Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Python <python@invalid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: [SR and synchronization] Cognitive Dissonances and Mental
 Blockage
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:39:32 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <va1dn4$38k24$5@dont-email.me>
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> <liirfvFlcbgU4@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:39:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e7766270ddb83778ad61a74e624af08e";
	logging-data="3428420"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+IV1yAI3vQ8czOGh3KAhYX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZJw3hoHJ9Dr4MJszuHch6CXxgr4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <liirfvFlcbgU4@mid.individual.net>
Bytes: 5353

Le 20/08/2024 à 08:30, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
> ...
>>> There is also no equation, which could eventually be interpreted as 
>>> delay calculation.
>>
>> As I've shown there is. A single step from the provided equations
>> leads to t_A = t_B - (AB)/c
>>
>>> Delay for a signal from A->B in distance x would be:
>>>
>>> x=c*t => delay (A->B)= x/c
>>>
>>> Extremely simple, isn't it?
>>
>> Extremely stupid insteed x=c*t is not generally true. x/c is
>> not at all the delay your asking for. (AB)/c is such a delay.
> 
> Einstein defined two coordinate systems (K and k).
> 
> System k was placed with its center upon the axis of x of system K.
> 
> So the value 'x' is a coordinate in respect to system K  with distance 
> |x| to system K's center.
> 
> Now I use this setting and place A in the center of K and B in the 
> center of k.
> 
> So: the distance from A to B is x.
> 
> Well, yes, this was a little bad, because I had to explain it in the 
> first place, before I could use this setting.

What you "explain" is, again, something you made up out of nothing.

Systems K and k are even defined yet in paragraph 2.

It makes basically no sense to put the center of K at A and the
center of k at B. K and k are in relative motion while clock-A
and clock-B are mutually at rest. So your "setting" is setting
v to 0.

> I would agree, that another variable name for distance would have been 
> better.
> 
> How about 'd'?
> 
> (d for distance)

AB is good enough for everyone.

> So d = 'distance from A to B'.
> then:
>   delay(A->B) = d/c
>>
>>> Now you need to measure this delay, because you cannot measure 
>>> distance x with rods (at least in cosmology).
>>
>> If rods are not practical, then use another method.
>>
>> The point of synchronizing clocks is practically about clocks involved
>> in a single experiment in a single laboratory by the way, not
>> cosmological distances.
> 
> 
> 'empty space' and 'inertial motion' are not really possible upon Earth' 
> surface.
> 
> Therefore, the 'environment' of SRT is usually something very remote 
> from any other celestial object, in the far ends of the universe.
> 
> 'In one single lab' isn't even remotely what SRT is about.

It definitely IS. There are a lot of situations where the concept of
"inertial frame" is good enough, even on Earth. Ask CERN.

> But smallness isn't actually an issue here, because it makes no 
> difference in principle, if you place two floating spaceships into a 
> distance of 1 lightyear or 1 nano-light-second.
> 
> What disturbs the measurements is actually air and gravity.
> 
> 
>>> But where have you found such a calculation in Einstein's text???
>>
>> Distance (AB) is assumed to be known.
>>
>>> And where have you found any use of the value for delay?
>>
>>  From both equation provided by A.E. I can derive t_A = t_B - (AB)/c
>> i.e. t'_A = t_B - "delay"
> 
> https://ia601704.us.archive.org/23/items/einstein-1905-relativity/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
> 
> Einstein had a slightly different equation.

It has TWO equations (paragraph 2) from which you can derive
t'_A = t_B - "delay" in a very small number of steps.

Your lacking of mastering elementary algebra is showing Thomas.

> But he used it not as calculation of delay, but as definition of the 
> speed of light.
> 
> (§1, page 3, last paragraph)
> quote
> 
> "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
> 2AB/(t′_A − t_A)= c,
> to be a universal constant—the velocity of light in empty space."

Yes, he is referring to a consequence of what he wrote in paragraph 2.

> What you apparently quoted was on page 5 first paragraph.

Not at all. What I wrote is a two-steps consequence of what is written
on page 3.

> But this didn't contain 'c' but 'c-v' in the denominator and was also 
> meant for some other situation.

It is. You level of imbecility is AMAZING Thomas.

Or is it hypocrisy (it would be better, you know...) ?