Re: Sync two clocks

Le 20/08/2024 à 01:33, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

How can tAB not be equal to tBA for light is vacuum?
 

not only for the point M which is the only real origin of
the synchronization, but for everyone.

 If tAB = tBA, then Paul's procedure works.  If tAB <> tBA,
then your point M method won't work either.
 

We then have a useful procedure, but false.

 I set my watch to my wall clock months ago and it's still
in sync.  You're spouting baloney, Richard.
 

[Rest of misinformed baloney deleted]

You still don't understand, damn it, no one understands what I'm getting at.
Let's start again (I'm going to end up going crazy because of you, and your blindness; no one understands, and everyone is acting smart by arguing that not understanding is necessarily being smarter than me).
We place two points A and B in the universe, 3.10^8 meters apart.
Richard Hachel says that we will never be able to synchronize them BETWEEN THEM because of universal anisochrony. We will only be able to synchronize them by convention and for ONE chosen point in the universe.
These two points do not coexist in a global and reciprocal universal present moment. BUT SHIT! It's still not difficult to understand.
This belief is an abstract religious thought but false.
It immediately happens (if you think about it a bit) that the path of a signal from A to B will not be identical for A and for B.
B will consider that the signal is instantaneous (and he will be right), while A will consider that the signal shifts towards the future and will note tAB=2 seconds.
We immediately realize that this implies a completely anisochronous universe, where everyone measures the time they want, and that generally all measured times will be different.
It's not funny, but that's how it is.
It's a bit like the time that flows in a relativistic frame of reference compared to another. If we take a thousand frames of reference, the same proper time will be transformed into a thousand different improper times. Nobody is offended by this, all relativists understand it.
Well, universal anisochrony is not the same. A measures 2 seconds, B measures an instantaneous transaction, and each point of the frame of reference will measure a really different time.
So we still have to agree on all that. I recently explained that Einstein's procedure was abstract, but useful, because it put all this little world back in a certain coherence where a point M located at an equal distance from the entire chosen universe, observes this universe live without distorting anisochrony.
It is this point that makes the law, and defines a "present moment that is common to it to measure the times of the universe".
For him, a crucial thing, all displacements are transversal, and only transversal. For him, all electromagnetic signals (which are present waves for receivers) move at c, and by convention, all observed points exist in the same present moment.
This is where this imaginary point is useful, although abstract.
R.H.