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

Le 22/08/2024 à 08:36, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 09:22 schrieb Python:

Le 21/08/2024 à 08:15, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 08:16 schrieb Python:

Le 20/08/2024 à 08:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Montag000019, 19.08.2024 um 14:56 schrieb Python:

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?

>
AB was actually meant as:
>
distance from A to B,
>
even if A and B are in fact position vectors, hence AB would usually be the scalar product of A and B (what is absurd).

>
Yes it would be absurd. BTW you are conflating affine spaces with
vector spaces here.
>

Besides of this little formal issue (actually meant was |r_AB| ),

>
Well, Thomas, this is utterly ridiculous. Any reader understands what
AB as it appears in 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) is the distance AB. From high
school to Ph. D.

>
"the distance AB" is not equal to "AB"!

>
The distance between A and B can be denoted in a lot of ways. The point
is to ensure that there is no ambiguity given the context. As a matter
of fact Einstein in the ORIGINAL paper used an overbar on top of
AB (https://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1905_17_891-921.pdf)
>
So if there were someone to blame here, it would be the translator.
>

  I wrote annotations from a certain perspective:
 I treated the text in question as homework of a student and myself as hypothetical professor, who had to write corrections for that paper.

You cannot pretend to be a professor, even hypothetical, when dealing
with subject you are both ignorant of and too stupid to understand.

Therefore, I had the duty and the right to complain about a missing overbar.

Not really, as it doesn't alter the comprehension of the text, for
sane people I mean.

I maintained, if possible, the interpretation, which is exactly the opposite from what the author possibly wanted, but what would fit to what was actually written.
 This sounds a little 'hostile', but my aim was to teach scientific correctness, which would not allow ambiguity.
 Therefore, 'AB' was interpreted as 'algebraic product of two position vectors A and B'.

Which is an utterly idiotic interpretation. A and B are points in an
affine space.

That was certainly not, what Einstein wanted, but was a possible interpretation.
 Since ambiguity is counted against the author's intentions, I used the most remote valid interpretation.

There is ZERO ambiguity.