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

Groups > sci.physics > #889177 > unrolled thread

Re: Sync two clocks

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Sync two clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-23 08:03 -0700

#889177 — Re: Sync two clocks

Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
> Le 23/08/2024 à 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.

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web