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

Le 30/08/2024 à 07:53, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Donnerstag000029, 29.08.2024 um 10:57 schrieb Python:

...

But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of clock synchronization.

>
Liar!
>
« We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:
>
1.    *If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B*.
>
2.    If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
»
>
What is point 1. if not *symmetry*?

 See here for instance:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCGuhcrb-qM
 This is a video in German about Einstein's simultaneity , but you will certainly find something equivalent in English.
 The trick of Einstein's method was an extra-observer in the middle between the two ends of a longish train.
 Now this system would not require to correct the delay 'by hand'.
 And this method was apparently meant by Einstein himself.

This video is in NO WAY describing a synchronization procedure ! It
actually assumes that clocks (both on train and platform) has been
synchronized. This video is illustrating the relativity of simultaneity.

But this method is, of course, wrong, because it s based on the position and state of movement of the observer in the middle.
  The error: there is no such thing as a man in the middle, if we have only two systems A and B. And even if there were somebody, this would be entirely irrelevant for A or B or clocks there.

Moreover we are talking about what is ACTUALLY written in Einstein's
article, stay focused please. There is no "extra-observer in the
middle" involved in any part of the article, especially NOT in paragraph
I.1.
Paragraph I.1. describes a procedure that looks non symmetric at
first sight: clocks A and B are not treated exactly the same way
(two measures for A, one for B for instance), nevertheless at the
end of the day one can *prove* that the results are symmetric and
that inverting A and B would lead to the same result.