Re: [SR and synchronization] Cognitive Dissonances and Mental Blockage

Le 20/08/2024 à 08:39, Python a écrit :

Le 20/08/2024 à 08:30, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
...

There is also no equation, which could eventually be interpreted as delay calculation.

>
As I've shown there is. A single step from the provided equations
leads to t_A = t_B - (AB)/c
>

Delay for a signal from A->B in distance x would be:
>
x=c*t => delay (A->B)= x/c
>
Extremely simple, isn't it?

>
Extremely stupid insteed x=c*t is not generally true. x/c is
not at all the delay your asking for. (AB)/c is such a delay.

>
Einstein defined two coordinate systems (K and k).
>
System k was placed with its center upon the axis of x of system K.
>
So the value 'x' is a coordinate in respect to system K  with distance |x| to system K's center.
>
Now I use this setting and place A in the center of K and B in the center of k.
>
So: the distance from A to B is x.
>
Well, yes, this was a little bad, because I had to explain it in the first place, before I could use this setting.

 What you "explain" is, again, something you made up out of nothing.
 Systems K and k are even defined yet in paragraph 2.
 It makes basically no sense to put the center of K at A and the
center of k at B. K and k are in relative motion while clock-A
and clock-B are mutually at rest. So your "setting" is setting
v to 0.

Addendum : "the distance from A to B is x": this is wrong too.
x is the coordinate of an event in system K, it is not, in
general, the distance between origins of K and k.
You really don't understand A SINGLE SENTENCE in Einstein's paper,
NOT A SINGLE ONE. This is pathetic.

I would agree, that another variable name for distance would have been better.
>
How about 'd'?
>
(d for distance)

 AB is good enough for everyone.
 

So d = 'distance from A to B'.
then:
  delay(A->B) = d/c

>

Now you need to measure this delay, because you cannot measure distance x with rods (at least in cosmology).

>
If rods are not practical, then use another method.
>
The point of synchronizing clocks is practically about clocks involved
in a single experiment in a single laboratory by the way, not
cosmological distances.

>
>
'empty space' and 'inertial motion' are not really possible upon Earth' surface.
>
Therefore, the 'environment' of SRT is usually something very remote from any other celestial object, in the far ends of the universe.
>
'In one single lab' isn't even remotely what SRT is about.

 It definitely IS. There are a lot of situations where the concept of
"inertial frame" is good enough, even on Earth. Ask CERN.
 

But smallness isn't actually an issue here, because it makes no difference in principle, if you place two floating spaceships into a distance of 1 lightyear or 1 nano-light-second.
>
What disturbs the measurements is actually air and gravity.
>
>

But where have you found such a calculation in Einstein's text???

>
Distance (AB) is assumed to be known.
>

And where have you found any use of the value for delay?

>
 From both equation provided by A.E. I can derive t_A = t_B - (AB)/c
i.e. t'_A = t_B - "delay"

>
https://ia601704.us.archive.org/23/items/einstein-1905-relativity/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
>
Einstein had a slightly different equation.

 It has TWO equations (paragraph 2) from which you can derive
t'_A = t_B - "delay" in a very small number of steps.
 Your lacking of mastering elementary algebra is showing Thomas.
 

But he used it not as calculation of delay, but as definition of the speed of light.
>
(§1, page 3, last paragraph)
quote
>
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t′_A − t_A)= c,
to be a universal constant—the velocity of light in empty space."

 Yes, he is referring to a consequence of what he wrote in paragraph 2.
 

What you apparently quoted was on page 5 first paragraph.

 Not at all. What I wrote is a two-steps consequence of what is written
on page 3.
 

But this didn't contain 'c' but 'c-v' in the denominator and was also meant for some other situation.

 It is. You level of imbecility is AMAZING Thomas.
 Or is it hypocrisy (it would be better, you know...) ?