Re: Relativistic synchronisation method

Le 29/12/2024 à 13:37, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

 Yes, your clear answer to my question was easy to understand.
 My question was:
"Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
  the wall of a railway station or an airport?"
 Your answer was 'yes'.
 So you expect the clock on the railway station to be synchronous with
your clock.
 

 

No.
I do not expect the station clock to be synchronous with mine. I have told you dozens of times that two spatially separated clocks will never be able to agree on the notion of simultaneity (I have been saying this for forty years).
I do not understand your determination to constantly destroy what I say, while for my part I never stop explaining to you not only the correct things, but also the things as neither Poincaré nor Einstein said them.
But you do not believe me. So we go around in circles and poison the words.
I explained to you that the current synchronization is a virtual, abstract synchronization, very useful for giving a form of coherence to things.
I said that it was a type M synchronization.
But that it was not the reality of things, even if it was very useful.
You have the same thing with the Mercator projection in geography, it is incredibly logical, beautiful, and useful.
But completely wrong locally: Greenland is larger than Africa, which is absurd for those who have been around it.
R.H.