Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Python 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: References: 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: 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.