Re: Sync two clocks

W dniu 22.08.2024 o 13:49, Mikko pisze:

On 2024-08-22 10:52:42 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
 

Le 22/08/2024 à 12:27, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 21.08.2024 22:20, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 21/08/2024 à 20:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 20.08.2024 17:12, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 20/08/2024 à 15:39, Python a écrit :
>

Hachel now pretends that tB − tA = t'A − tB can be true or false
depending on the observer.

>

>
This is what I have always said for at least 40 years.
>

>

>
Richard, read your watch NOW. Write down the time nn:nn:nn.
The time nn:nn:nn is a proper time (read off a clock), it is
invariant, not depending on frame of reference.
>
Nobody can have another opinion of what time YOU read off YOUR watch.

>
Or is your deeper and more intelligent opinion that the time YOU
read off YOUR watch depend on the observer?
Can I have the opinion that you read something else off your watch
than you did?
>

>
How is it possible to fail to understand this?
>
If we have two stationary clocks in an inertial frame,
  and clock A shows tA = t1 when it emits light,
  and clock B shows tB = t1 + td when the light hits it,
  and clock A shows tA'= t1 + 2⋅td when it is hit by the reflected light,
>
then tA, tB, tA', t1 and td are all proper times which are frame
independent (invariants) and "the same for all".
>
  tB − tA = t'A − tB = td
>
The transit time td is a frame independent invariant and
the same in both directions, which means that the clocks according
to Einstein's _definition_ are synchronous in the inertial frame.
>
>
Note this:
-----------
It is an indisputable FACT that according to Einstein's definition
the clocks are synchronous in the inertial frame.
>
It is not possible to have different opinions about this.

>

>
Yes, it is possible to have a much deeper and more intelligent opinion on the matter.

>
Does that mean that your deeper and more intelligent opinion is
that it is NOT a fact that according to Einstein's definition
the clocks are synchronous in the inertial frame?
>

>
I am surprised by the stupidity (I do not say this maliciously but with sadness) of those who read me, and who, surprised, do not understand anything at all of what I explain to them.
>

>
See? You don't even try to address what I write, you flee,
whining about why nobody acknowledge your genius.
>
You never EXPLAIN anything. You only CLAIM a lot of nonsense.
>
But now you have the opportunity to EXPLAIN why the clocks
according to Einstein's definition are NOT synchronous in
the inertial frame.
>
Can you do that?
>
If we have two stationary clocks in an inertial frame,
and clock A shows tA = t1 when it emits light,
and clock B shows tB = t1 + td when the light hits it,
and clock A shows tA'= t1 + 2⋅td when it is hit by the reflected light,
>
then tA, tB, tA', t1 and td are all proper times which are frame
independent (invariants) and "the same for all".
>
tB − tA = t'A − tB = td
>
The transit time td is a frame independent invariant and
the same in both directions, which means that the clocks according
to Einstein's _definition_ are synchronous in the inertial frame.
>
--------------
>
I bet you will flee the challenge yet again. Prove me wrong!

>
I am not avoiding debate, and on the contrary, I have already explained dozens of times what the notion of universal anisochrony is and how things should be understood and taught.
But each time, and I do not understand why, no one makes the effort to integrate what I say.

 What you post here is not important. If you were a genius willing to
tell something important you would do it in better place, e.g. in a
book.

The problem with idiots like you is: you
have no slightest clue what "good" means,
but you still feel an invincible expert
of what is good and what is better.