Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: [SR and synchronization] Cognitive Dissonances and Mental Blockage
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 09:47:45 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <va9er1$rar7$1@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> <va1t0p$3btc1$1@dont-email.me> <lilgu9F2nlqU8@mid.individual.net> <va6qju$c3gm$1@dont-email.me> <liqnb7Fr49eU2@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 09:47:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="024044ab2cb5f64e74b5c6e2a50f8a61";
	logging-data="895847"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+4XsPaOkBvKoNMRxR7Qor647VBOTVbKvo="
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bGfCASTgYeAWviovdduC0aTuF2A=
Bytes: 6183

On 2024-08-23 06:09:09 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> 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.

Not just "in a way". You have consistently said "Einstein" when you 
mean someone else. Some might call that lying, especially coming from 
someone able to read German.
> 
> 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


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.