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

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?

Einstein's method did not allow mutally symmetric synchronization.

The procedure can be proven symmetric. Face it.

Einstein's method would cause an error, because if you do not add the time of travel for the signal, you would turn the own clock to a time too early, if you synchronize it with a received timing signal.

Einstein's method, which is a checking method, end up adding the
delay as it can be shown very easily by turning it into a
synchronization procedure, as shown in my post.

This 'too early' would change the setting of your clock to a time too early. This is seen from the far side, where the observers there try to synchronize their clocks with your clock, which is already to early, but with additional (uncompensated) delay.

This is not AT ALL what Einstein's method does.

This would make the whole installation run in a backwards circle.
 This is way too obvious to ignore, but not what Einstein had done or written.

It is way too obvious to notice that the delay is embedded in the very
definition of the method. Only YOU are too stupid to notice.

But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme, because Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.

>
The delay *is taken into account* this why (AB)/c intervene, as I've
shown.

 The word 'delay' or anything similar did not occur in Einstein's text.

The delay is part of the method, as I've shown. Einstein was writing
to an audience that is not dumb enough to need to see the letters
d e l a y to get it. You are not part of this audience Thomas.

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.

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.

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"

I personally have searched for it but couldn't find that.

You are not very smart, are you?

This leaves only one interpretation: that Einstein didn't want to take delay into considerations.

Absolutely not.
You were clearly misunderstanding everything from the very
beginning (it took you *years* to get that clock A & B are mutually at
rest ! Go figure !). Iif you had a bit of sanity you would have
tried to find this delay using algebra (it is not quite "hidden" !),
instead you made up stupid stuff out of nowhere like : "Sure, Einstein
assumed kind of 'large telescope setting', where beings at B could see
the clock at A." which nobody could find a trace of in A.E. article.

This would fit to his obscure method, which assignes different time values to remote locations in different distances, but within the same coordinate system.

There is nothing obscure in the method, at least to numerous people.
I actually wrote my initial post to help make this not obscure at all
for other kind of people.
Clearly, I overestimated the mental abilities of few of these people
(you and Lengrand/Hachel/Wozniak/...)