Re: ? ? ?

Am Samstag000024, 24.02.2024 um 23:54 schrieb Python:

Le 24/02/2024 à 23:36, Ross Finlayson a écrit :

On 02/23/2024 01:52 PM, JanPB wrote:

Richard Hachel wrote:
>

Eisntein said:

>

------------------
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of
thought.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the
time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions
of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at
the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
possible for

>

an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the
immediate neigh-
bourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare,

>

in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined
only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
by definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the
“time” it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A
time” tA from
A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the
direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t
..

>

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

>

tB − tA = tA − tB.
---------------------

>

 I don't understand anything this man is saying.

>
He is just saying that he wants to consider a model in which time is
quantified in such a way that whenever a pair of distinct locations is
selected, then the amount of time so quantified taken by light does not
depend on the direction: whether A->B or B->A.
>

Is it me who's a moron or him who was incompetent and didn't
understand anything at all?

>
I don't know how to answer this except that all this is very standard
and simple.
You are overthinking this. You should probably study other physics for a
while.
What is apparent here is that you don't really know how science really
works.
Instead, you assume it's like philosophy or scholastics. They too are
valid methods
of acquiring knowledge but they are very different methods.
>
-- Jan

>
>
Depending on the relative motion of the A and B

 In the context at stake here, i.e. part I.1 of A.E. paper,
clocks at A and B are in mutual rest.

Actually Einstein didn't say so, but didn't mention relative velocity neither.
So, let's assume, that A and B are points in space and mutually at rest towards each other.
So A and B are points at rest in respect to each other. Because point a is assumed to be at rest, too, the point B is also at rest.
Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.
This is actually ok.
But why then didn't Einstein calculate the delay of the light signals for the transit from A to B  and back?
It should technically easy to send a signal from A to B, get it reflected there and measure the dealy, cut that in half and add this one-way delay to the time value imbedded in the time-coded signal, which A receives from B.
This would eliminate the influence of the speed of light and would allow mutally equal synchronization between clocks at A and B.
But this was not, what Einstein had done.
Instead he had the strange idea, that the time value seen on the rmeote clock would be the time at the remote location.
But this is actually not true, because also the delay caused by the finite speed of light had to be compensated.
TH

[snip rest of dementia]

 You need medical help Ross, your posts make less and less
sense.