Re: Sync two clocks

Le 22/08/2024 à 12:27, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 21.08.2024 22:20, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 21/08/2024 à 20:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 20.08.2024 17:12, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 20/08/2024 à 15:39, Python a écrit :
>

Hachel now pretends that tB − tA = t'A − tB can be true or false
depending on the observer.

>

>
This is what I have always said for at least 40 years.
>

>

>
Richard, read your watch NOW. Write down the time nn:nn:nn.
The time nn:nn:nn is a proper time (read off a clock), it is
invariant, not depending on frame of reference.
>
Nobody can have another opinion of what time YOU read off YOUR watch.

>
Or is your deeper and more intelligent opinion that the time YOU
read off YOUR watch depend on the observer?
Can I have the opinion that you read something else off your watch
than you did?
>

>
How is it possible to fail to understand this?
>
If we have two stationary clocks in an inertial frame,
  and clock A shows tA = t1 when it emits light,
  and clock B shows tB = t1 + td when the light hits it,
  and clock A shows tA'= t1 + 2⋅td when it is hit by the reflected light,
>
then tA, tB, tA', t1 and td are all proper times which are frame
independent (invariants) and "the same for all".
>
  tB − tA = t'A − tB = td
>
The transit time td is a frame independent invariant and
the same in both directions, which means that the clocks according
to Einstein's _definition_ are synchronous in the inertial frame.
>
>
Note this:
-----------
It is an indisputable FACT that according to Einstein's definition
the clocks are synchronous in the inertial frame.
>
It is not possible to have different opinions about this.

>

>
Yes, it is possible to have a much deeper and more intelligent opinion on the matter.

>
Does that mean that your deeper and more intelligent opinion is
that it is NOT a fact that according to Einstein's definition
the clocks are synchronous in the inertial frame?
>

>
I am surprised by the stupidity (I do not say this maliciously but with sadness) of those who read me, and who, surprised, do not understand anything at all of what I explain to them.
>

>
See? You don't even try to address what I write, you flee,
whining about why nobody acknowledge your genius.
>
You never EXPLAIN anything. You only CLAIM a lot of nonsense.
>
But now you have the opportunity to EXPLAIN why the clocks
according to Einstein's definition are NOT synchronous in
the inertial frame.
>
Can you do that?
>
If we have two stationary clocks in an inertial frame,
  and clock A shows tA = t1 when it emits light,
  and clock B shows tB = t1 + td when the light hits it,
  and clock A shows tA'= t1 + 2⋅td when it is hit by the reflected light,
>
then tA, tB, tA', t1 and td are all proper times which are frame
independent (invariants) and "the same for all".
>
  tB − tA = t'A − tB = td
>
The transit time td is a frame independent invariant and
the same in both directions, which means that the clocks according
to Einstein's _definition_ are synchronous in the inertial frame.
>
--------------
>
I bet you will flee the challenge yet again.

 I am not avoiding debate, and on the contrary, I have already explained dozens of times what the notion of universal anisochrony is and how things should be understood and taught.
But each time, and I do not understand why, no one makes the effort to integrate what I say. I think it is out of conformity. I do not think it is out of laziness or lack of intelligence, because there are posters like you who are courageous (you have to be courageous to write pdfs rather than watch television) and who are intelligent, even curious.
The reason therefore comes from conformity and the fear of shaking up ideas, even if the ideas are ugly and false (ridiculous integration of improper times in your pdf, bad equations for instantaneous observable speeds and proper times of accelerated objects, delirium about rotating disks).
Yet EVERYTHING I say should be clear and obvious to someone who would detach himself from what the Germans (Einstein and Minkowski) said to get closer to the French spirit (Poincaré, Hachel). You just have to understand, and everything becomes clearer, more beautiful, truer and more obvious to teach.
  R.H.