Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics Subject: Re: Sync two clocks Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:03:07 -0700 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 89 Message-ID: <66C8A4AB.4D08@ix.netcom.com> References: <66c6fe9d$0$3360$426a74cc@news.free.fr> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 17:03:03 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="11385c921686b9a1336ac3c03c7d1a24"; logging-data="1013806"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kWjXYmklHDRwRR/FJRf6zv+7cUJ8wj50=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:4xApdlDzn/Jck/8eQc8lTFUgX0c= X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240823-8, 08/23/2024), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:656293 sci.physics:889177 Richard Hachel wrote: > > Le 23/08/2024 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > > > > https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf > > Quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity: > > ------------------------------------------- > > "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at > > A can determine the time values of events in the immediate > > proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which > > are simultaneous with these events. > > If there is at the point B of space another clock in all > > respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer > > at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate > > neighbourhood of B. > > But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, > > in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. > > We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” > > We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for > > the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish > > by definition that the “time” required by light to travel > > from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. > > " > > > > If you can read, you will see that Einstein did say what I said. > > Here is finally a solid basis. > And that is very well said. > The small drawback that remains is that Einstein proposes a definition, > but without explaining which observer will be able to consider the > proposition as true. > Einstein proposes an interesting synchronization, and that I take up again > by speaking of synchronization of type M, > based on an imaginary observer placed in M ​​in a teletransverse way > in an abstract fourth dimension. > The problem is that he does not say it or at worst, he does not know it. > Saying "Between A and B, the speed of light is c, we know it, because we > have measured it" does not make sense. Who measures this speed? A? No. B? > Neither. We must therefore define things. Saying: > "My dear Jane, I bought an animal", is ridiculous. > We must say "My dear Jane, I bought for your birthday this white horse > that you wanted". > This is why, for 40 years, I have been saying that this introduction needs > to be rewritten in a clearer, more understandable and more obvious way. > > R.H. What about...not A, not B, but C. C measures the speed. C measures...everything. I'm C see? do you C? i can C ..furthermore, i don't understand how anyone thinks they can sync two clocks if Time Dialation will always UN-sync...a clock? Even if I put my watch 5 minutes ahead... i'm still going to be late! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.