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

Le 24/08/2024 à 08:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Freitag000023, 23.08.2024 um 08:27 schrieb Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:06 schrieb Python:

Le 22/08/2024 à 08:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:31 schrieb Python:
>

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.

>
'x' is a generic coordinate in system K and means a distance from the center of K to a point on the x-axis.
>
Since system k was placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k, the distance from A to B would actually be x.

>
Systems k and K are not even mentioned in part I.2. So "system k was
placed with its center upon the x-axis and B in the center of k"
is a figment of your imagination in no way related to A.E. article.

>
Wrong, because definitions remain valid throughout the entire paper, unless stated otherwise.

>
Part I.1 is in no way supposed to refer to definitions stated in
part I.3.

>
Sure, but fortunately I have not written anything like this.
>
I wrote, that defintions for §1.1 remain valind in §1.3, unless the author states otherwise.
>
>

>

If an author defines some variable or other setting and later 'foregets' this definition, all older settings remain valid.

>
And definitely NOT a definition of k/K that is stated LATER, moreover
neither K nor k are mentions in part I.1.

>
Sure, but apparently you wanted to discuss a certain equation form part 1.3 on page 3.
>
That was LATER than the introduction of K and k.
>

SORRY!
 This was wrong.
 Me culpa!
 page 3 belongs to §1.1. and not to § 1.3.
 § 1.1 had not used two different coordinate systems in relative motion. Those were intruduced in the next chapter § 1.2.
 (Sorry, but I make errors, too.)

Good to hear. Now you may consider that you've made a LOT of errors.
Including below:

In § 1.1. we have a different setting:
 assumed is a single coordinate system, where Newton's equations are valid and an euclidan space, in which that coordinate system is stationary.
  This setting is slightly different to the ones in the subsequent chapters.

This setting is what allows to make sense of sytems k, K, etc. later.

In fact Einstein assumed here some forcefree 'flat' Euclidean space, in which one single coordinate system would be considered.

This setting is more or less motionless, hence different to the setting in the following chapters.

Nothing prevent considering several coordinate systems of the same kind,
in relative motion wrt each others. This is actually what he's doing
there.

I personally had sorted the mentioned variables in a certain way, which was actually different than Einstein's.

Again adding stuff that is asinine and unrelated to what Einstein
actually wrote?

For me such a single coordinate system in a forcefree euclidean space would allow only one single time measure, which is valid troughout this entire coordinate system.

This is basically ok.

Clocks could not be synchronised by light signals, however, because light needs time to travel.

Einstein (following Poincaré's work) showed that it can be done, taking
propagation time into account.

To maintain the same time measure throughout that coordinate system, each remote clock needs to measure the transit delay and add that to a received timing signal, which would be sent out by kind of master clock in the center of the coordinate system.
 But this was NOT, what Einstein had in mind.

What is right is that you do not need a "master clock", as you can
synchronized every pair of clocks separately. You can also pick
one clock as the "master clock" and synchronize every other clock
against it, using the same method. This is practically how it is
done in real lab experiments.

Instead Einstein wanted to ignore the delay and turn the remote clocks to the received content of the timing signal (without compensation of the delay).

Eistein didn't want to ignore the delay, quite the opposite: he coined
up a way to embedded this delay into the convention stated by
t'_A - t_B = t_B - t_A.