Re: Relativistic synchronisation method

Am Sonntag000022, 22.12.2024 um 22:15 schrieb Richard Hachel:

Le 22/12/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

>
I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
>
I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".
>
Here we go:
>
Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
  'yes' or 'no', please!
>
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
>
Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
>
Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!
>
Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
>
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
  'yes' or 'no', please

>
Everything you say is true.
>
So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

>
OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
>
You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
>
That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)
>

>
The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a synchronization process consists of in our universe.

>

>
When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in the cosmos).

>
Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
>
https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval- Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
>
>

This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.

>
It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
>
Richard, I am in the real world.
>
I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
>
https://time.is/clock
>
It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed  time will be correct
within a second.
>
You answered yes to these questions:
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>
So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
>
So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.
>
How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
>

>
This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature, and will always remain so,

>
You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
>
>
Merry Christmas Richard.

 You still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (it's been four decades).
 We breathe, we blow.
 We have a little coffee, and we hold our heads in our hands.
 WE CANNOT absolutely synchronize two watches with each other, because it is physically impossible.
 This is like saying: "draw me a round square".
 We must therefore synchronize the two watches on a third virtual watch for which the two events watch A marks noon, and watch B marks noon are SIMULTANEOUS.
 It is on the universal simultaneity of this abstract watch that physicists build their usable universe.
 This watch does not exist, it is virtual, although very useful.

It is important to notice, that time should be local, hence 'universal simultineity' does not make sense.
It is actually a very important thing, that time is local, because you could explain all kinds of observations with this assumption.
see here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

 I repeat it again and again, watches A and B cannot be tuned to each other. If I agree A on B (I say that the two events A1 and B1 are simultaneous) for A, but they will no longer be for B.

It is in fact possible to chose kind of 'mid-point-time' from M, in which A and B-events are simulteinious.
The problem:
if you have more than two points to compare, this does not work, because the midpoint of a triangle is not lying uopn its edjes.
IaW: the mid-point of a triangle ABC is not in the middle between any two of the end-points.
This would exclude the possibility to generallize the mid-point-time from M (in the middle between A and B) from above.
...
TH