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: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 11:57:35 +0200
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <liduroFtbroU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <v9q6eu$1tlm9$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net bEfp3gxVW3sb8kBq1Hdb8gMWggPRo3lz+kyTwXTHWauDzE51YX
Cancel-Lock: sha1:J1Njd9HMABxte7sn3OiFTe2CSac= sha256:zsg5xt28Da+uCUak2kz3baVoXMmIhscfZ218hSX58nc=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <v9q6eu$1tlm9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4899

Am Samstag000017, 17.08.2024 um 14:52 schrieb Python:
> **An Interesting Case of Mental Blockage and Cognitive Dissonance:**
> 
> *Einstein-Poincaré Synchronization Procedure and Dr. Lengrand*
> 
> What’s fascinating about certain cranks is that just when you think 
> you’ve seen all the absurdities they can come up with, they manage to 
> produce something even worse. Their cognitive dissonance and ability to 
> pull out bizarre notions from who knows where, on top of a perfectly 
> well-defined technical procedure, is astonishing. We’ve seen this before 
> with GPS, where Hachel invents all sorts of fantasies, like atomic 
> clocks in the receivers or synchronization with a clock infinitely far 
> away in a fourth spatial dimension...
> 
> This is a report of exchanges on the synchronization procedure described 
> by Einstein in his 1905 paper, discussions that took place 17 years ago 
> and more recently on sci.physics.relativity and fr.sci.physique.
> 
> https://groups.google.com/g/fr.sci.physique/c/KgqI9gqTkR8/m/oMc9X0XjCWMJ
> 
> *Reminders on the Procedure:*
> 
> Two identical clocks, A and B, are stationary relative to each other at 
> a certain distance. Their identical functioning (within measurement 
> accuracy) allows us to assume that they "tick at the same rate." NOTHING 
> more is assumed, especially regarding the time they display; the purpose 
> is PRECISELY to adjust one of these clocks by applying a correction 
> after a calculation involving the values indicated on these clocks 
> during specific events, events that occur AT THE LOCATION OF EACH CLOCK.
> 
> Einstein’s procedure is not strictly a synchronization procedure but a 
> method to VERIFY their synchronization. This is the main difference from 
> Poincaré’s approach. However, it can be proven that Poincaré’s method 
> leads to clocks synchronized in Einstein’s sense. You can also transform 
> Einstein’s verification method into a synchronization procedure because 
> it allows calculating the correction to apply to clock A.
> 
> *Steps of Einstein's Method:*
> 
> When clock A shows t_A, a light signal is emitted from A towards B.
> 
> When this signal is received at B, clock B shows t_B, and a light signal 
> is sent from B back towards A.
> 
> When the signal is received at A, clock A shows t'_A.

Relativity requires mutally symmetric methods. So if you synchronize 
clock B with clock A, this must come to the same result, as if you would 
synchronize clock A with clock B.

But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme, because 
Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.

If A and B are located at different places in the universe and maintain 
their distance (at least as long as the procedure lasts), then delay 
(A->B) should be equal to delay(B->A).

If you would encode time into the exchanged signal, you could compare 
the local reading of your own clock (at -say- B in this case) with the 
content of the code in the received message from A, if you add 
delay(A->B) to t_A (which is encoded in the timing signal).

But Einstein didn't calculate that delay, nor even mentioned it.

So Einstein assumed something absurd:

beings at B should see a blink of light, comming from A, compare that 
with their own clock and sent a light signal back to A.

But: how do these beings know t_A in the first place?

Sure, Einstein assumed kind of 'large telescope setting', where beings 
at B could see the clock at A.

But this wouldn't cause a symmetric synchronization, because the signal 
arrives delayed at B and Einstein didn't calculate that delay.

This would cause an obvious error, because the clock at B had to be set 
to an earlier time setting than it should, because the vision of the 
remote clock is delayed.

Now this cannot be made symmetric, because otherwise the beings at both 
ends of the communication would turn their own clocks earlier and 
earlier (with each communication), because the remote station does that, 
too.


....


TH