Re: Sync two clocks

Richard wrote:

>
I have explained these things a hundred times.

>
And your explanation has been refuted millions of times :-))

>
That's what I say.
But refuted with prehistoric clubs.

Nope.  Refuted by cold, hard logic:
"How can tAB not be equal to tBA for light is vacuum?"
A ___________ M ___________ B
If tAB <> tBA, then tAM <> tMB and A and B won't be synchronized.
If, OTOH tMA = tMB, then tAB = tBA.
THAT is cold, hard logic.  Your response to cold, hard logic is
to repeat your nonsensical refrain:

You will never be able to synchronize two watches placed in different
places with each other.
It is impossible.

And you can look at your GPS synchronized clock and see that it is done.
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something
that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams

But between them the relativity of the notion of simultaneity will mean

that for A, B will have started running later,
NO, that is NOT what "the relativity of the notion of simultaneity"
means.
The relativity of simultaneity refers to clocks in relative motion, not
for clocks at rest wrt each other.

and, reciprocally B will accuse A of having started running later.
The reciprocal delay between A and B will be t=AB/c.
The notion of present time is relative.

Most people are smarter than you give them credit for.  They understand
the concept of signal time delay between A and B and take it into
account,
as Paul carefully explained, and which you blithely ignored.

It is still incredible that you cannot understand this.

Richard, Richard, Richard!  We DO understand what you're saying, and
I humbly and conscientiously say to you that you are wrong.
You say that the inherent reciprocal delay [of a light signal] between
A and B will be t=AB/c.  This is true with the proviso I added, but
that does NOT mean that clocks at A and B cannot be synchronized.

I didn't say that synchronization was stupid,

Well, yes you did, in effect.

nor that we couldn't make satellites or GPS work with this
synchronization.
I simply said that this Einsteinian synchronization based
on M was an abstract, unreal, imaginary synchronization.

Several points.
(1) What you said was indeed simple, but incorrect.
(2) Einstein synchronization is NOT based on M.
(3) If it's "unreal" or "imaginary" it doesn't work.
(4) If it doesn't work, it's stupid.
(5) But it works, so it not stupid, it's not unreal
and it's not imaginary.
You, Richard, are the one who is "not making an effort" to
understand.  Signal time delay is irrelevant because those
doing the synchronization aren't stupid.
Look Richard, you say there is an inherent nonsynchronization
due to time delay of the signal.  If that were true, it would
depend on the speed of the signal.  You say it's AB/c.  But
the speed of light is NOT c on the earth: it's c/n where n is
the refractive index of air.  If the signal were sent over a
wire connecting A and B, it would be even slower.
And if tachyons exist, it would be SMALLER than AB/c!  I can
see why you vociferously denounce the existence of tachyons,
even if they haven't been refuted (and when neutrinos may be
tachyons for all we know).  It would demolish your mistaken
belief about the relativity of simultaneity.