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

Le 25/08/2024 à 09:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.08.2024 o 09:21, Python pisze:

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.
>

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

 Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to [idiotic whining]

Whatever (yawn)...
I've just receive this book by the post:
Einstein's clocks and Poincaré's maps
by Peter Galison
https://archive.org/details/einsteinsclocksp00gali