Re: Sync two clocks

Le 20/08/2024 à 13:31, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

 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.

Several points.
(1) What you said was indeed simple, but incorrect.
No, apparently it is not simple for everyone, because if it were simple, everyone would see that it is correct.
The grievances that are raised against me show, precisely, that what I am saying has not been understood.
(2) Einstein's synchronization is NOT based on M.
Of course it is. All coherent synchronizations are based on that. Each entity in the universe has its own synchronization with regard to the entire present universe.
It makes a real mess, I admit.
So we have to find a coherent synchronization that ties it all together.
Coherent, very useful, but abstract.
Let's take the example of a painter who puts a landscape on his canvas. He needs something coherent (a canvas) and it represents something interesting.
But it is not real. Even if it is very beautiful and very coherent. This drawn tulip is 3 cms from this boat. It is useful,
but the real tulip is 15 meters from the boat.
A and B are in anisochrony and never coexist together in nature (relativity of simultaneity), while on the painting everything is in the same simultaneity for the eye (transverse view).
(3) If it is "unreal" or "imaginary", it does not work.
Well yes, it works. Like a painting is coherent, although it is only synchronised and drawn on a small abstract plane of the drawn areality.
(4) If it does not work, it is stupid.
Exactly, it works.
What is stupid is to believe that the Snow White cartoon is real. It is only a coherent representation, but it is not real.
(5) But it works, so it's not stupid, it's not unreal
and it's not imaginary.
Snow White doesn't exist, and yet you see her.
The relativistic decoy is a bit like that. When I measure the transverse speed of light, I am absolutely convinced that photons exist, that they move from there to there at c.
The reality is that there is none of that, and that I imagine a relativistic decoy due to universal spatial anisochrony.
In reality, it is just an instantaneous interaction between two different places in the receiver's frame of reference.
The transmitter, himself, is aware that a "photon" is being torn from him, but is absolutely unable to say "for whom" since the tearing comes from the "future" in his own local frame of reference.
Everything acts like the principle of a distorting mirror.
R.H.