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

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.

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.

What you apparently want is simply inexaptable:
you want the reader to find out, which definition is valid at a certain position of the text and which one already expired.

What I want is perfectly acceptable: that the reader has a functional
brain.

The author needs to stick to a certain setting, because otherwise a reader could not jump backwards with reading in a paper, if the setting changes.

It is not needed here, neither backwards nor forwards.

But, of course, your critique is valid and you should not use generic variables for special purposes.
>
Therefore I made already the proposal to call the distance from A to B 'd'.

>
AB, (AB) or \overbar(AB) make the job for every one but you.
>

BTW: x was not meant as coordinate of an event, because system K and k were defined as Euclidian coordinate systems.

>

Such a coordinate system does not contain time in any way, hence cannot address events.

>
k and K are defined as 4-D dimensional systems with coordinates
x, y, z, t and epsilon, nu, eta, tau. BOTH include a time coordinate
so BOTH are representing EVENTS.

 Actually 'coordinate systems' were mentionend and only the axes x, y and z in K and xsi, eta and zeta in k.

This is factually wrong. Part I.3 :
" To any system of values x, y, z, t, which completely defines the place
   and time of an event in the stationary system [K], there belongs a
   system of values $\xi$, $\eta$, $\zeta$, $\tau$, determining that
   event relatively to the system k, and our task is now to find the
   system of equations connecting these quantities. "

These cordinate systems should be Euclidean, because Einstein wrote so.

The only time "euclidean" appears in the article is in paragraph I.1.
and it is about the first three coordinates in a system of co-ordinates
that has four coordinates.

These coordinate systems were combined with a time measure t or tau, which would be kind of 4-dimensional, if you count 3 + 1.
 But time isn't a spatial dimension, hence '4D' is rather misleading.

It is not. Dimensions, in math or physics, are not limited to space
coordinates. They often cover also time, speeds, forces, heat, etc.