Path: ...!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: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:58:03 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <va75js$blq6$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> <liiprgFlcbgU3@mid.individual.net>
 <va1cbf$38k24$2@dont-email.me> <lilev0F2nlqU4@mid.individual.net>
 <va44jr$3p3aa$2@dont-email.me> <lio4hqFf36mU5@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:58:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a80aacc4ae37788401d9379408ff4893";
	logging-data="382790"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ymKhwU7EUtIPTgq+Yl7d4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OjOZdUVQ103wEbD8uJ5zRarmbYQ=
In-Reply-To: <lio4hqFf36mU5@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5962

Le 22/08/2024 à 08:36, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> 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.

You cannot pretend to be a professor, even hypothetical, when dealing
with subject you are both ignorant of and too stupid to understand.

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

Not really, as it doesn't alter the comprehension of the text, for
sane people I mean.

> 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'.

Which is an utterly idiotic interpretation. A and B are points in an
affine space.

> 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.

There is ZERO ambiguity.