Path: ...!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 08:42:58 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <va1dti$38k24$6@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>
 <va1dn4$38k24$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:42:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e7766270ddb83778ad61a74e624af08e";
	logging-data="3428420"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uif4l6fdLSMdzzVbCuHq9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NFm4VMj4LRWOwJG9TzMR02VnI60=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <va1dn4$38k24$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5818

Le 20/08/2024 à 08:39, Python a écrit :
> 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.

Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
general, the distance between origins of K and k.

You really don't understand A SINGLE SENTENCE in Einstein's paper,
NOT A SINGLE ONE. This is pathetic.

>> 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...) ?
> 
>