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

Le 28/08/2024 à 08:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 11:58 schrieb Python:

Le 27/08/2024 à 07:32, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Montag000026, 26.08.2024 um 09:06 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.

>
No, it does not mutually symmetric methods. Such methods make the
presentation of the theory easier but do not affect the theory.
Einstein chose a symmetric method because otherwise his text would
be harder to read and understand.

>
The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.
>
This goes like this:
>
you stand there, I stand here and I see you.
>
Now the opposite should also be possible, but from your perspective.
>
This means: you see me, while you would call yourself 'I', your own location 'here' and mine 'there'.
>
This would give:
>
you stand there, I stand here and I see you (but said by you and from your point of view).
>
>
Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.
>

But this requirement was not fullfilled in Einstein's scheme, because Einstein didn't take delay into consideration.

>
So you say but cannot prove.

>
Negative statements are difficult to prove.
>
But I can ask you, to prove the opposite and prove, that you failed.
>
So: where exactly did Einstein take delay into consideration in his 1905 paper??

>
In paragraph I.1 in Einstein's 1905 article you can read :
>
(*)   2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
(**)  t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>
In a setup with two mutually  at rest clocks at position A and B in
a given system of reference. --> and <-- represents a light signal
emission/reception, all time values are recorded by both clocks at
time or receptions/re-emission:
>
Step 1:
A-->               B
t_A
>
Step 2:
A               -->B
                  t_B
A               <--B
>
Step 3:
A<--               B
t'_A
>
So if you read the only equations in paragraph I.1,
assuming clocks are synchronized (which is the point of
this paragraph: state what it MEANS to be synchronized):
>
(*)   2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
(**)  t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>
t_B - t_A is a *delay* (between emission at A and reception at B)
>
t_'A - t_B is a *delay* (between emission at B and reception at A)
>
t'A - t_A is a *delay* (round trip time *delay* for a light signal
going from A to B bounced back to A)
>
 From (*) you can get : t'_A - t_A = 2AB/c so another way to
describe the same *delay* : twice the distance AB divided by c.
>
Clearly such a *delay* is present in paragraph I.1. THREE times
as a term in an equation and ONCE as a term you can obtain by
ONE step of basic algebra.

 That was all not under dispute.

This is EXACTLY what is "under dispute".

Sure, these equation would allow tro calculate the delay.
 (despite t_B and t_A' would be unknown at the remote side 'B')

Absolutely not. As soon as t_A, t_B and t'_A are recorded their
values can be communicated to anyone. What do you think could
prevent that?

But anyhow..
 The problem was, that Einstein never used this value of the delay to compensate the timing value at the local side.

It is a clear consequence of Einstein's method. If you apply it to
real clocks, as it is a synchronization checking method you will
end up with two possibilities :
* t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is true. Well clocks are synchronized,
   there is nothing to do
* t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is false. Then you can apply an offset
   to either clock A or clock B (not both !), this offset being:
     - t_B - (t'_A - t_A)/2 - t_A  for clock A
     - (t'_A + t_A)/2 - t_b for clock B
   [note : this are formulas implied by (*) and (**) from A.E. paper]
   Details : https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/dissonance_lengrand.pdf (pp. 3, 4)
THEN you could play the procedure again and notice that (**) is now
true.
I am in the process of writing a client-side Web application
demonstrating all of this. Stay tuned.
There is ONE complaint that you could have made about this part of
Einstein's paper: Einstein only describes a synchronization checking
procedure, not a synchronization procedure. Such a procedure can
be derived unambiguously (as I explain in my pdf) from the checking
procedure but Einstein did not mention it.
Einstein supposed that the audience of the article would understand
that at first sight. As a  matter of fact, as a student, it took
be about two minutes to get it. This is scandalous, isn't it?

If you - for instance - peep through a large telescope and look at a large clock on the Moon and see the clock show e.g. 12:00:00:00 GMT, then you would see a time too early, because your own clock would show 12:00:01:00 GMT.

Now both clocks are actually in synch, even if the received view of the remote clock shows a different time then the local clock on Earth.

This is completely unrelated to Einstein's procedure. There is no
mention AT ALL of using the value one could see through a telescope
or any optical mean whatsoever.

But Einstein failed to mention the required correction of the remote signal by adding the delay to the received time value.

When you turn the checking procedure into a synchronization procedure
such a delay appears in the offset to apply to one of the clocks.
If one mentions that x - 1 = 2 either he/she later mentions OR NOT
that x - 2 = 1, it is nevertheless true.

This can only be interpreted, as if he didn't wanted to do that and leave the timing signal as received (what was wrong!!!).

This *would* be wrong, right. But you're interpretation is in direct
contradiction with the actual equations present in the articles that
IMPLY that the delay induced by light propagation speed is taken
into account. This is more than an interpretation: THIS IS A FACT.