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, 27 Aug 2024 11:58:35 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <vak80b$2u8l5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v9q6eu$1tlm9$1@dont-email.me> <liduroFtbroU2@mid.individual.net>
 <vah9hs$2c43u$1@dont-email.me> <lj56luFe0luU3@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 11:58:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f25627d19461a13182a502fc6818a371";
	logging-data="3089061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YP8xqoxDQElo1BIYhRvlx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0Ewo17fkvN3r2fuu2caDe65hXpI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <lj56luFe0luU3@mid.individual.net>
Bytes: 4577

Le 27/08/2024 à 07:32, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Montag000026, 26.08.2024 um 09:06 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.
>>
>> No, it does not mutually symmetric methods. Such methods make the
>> presentation of the theory easier but do not affect the theory.
>> Einstein chose a symmetric method because otherwise his text would
>> be harder to read and understand.
> 
> The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.
> 
> This goes like this:
> 
> you stand there, I stand here and I see you.
> 
> Now the opposite should also be possible, but from your perspective.
> 
> This means: you see me, while you would call yourself 'I', your own 
> location 'here' and mine 'there'.
> 
> This would give:
> 
> you stand there, I stand here and I see you (but said by you and from 
> your point of view).
> 
> 
> Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both 
> views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.
> 
>>> But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme, because 
>>> Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.
>>
>> So you say but cannot prove.
> 
> Negative statements are difficult to prove.
> 
> But I can ask you, to prove the opposite and prove, that you failed.
> 
> So: where exactly did Einstein take delay into consideration in his 1905 
> paper??

In paragraph I.1 in Einstein's 1905 article you can read :

(*)   2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
(**)  t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

In a setup with two mutually  at rest clocks at position A and B in
a given system of reference. --> and <-- represents a light signal
emission/reception, all time values are recorded by both clocks at
time or receptions/re-emission:

Step 1:
A-->               B
t_A

Step 2:
A               -->B
                  t_B
A               <--B

Step 3:
A<--               B
t'_A

So if you read the only equations in paragraph I.1,
assuming clocks are synchronized (which is the point of
this paragraph: state what it MEANS to be synchronized):

(*)   2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
(**)  t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

t_B - t_A is a *delay* (between emission at A and reception at B)

t_'A - t_B is a *delay* (between emission at B and reception at A)

t'A - t_A is a *delay* (round trip time *delay* for a light signal
going from A to B bounced back to A)

 From (*) you can get : t'_A - t_A = 2AB/c so another way to
describe the same *delay* : twice the distance AB divided by c.

Clearly such a *delay* is present in paragraph I.1. THREE times
as a term in an equation and ONCE as a term you can obtain by
ONE step of basic algebra.

It is difficult to believe you've "overlooked" this and continue
to do so for YEARS.

You are acting like a fool in a shop who'd rob some merchandise
which had a price marked on it on the ground that it is nowhere
written explicitly that you have to *pay* for it.

At first it could have been a symptom of your complete inability
to understand a single sentence of the article (i.e. sheer stupidity),
since you've published your idiotic comments and got some clues from
numerous people here it is definitely a symptom of your dishonesty
Thomas.