Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!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: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:09:09 +0200
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <liqnb7Fr49eU2@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>
 <va1t0p$3btc1$1@dont-email.me> <lilgu9F2nlqU8@mid.individual.net>
 <va6qju$c3gm$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net TTiSVtG6xzxj5bLfTqFhhA+tSn1B57zAEyEkEvsRHVBv9RmlC8
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QQznznJMwCnk/7BNVw+wpfkKPPg= sha256:rsiq09Usi2ouZwAVmqdTZGXyii1REfbgjvnpZ+21J3U=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <va6qju$c3gm$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5503

Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 09:50 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2024-08-21 06:49:08 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> 
>> Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 13:00 schrieb Mikko:
>> ...
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>
>>> Note that in Einstein's text the definition of synchronity (page 894)
>>> does not use AB. Lower on the same page AB has an overbar.
>>>
>>>> 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).
>>>
>>> A nad B are not position vectors, they are positions. Postions are not
>>> vectors. AB with overbar is the standard notation for the distance 
>>> btween
>>> positions A and B.
>>
>> In my version there were no overbars.
> 
> Your version is irrelevant. Einstein used overbar. But the equation that
> is relevant to the current discussion does not use AB at all.

Well, in a way you have the right to complain, because I have not used 
the German original for my annotations, but a certain English translation.

This text alone was my topic, without considerations, who had actually 
written it.

This setting was used, because I wanted to separate the text and allow 
to analyse the content of this text alone.

This was a necessary step, becaause I wanted to apply a certain method.

I wanted to find ALL errors in this text, but only in THIS text.

To do this I 'serialised' its content and separated all single statements.

Any statement has some content and declares a certain relation between 
some kind of prerequisites and some conclusion.

A simple statement would be ' 1 + 1 =2 '.

Now this is an overly simple example to explain what I wanted:

I wanted to identify each statement and search for everything, which 
could eventually be meant to define the content and the used axioms or 
some other requirements.

Now theoretical physics is somehow similar to mathematics and physical 
proof similar to a mathematical proof.

In math a single statement in a proof is assumed to be based on previous 
ones or axioms. And every single statement had to be correct.

Now I searched for statements and the possible definitions used parts in 
of this statement.

Then I discussed the validity of such a statement.

In math this process is over, once an error is encountered.

But I wanted to find ALL errors, hence continued after errors with the 
next statement, tried to identify, what the author had in mind and 
pieced the statement together. Than I could start to discuss its validity.

By this method I found well over four-hundred errors.

All of these 'errors' are in fact my own statements, hence are possibly 
wrong themselves.

But I was quite careful and spent a lot of time on this subject, hence 
the chances are low, that you could find any errors in my own statements.

Now, ALL 'errors' belong to a certain text, which is this particular 
English translation alone.

I have spent some time with the German version, but my comments are 
almost exclusively about the used translation.

And that translation does not contain overbars.


>> But the actual positions cannot be used in equations anyhow, because 
>> real material objects cannot be used in equations of any kind.
> 
> Position is not a real material object.

Well, yes and no...

A position vector like (1,2,3) is a mathematical object, while the point 
itself is not.

Now it would be better to distinguish between different types of objects 
(here: points and positions of points), but physicists have the odd 
habbit of doing something odd, like using 'material points' and that in 
equations.


> 
>> It is just rediculus to regard the points themselves as part of an 
>> equation.
> 
> It is common to use the same word for the symbol and the thing denoted
> by the symbol. For example the word "Thomas" is can refer to the name
> "Thomas" itself.

Sure, my name is 'Thomas', but I'm not a name.

TH