Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.math Subject: Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2026 10:41:31 +0200 Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <18a160f51269e845$6746$299862$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <10qbv09$2iejh$1@news.nntp4.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net dgODOQeySWMKKecWRYDSZAXeA909b78rVNGs+X7JgzTWT0W1/T Cancel-Lock: sha1:9WHzydwqUSV7B2EOAwxhkuVCyNA= sha256:WpIt5iKYoenu5NXprV9Dm0Hkjc1PlybmmWCFPaCkcuo= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-DE, en-US In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:670631 sci.math:644407 Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 21:03 schrieb Python: > Le 30/03/2026 à 08:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : > .. >> We have also a delay, if one clock is further away than the other one. >> >> Now Einstein didn't consider the delay and didn't figure it out. But >> that would have been necessary, because the transit time of the signal >> from the remote clock to the observer follows after the event of >> reading the clock, hence would add to that reading. >> >> So, you would need to measure the delay and subtract that value from >> your own time or add it to the remote reading, if you wanted to >> synchronize clocks. > > You are utterly wrong. > > This is EXACTLY the point of paragraph 1.1, this is what these equations > are expressing : > > t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B > 2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c > > It has been (in vain) shown and explained to you numerous time. Sure you and others tried to convince me, that Einstein wanted to figure out the delay and simply forgot to mention that fact, because it would self-evident, anyhow. But Einstein didn't forgot to mention delay. Instead he had drawn that ridiculous picture, that the time seen on a remote clock would the time of the remote clock. Only: this ain't the case, because after the reading of the remote clock comes the time needed to transmit the signal. This very simple fact was ignored by Einstein. Instead he didn't even mention delay and made no effort whatever to introduce it somehow. We are therefore obliged to assume, that he didn't want to calculate that delay and use that value for the correction of the receive image. That's why we are forced to assume, that that particular equation wasn't meant to figure out the delay (even if that would haven been possible). What you do is actually bad science: you assume, that something should be there (where it isn't) and hallucinate it's existence, because the existence would be 'obvious'. Only: that isn't allowed and a text is as it is and not as it should be. ... TH