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

Le 31/08/2024 à 08:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Freitag000030, 30.08.2024 um 12:16 schrieb Python:

Le 30/08/2024 à 07:53, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Donnerstag000029, 29.08.2024 um 10:57 schrieb Python:

...

But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of clock synchronization.

>
Liar!
>
« We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:
>
1.    *If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B*.
>
2.    If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
»
>
What is point 1. if not *symmetry*?

>
See here for instance:
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCGuhcrb-qM
>
This is a video in German about Einstein's simultaneity , but you will certainly find something equivalent in English.
>
The trick of Einstein's method was an extra-observer in the middle between the two ends of a longish train.
>
Now this system would not require to correct the delay 'by hand'.
>
And this method was apparently meant by Einstein himself.

 This video is in NO WAY describing a synchronization procedure ! It
actually assumes that clocks (both on train and platform) has been
synchronized. This video is illustrating the relativity of simultaneity.

 This 'relativity of simultaneity' is based on observations by an observer in the middle between A and B.
 So, Einstein used this setting and related time the observations of an observer in the middle.
 That observer (called 'M' for instance) would define, what is synchronous and what is not.
 BUT: M would not take part in a synchronization procedure, because that would be carried out by operators of the clocks at A and B, which therefore need to be observers, too.
 Now we could name those operators/observers 'A' and 'B', too (same as there position).
 Then A would send a signal to B, which B reads and send it back to A.
 Then the same process is initiated from B, who sends a ping to A. This is reflected back. B is then enabled to calculate the proper synch-time and dial his clock appropriately.
 Now both (A and B) have clocks in synch.
 What is not essential for their considerations, however, that is M and what M regards as time.
  ...
  TH

"All consciousness is consciousness of something."
Edmund Husserl.
There is no consciousness that is consciousness of anything.
All distance is distance from something. "You will find the train station 12 km from the gas station".
The same is true in relativity, all synchronization is done in relation to something, and on something.
This something is this tiny, punctiform little being that we call a point, a coordinate of space.
It is only on it that a synchronization procedure is based.
How does the synchronization of universal time so dear to Paul B. Andersen rest?
If a tiny little point that sets the tone.
In our universe, where is this point?
It must be equidistant from all the points of the universe, but in 3D, this is not possible.
So we must imagine it. It is therefore an imaginary point placed perpendicular to the entire universe that Richard Hachel calls point M. It is this point, abstract and imaginary, but useful, which triggers all the watches during a synchronization procedure.
This artifice is obviously very useful. The problem then becomes human stupidity, which is very great.
Human beings, like poor monkeys eating their banana, believe that the universe has then become a kind of vast hyperplane of common and reciprocal present time, and that all the watches are in tune with each other.
NO.
They are all in tune with only ONE point, and one can always only be in tune with ONE point which sets the tone.
Here, the point of agreement, of tone, is not even part of the visible universe? It is just virtual, imaginary, abstract.
Do you understand these things?
R.H.