Re: The problem of relativistic synchronisation

Le 31/08/2024 à 08:30, Thomas Heger a écrit :

  What had actually the reading of a clock to do with how fast light moves from A to B?
 This would be a non sequitur, if time would not be what clocks say.
  In fact light is here used to synchronize distant clocks.
 But that does not say, that clocks would use light to measure time.
 Usually clocks use other means than light, like pendulums or Quartz crystals.
 To syncronize distant clocks, we would need to adjust them in a way, that they tick at the same rate and show the same time.
 To measure this 'in synch' we would need to measure the delay and add this to the observed time from the remote system.
 But this step cannot be found anywhere in Einstein's paper.
  ...
  TH

You are getting closer to the truth (a little more than Paul B. Andersen who is drowning in it.
But it is not quite there yet.
It is not far.
For two watches to be synchronized, on MY DESK, two things are necessary.
That they turn at the same speed (equal chronotropy).
That they mark the same time at the same instant (isochrony).
But hey. The beautiful thing that two watches mark the same time on my table. One is enough for me. The second one is not much use to me.
A bit like two solar clocks.
It would not occur to anyone to place two solar clocks in their garden. If it is well oriented, the time displayed is the right one.
No need for two solar clocks.
On the other hand, if I am no longer in Berlin, but in Nantes, I cannot be satisfied with taking continual selfies of my Berlin solar clock to have the solar time at Nantes. Everyone understands the ridiculousness of the situation (except Python and Paul.B Andersen). If I am in Nantes, I have to look at the time on a clock in a Nantes garden, and I cannot say to my wife: "What time is it now? Please send me a selfie of my clock."
The same goes for the relativistic universe, where the time displayed on watches depends on POSITION, and where the chronotropy of watches (the speed of the hands) depends on SPEED.
What is absolutely frightening, even highly ridiculous, is to see even the greatest experts in world physics (Stefen Hawking himself) completely drown in concepts that, once well explained, are nevertheless of a college simplicity.
We cannot, even by slapping them in the nose, or kicking them in the balls, synchronize solar clocks with each other. They will NEVER mark noon at the same time in Berlin, and in Nantes.
This is what I have been explaining to Python for thirty years.
Python has always remained at the anal stage of the isochrony of the universe,
and of the generalized Cartesian hyperplane.
Damn, thirty years...
Forty years for the others...
What should we do to make them understand?
Paul B Andersen has just informed us that a watch slowly transferred to the moon shows the same time as a watch left on my desk, and that if there is a problem, it is because the photons do not run fast enough.
He does not understand that there is a real procedure of natural desynchronization by spatial position, just as there is also a real procedure of reciprocal dyschrnotopia when we make watches evolve between them at relativistic speeds (they do not even beat at the same rhythm anymore, and conversely, each beats faster than the other).
What should we do to make him understand?
R.H.