Re: Sync two clocks

Den 23.08.2024 13:45, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 23/08/2024 à 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

>
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
-------------------------------------------
"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at
  A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
  proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
  are simultaneous with these events.
  If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
  respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
  at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
  neighbourhood of B.
  But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
  in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.
  We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.”
  We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for
  the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
  by definition that the “time” required by light to travel
  from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.
"
>
If you can read, you will see that Einstein did say what I said.

 Here is finally a solid basis.
And that is very well said.
The small drawback that remains is that Einstein proposes a definition,
but without explaining which observer will be able to consider the proposition as true.

|> Le 23/08/2024 à 13:23, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> Den 22.08.2024 21:12, skrev Richard Hachel:
|>>> Can you explain to me, in the greatest clarity,
|>>> as Python recommends, what you mean, what you understand
|>>> by the following words: "In special relativity,
|>>> the notion of simultaneity is relative"?
|
|>>
|>> https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
|>> Read:
|>> § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
|>> § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
|>>
|>> It is explained with the greatest clarity.

Einstein proposes an interesting synchronization, and that I take up again by speaking of synchronization of type M,
based on an imaginary observer placed in M ​​in a teletransverse way in an abstract fourth dimension.

Gobbledegook!

The problem is that he does not say it or at worst, he does not know it.
Saying "Between A and B, the speed of light is c, we know it, because we have measured it" does not make sense. Who measures this speed? A? No. B? Neither. We must therefore define things.

How confused is it possible to be?
The special Theory of Relativity is a _theory_ based on
the two postulates:
1: The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid
    for all inertial frames of reference.
2: Light is always propagated in an inertial frame with a definite
    velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
    the emitting body.
So everything in the paper:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
is a _consequence_ of these postulates.
Einstein doesn't say:
"Between A and B, the speed of light is c, we know it,
  because we have measured it".
He says:
"If the second postulate is true, then the speed of light
  between A and B is c."
SR was obviously not tested in 1905, but now it is
thoroughly tested and never falsified.
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
So _now_ we can say:
"Between A and B, the speed of light is c,
  we know it,  because we have measured it"

Saying:
"My dear Jane, I bought an animal", is ridiculous.
We must say "My dear Jane, I bought for your birthday this white horse that you wanted".
This is why, for 40 years, I have been saying that this introduction needs to be rewritten in a clearer, more understandable and more obvious way.

Einstein's paper is very clear, and if you don't think so
it must be because of your poor reading comprehension ability.
Isn't the reason for your confusion rather that you have
been "thinking for yourself" rather than reading what people
much smarter and knowledgeable than yourself have thought?
Your problem is that the real world is very different
from the fantasy world you have dreamt up.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/