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

Le 26/08/2024 à 12:43, Richard Hachel a écrit :

Le 26/08/2024 à 12:27, Python a écrit :

Le 26/08/2024 à 08:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Sonntag000025, 25.08.2024 um 09:21 schrieb Python:

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.

>
>
Sure, but that wasn't the point in our dispute.
>
You insisted on the realm of validity of definitions to be after the introdutcion of a term only.
>
I hold the proposition, that definitions should not alter within a paper, hence any defined term actaually acts 'backwards', too.
>
E.g. if a certain symbol like eg. 'µ' is defined on the last page of a paper, this definition is also valid on the first page.
>
You wrote, that definitions are only valid after the definition. Therefor you would allow changes of definitions, while I don't.

>
This reminds me this old joke:
>
https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/476677941782239946/
>
"Just a darn minute! — Yesterday you said that X equals two!"
>

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.

>
>
You always say, that Einstein did take delay into accout, but failed to show me, where he did this.

>
I did numerous time
>

Some equations and staements can be interpreted, that he considered delay. But there are no equations or staments, that he would like to add that delay to a received timing signal by someone on the far side.
>
This is actually the critical point, because Einstein's paper reads, as if he didn't want to do this and used uncorrected timing values.

>
This is a silly interpretation on your part.
>

If you found hints, which suggest something else, you should quote the particular statement or equation here.

>
I did, numerous time.
>

What you have done sofar was to quote an equation, which would enable to calculate the delay. But we need an equation, where this value was actually used.

>
I've shown you what the delay is, where it appears in the equations and
how it is used.
>

btw: the usual cosmology is also based on this error, too, because cosmology deals with stars, which can be seen (usually in a telescope).

>
This is untrue. For instance maps of the Universe that has been
published by cosmologists actually take light propagation time
into account to be computed.
>
Stop making up stupid stuff out of nowhere when you fail to check facts.

 Mais laisse Thomas Heger parler.

Objecting to obvious LIES is in no way "not letting someone speak".
Why are you cranks always whining that getting reactions to your lies
and idiocies are censorship? What a bunch of snowflakes!

Il dit des choses plus intelligentes que toi.

I'm not surprised you find "lies" to be "interesting things".
After all, 50% of your own "production" is lies, the remaining
50% being nonsense and contradiction.