1@dont-email.me> <lj2k8tF215sU3@mid.individual.net> <vahlb9$2cn6c$2@dont-email.me> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity JNTP-HashClient: -sE_XjaEY_jtzbgDN-X418lYLw4 JNTP-ThreadID: v9q6eu$1tlm9$1@dont-email.me JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=cW7kBxK7is3AGzsBVTP7dAEvmMg@jntp User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net Date: Mon, 26 Aug 24 10:43:40 +0000 Organization: Nemoweb JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-08-26T10:43:40Z/9001004"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com" JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1 JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96 From: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> Bytes: 7936 Lines: 164 Le 26/08/2024 à 12:27, Python a écrit : > Le 26/08/2024 à 08:05, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Sonntag000025, 25.08.2024 um 09:21 schrieb Python: >>> Le 24/08/2024 à 08:40, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 08:27 schrieb Thomas Heger: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> SORRY! >>>> >>>> This was wrong. >>>> >>>> Me culpa! >>>> >>>> page 3 belongs to §1.1. and not to § 1.3. >>>> >>>> § 1.1 had not used two different coordinate systems in relative >>>> motion. Those were intruduced in the next chapter § 1.2. >>>> >>>> (Sorry, but I make errors, too.) >>> >>> Good to hear. Now you may consider that you've made a LOT of errors. >>> Including below: >>> >>>> In § 1.1. we have a different setting: >>>> >>>> assumed is a single coordinate system, where Newton's equations are >>>> valid and an euclidan space, in which that coordinate system is >>>> stationary. >>>> >>>> >>>> This setting is slightly different to the ones in the subsequent >>>> chapters. >>> >>> This setting is what allows to make sense of sytems k, K, etc. later. >>> >>>> In fact Einstein assumed here some forcefree 'flat' Euclidean space, >>>> in which one single coordinate system would be considered. >>> >>>> This setting is more or less motionless, hence different to the >>>> setting in the following chapters. >>> >>> Nothing prevent considering several coordinate systems of the same kind, >>> in relative motion wrt each others. This is actually what he's doing >>> there. >> >> >> Sure, but that wasn't the point in our dispute. >> >> You insisted on the realm of validity of definitions to be after the >> introdutcion of a term only. >> >> I hold the proposition, that definitions should not alter within a >> paper, hence any defined term actaually acts 'backwards', too. >> >> E.g. if a certain symbol like eg. 'µ' is defined on the last page of a >> paper, this definition is also valid on the first page. >> >> You wrote, that definitions are only valid after the definition. >> Therefor you would allow changes of definitions, while I don't. > > This reminds me this old joke: > > https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/476677941782239946/ > > "Just a darn minute! — Yesterday you said that X equals two!" > >>>> I personally had sorted the mentioned variables in a certain way, >>>> which was actually different than Einstein's. >>> >>> Again adding stuff that is asinine and unrelated to what Einstein >>> actually wrote? >>> >>>> For me such a single coordinate system in a forcefree euclidean space >>>> would allow only one single time measure, which is valid troughout >>>> this entire coordinate system. >>> >>> This is basically ok. >>> >>>> Clocks could not be synchronised by light signals, however, because >>>> light needs time to travel. >>> >>> Einstein (following Poincaré's work) showed that it can be done, taking >>> propagation time into account. >> >> >> You always say, that Einstein did take delay into accout, but failed to >> show me, where he did this. > > I did numerous time > >> Some equations and staements can be interpreted, that he considered >> delay. But there are no equations or staments, that he would like to add >> that delay to a received timing signal by someone on the far side. >> >> This is actually the critical point, because Einstein's paper reads, as >> if he didn't want to do this and used uncorrected timing values. > > This is a silly interpretation on your part. > >> If you found hints, which suggest something else, you should quote the >> particular statement or equation here. > > I did, numerous time. > >> What you have done sofar was to quote an equation, which would enable to >> calculate the delay. But we need an equation, where this value was >> actually used. > > I've shown you what the delay is, where it appears in the equations and > how it is used. > >> btw: the usual cosmology is also based on this error, too, because >> cosmology deals with stars, which can be seen (usually in a telescope). > > This is untrue. For instance maps of the Universe that has been > published by cosmologists actually take light propagation time > into account to be computed. > > Stop making up stupid stuff out of nowhere when you fail to check facts. Mais laisse Thomas Heger parler. Il dit des choses plus intelligentes que toi. R.H.