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

Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 09:50 schrieb Mikko:

On 2024-08-21 06:49:08 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
 

Am Dienstag000020, 20.08.2024 um 13:00 schrieb Mikko:
...

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:

>
Note that in Einstein's text the definition of synchronity (page 894)
does not use AB. Lower on the same page AB has an overbar.
>

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).

>
A nad B are not position vectors, they are positions. Postions are not
vectors. AB with overbar is the standard notation for the distance btween
positions A and B.

>
In my version there were no overbars.

 Your version is irrelevant. Einstein used overbar. But the equation that
is relevant to the current discussion does not use AB at all.

Well, in a way you have the right to complain, because I have not used the German original for my annotations, but a certain English translation.
This text alone was my topic, without considerations, who had actually written it.
This setting was used, because I wanted to separate the text and allow to analyse the content of this text alone.
This was a necessary step, becaause I wanted to apply a certain method.
I wanted to find ALL errors in this text, but only in THIS text.
To do this I 'serialised' its content and separated all single statements.
Any statement has some content and declares a certain relation between some kind of prerequisites and some conclusion.
A simple statement would be ' 1 + 1 =2 '.
Now this is an overly simple example to explain what I wanted:
I wanted to identify each statement and search for everything, which could eventually be meant to define the content and the used axioms or some other requirements.
Now theoretical physics is somehow similar to mathematics and physical proof similar to a mathematical proof.
In math a single statement in a proof is assumed to be based on previous ones or axioms. And every single statement had to be correct.
Now I searched for statements and the possible definitions used parts in of this statement.
Then I discussed the validity of such a statement.
In math this process is over, once an error is encountered.
But I wanted to find ALL errors, hence continued after errors with the next statement, tried to identify, what the author had in mind and pieced the statement together. Than I could start to discuss its validity.
By this method I found well over four-hundred errors.
All of these 'errors' are in fact my own statements, hence are possibly wrong themselves.
But I was quite careful and spent a lot of time on this subject, hence the chances are low, that you could find any errors in my own statements.
Now, ALL 'errors' belong to a certain text, which is this particular English translation alone.
I have spent some time with the German version, but my comments are almost exclusively about the used translation.
And that translation does not contain overbars.

But the actual positions cannot be used in equations anyhow, because real material objects cannot be used in equations of any kind.

 Position is not a real material object.

Well, yes and no...
A position vector like (1,2,3) is a mathematical object, while the point itself is not.
Now it would be better to distinguish between different types of objects (here: points and positions of points), but physicists have the odd habbit of doing something odd, like using 'material points' and that in equations.

 

It is just rediculus to regard the points themselves as part of an equation.

 It is common to use the same word for the symbol and the thing denoted
by the symbol. For example the word "Thomas" is can refer to the name
"Thomas" itself.

Sure, my name is 'Thomas', but I'm not a name.
TH