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: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 08:10:46 +0200
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <lj7ta1Frj7iU7@mid.individual.net>
References: <v9q6eu$1tlm9$1@dont-email.me> <va453m$3p3aa$4@dont-email.me>
 <lio5duFf36mU6@mid.individual.net> <va763d$blq6$7@dont-email.me>
 <liqodsFr49eU4@mid.individual.net> <va9tgf$tca9$1@dont-email.me>
 <liter0F8oi1U6@mid.individual.net> <vac4iu$1arpb$1@dont-email.me>
 <lj034sFlavqU2@mid.individual.net> <lj2j74F215sU2@mid.individual.net>
 <Qenhc2AR0mbe6y7NpAWzeZJQ8xw@jntp> <lj5778Fe0luU4@mid.individual.net>
 <vak3sr$2tqre$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 ay1yVTiw6Zwc1DZT4lKyngkXcqLKjA1QZXEWZn3a7IzvOI5qnL
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/pcTeRfP00PLuMC2JNW5uPJS9xc= sha256:LLHkOu0VJvg9IyYIsromtmpAz3ZkSjPS+C2IbZXpNaQ=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <vak3sr$2tqre$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2813

Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 10:48 schrieb Python:
...
>>> What you say is very interesting.
>>>
>> Well, thanks.
>>
>> But this isn't such a nice story at all.
>>
>> In a way this problem with naming coordinate systems was just the 'tip 
>> of the iceberg'.
>>
>> But the reuse of symbols or -for instance- to define something one 
>> way, but not sticking to this definition, are also observable.
>>
>> Especially annoying were the reuse of the letter A and the symbol x'.
>>
>> There were actually eight different uses for the tall latin 'A' in 
>> this paper.
>>
>> But how could any reader keep track of the intended meaning in a 
>> certain context?
> 
> You certainly couldn't. But you are far below average.

Well, possibly, possibly not.

But this wasn't the question, because I spent a lot of time and can 
assure you, that I have found out, what was written in this paper.

But usually a scientific text should be comprehendable at least for 
specialists in that particular field.

And such readers do not have infinite time to spent on a single paper.

Therefore any scientific author is requested to write in a comprehensive 
way, where readers can possibly understand, what the author wants to say.


The reader is in no way responsible for the content of a text and also 
not per se a friend of the author.

Therefore the reader cannot read the mind of the author, hence can only 
take, what the author has actually written.

If this is ambigous or hard to interpret, the paper flies into the 
dustbin and end of the story.



TH

>