Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670696

Re: Should we synchronize clocks?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Am Montag000006, 06.04.2026 um 21:46 schrieb Python:
> Le 03/04/2026 à 10:32, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> 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.
> 
> This is gibberish on you side.
> 
> You prentend to have read the paper.
> 
> What is, according to you, the meaning of these equations, in the 
> context of paragraph I.1.
> 
> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

I know this equation, of course.

t_A is the time in measures of 'A-time' of the start of a beam at point 
'A' and t_B the time of arrival at point 'B'.

There it gets reflected back and reaches A again at the time t'_A.

Since A had a 'A-time' as local time measure and B got 'B-time' as local 
time, we have to assume, that t_B is also measured in 'A-time', because 
otherwise the equation wouldn't make sense.

t_B is also unknown in point A, unless an observer in A could read a 
clock in B with a large telescope and the local clocks there would 
already use 'A-time'.

Therefore, we need to assume, that A-time and B-time are not 
synchronized and run independently at A and B respectively.

That's why you simply cannot know t_B at point A, if the point B is too 
far away.

But an observer at point A could assume, that the ray needs the same 
amount of time on both ways (back and forth), hence the ray would arrive 
at the remote location in the middle between t_A and t'_A.

This assumption is quite plausible, but only if there were no gravity 
and A and B would not move in respect to each other.

Supposed that would be the case, you could figure out the delay.

But: you should actually measure the delay and compare that measurement 
with the result of your calculation (what Einstein didn't mention).

But even worse:
Einstein had drawn the erroneous picture, that the actual reading of the 
remote clock would be the remote time.

But that was nonsense, because we actually know, that light has finite 
velocity, hence after the reading follows the transmission of a signal 
from B to A.

Now it would be a logical requirement, that the delay should be compensated.

Best would be to measure the delay and subtract the result from the time 
of arrival.

Or: you could also add the delay to the reading of the remote clock, if 
you prefer that.

But Einstein didn't do anything like this and took the remote reading as 
it is.
> 
> 2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c

Another issue of Einstein's 'masterpiece' were his silly naming conventions.

Here we have an issue, because 'A' and 'B' were the names of two points.

But you cannot multiply names!

(Actually meant with 'AB' was the distance between A and B.)

Second issue with that equation:

it would require, that A would not move in respect to B (or vice versa), 
because otherwise the the equation would be wrong.

Third issue:

the equation would require a certain 'environment' without any fields, 
media or gravity (what Einstein failed to mention).


...


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-29 19:45 +0200
  Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Victo Grzeskiewicz <wtoi@cizk.pl> - 2026-03-29 19:36 +0000
    Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-29 23:40 +0200
      Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Berry Von brandt <yon@daydvyn.de> - 2026-03-29 21:50 +0000
        Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-31 02:47 +0200
      Re: Should we synchronize clocks? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-29 16:12 -0700
      Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-30 04:34 +0200
      Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-30 06:29 +0200
      Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Winfield Glöckner <rcd@lc.de> - 2026-03-30 21:06 +0000
    Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-30 08:58 +0200
      Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-30 10:14 +0200
        Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-31 09:14 +0200
          Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-31 10:05 +0200
            Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-03-31 20:35 +0000
            Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-01 09:41 +0200
              Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-01 10:21 +0200
                Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-03 09:56 +0200
                Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-03 10:08 +0200
      Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Modesto Karameros <dteoo@mmed.gr> - 2026-03-30 21:10 +0000
        Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-30 23:47 +0200
          Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-31 07:48 +0200
      Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-04-01 19:03 +0000
        Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-03 10:41 +0200
          Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-04-06 19:46 +0000
            Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-08 09:34 +0200

csiph-web