Re: Sync two clocks

Le 22/08/2024 à 09:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 20:42 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

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.

>
You are lying.
>
I do not claim it "now". This is what I have always said for at least 40 years.
>
Now, yes, obviously I assume it.
>
The value (tA'-tA) = 2AB/c is the same not only for A and B, but also for all the stationary points of the inertial frame of reference of A and B.
>
Better, if I change frame of reference it will remain true, by invariance of the transverse speed of light in any frame of reference.
>
On the other hand the value tB-tA (go) will vary for most observers in R (where A and B are stationary), as will the value tA'-tB (return).
>
But you cannot understand this, because 1. You are stupid and because 2. because you are tied up with relativistic thoughts all learned, but false.
>
R.H.

>
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 of YOUR watch.
>
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.

  You introduced t_d or 'transit time' (aka 'delay'), while Einstein didn't use any of these terms.

But he write down two equations that implies directly that a delay
is taken into account.

Therefore, you have read something, that should be there, but wasn't.

Paul has a functioning brain. You haven't.

In fact I have spent a lot of time to verify, that 'delay' or anything equaivalent was actually missing in Einstein's 1905 paper.

You'd spend a more valuable time trying to understand the meaning of
equations stated in part I.1.

Now you have invented in your own mind something, what should be there (but wasn't).

Then you would have discovered that it actually is there.

To verify my statement yourself, you need to go carefully through the paper and identify the statement, where you think, that Einstein had delay (or anything equivalent) in mind.

Equations stated in part I.1. imply t'_A = t_B - (AB)/c
(AB)/c the exact delay you were looking for: distance between A and
B divided by celerity of light.

But I was unsuccesful in this realm, because Einstein simply forgot delay.

He didn't. You missed it because you didn't understand a word of this
part.
Remember Thomas: it took you *years* to get that A and B are mutually at
rest! As an hypothetical teacher, if you were a student, I would sent
you back to kindergarten.

That's why you can search as long as you like for 't_d' or 'delay' or 'transit time', because they are not present.
 Also no equation or any other statement can possibly be interpreted as calculation of transit time.

They can :
Equations stated in part I.1. imply t'_A = t_B - (AB)/c
(AB)/c the exact delay you were looking for: distance between A and
B divided by celerity of light.

It's simply not there!

It is there.