Re: Sync two clocks

Le 24/08/2024 à 12:08, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 23.08.2024 13:30, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 23/08/2024 à 10:55, Mikko a écrit :

On 2024-08-23 05:41:50 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
 

Am Mittwoch000021, 21.08.2024 um 20:42 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

>
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 of YOUR watch.

>
This is not, what 'invariant' means in the context of relativity.

 Yes, it is.
 

Meant is, that time would not change, if you switch from one frame of reference to another.

 No, it means that whatever is called "invariant" is the same for all
frames. In the current case, the number wirtten on the paper is invariant.
 Mikko

 Here is yet another proof of what I am saying, and of the need to re-explain things correctly.

 Do you mean that the fact that Tomas Heger doesn't know what
"invariant" means, is a proof of the need to re-explain
my statement correctly?
 My statement was:
" 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 of YOUR watch."
 Both "proper time" and "invariant" are explained in the text.
 Exactly what do you not understand?
What is needed to be re-explained correctly?

What you say is quite obvious, and that is not the problem.
We all say, even the buffoon Python, that when the event e1 occurs (A beeps), A starts his watch.
At A, we note tA(e1)=0
e2 is the capture of the beep by B...
e3 is the event that characterizes the return of the signal to A.
We note tA(e3)=2
We know that AB=3.10^8m/s
This leads to tA(e3)-tA(e1)=2AB/c
Everyone agrees on this, and everyone always has, even the fiercest Newtonians, or the fiercest relativists.
Fighting over this is particularly stupid.
We continue:
Everyone also agrees, and I too, that tA(e1)=0 is an invariant for all observers in the universe, whatever their position, whatever their speed, whatever their acceleration.
As everyone agrees that if A takes a picture of his dog Rintintin, at this precise moment, then broadcasts it to the entire universe, the entire universe will receive a picture of his dog, and not a picture of a rhinoceros in Africa.
The opposite would be absurd.
That's what I say, and I see with sadness (don't laugh friends), that my intelligence seems to surpass the entire scientific community, and that for having taken, what I say is distorted.
That's particularly stupid, and perfectly contradictory with
the claim of being a good fan of the theory of relativity.
R.H.