Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 08:36:07 +0200
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <lio4hqFf36mU5@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> <liiprgFlcbgU3@mid.individual.net>
 <va1cbf$38k24$2@dont-email.me> <lilev0F2nlqU4@mid.individual.net>
 <va44jr$3p3aa$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net XxWWuT5/FFoiaaVhrb8Npg9Stx4Tj6h6lQfh1BN3UThqZHPwmr
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3CAW2C6jrrHmkEUmuQ1Y6Cb+SR0= sha256:6Fw7UD9mZDyNdkcAmjAygX1U+1emhU0BXMZLDGKnL9w=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <va44jr$3p3aa$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5253

Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:22 schrieb Python:
> Le 21/08/2024 à 08:15, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 08:16 schrieb Python:
>>> Le 20/08/2024 à 08:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>> Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
>>>>> Le 19/08/2024 à 08:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>>>> Am Sonntag000018, 18.08.2024 um 12:05 schrieb Python:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not!
>>>>>
>>>>> It is. It is explained in my initial post : What is (AB)/c to you?
>>>>
>>>> AB was actually meant as:
>>>>
>>>> distance from A to B,
>>>>
>>>> even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would usually 
>>>> be the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).
>>>
>>> Yes it would be absurd. BTW you are conflating affine spaces with
>>> vector spaces here.
>>>
>>>> Besides of this little formal issue (actually meant was |r_AB| ), 
>>>
>>> Well, Thomas, this is utterly ridiculous. Any reader understands what
>>> AB as it appears in 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) is the distance AB. From high
>>> school to Ph. D.
>>
>> "the distance AB" is not equal to "AB"!
> 
> The distance between A and B can be denoted in a lot of ways. The point
> is to ensure that there is no ambiguity given the context. As a matter
> of fact Einstein in the ORIGINAL paper used an overbar on top of
> AB 
> (https://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1905_17_891-921.pdf)
> 
> So if there were someone to blame here, it would be the translator.
> 


I wrote annotations from a certain perspective:

I treated the text in question as homework of a student and myself as 
hypothetical professor, who had to write corrections for that paper.

Therefore, I had the duty and the right to complain about a missing overbar.

I maintained, if possible, the interpretation, which is exactly the 
opposite from what the author possibly wanted, but what would fit to 
what was actually written.

This sounds a little 'hostile', but my aim was to teach scientific 
correctness, which would not allow ambiguity.

Therefore, 'AB' was interpreted as 'algebraic product of two position 
vectors A and B'.

That was certainly not, what Einstein wanted, but was a possible 
interpretation.

Since ambiguity is counted against the author's intentions, I used the 
most remote valid interpretation.

TH


....