Re: The problem of relativistic synchronisation

Am Samstag000031, 31.08.2024 um 09:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:

Le 31/08/2024 à 08:30, Thomas Heger a écrit :

>
>
What had actually the reading of a clock to do with how fast light moves from A to B?
>
This would be a non sequitur, if time would not be what clocks say.
>
>
In fact light is here used to synchronize distant clocks.
>
But that does not say, that clocks would use light to measure time.
>
Usually clocks use other means than light, like pendulums or Quartz crystals.
>
To syncronize distant clocks, we would need to adjust them in a way, that they tick at the same rate and show the same time.
>
To measure this 'in synch' we would need to measure the delay and add this to the observed time from the remote system.
>
But this step cannot be found anywhere in Einstein's paper.
>
>
...
>
>
TH

 You are getting closer to the truth (a little more than Paul B. Andersen who is drowning in it.
But it is not quite there yet.
It is not far.
For two watches to be synchronized, on MY DESK, two things are necessary.
That they turn at the same speed (equal chronotropy).
That they mark the same time at the same instant (isochrony).
 But hey. The beautiful thing that two watches mark the same time on my table. One is enough for me. The second one is not much use to me.
 A bit like two solar clocks.
 It would not occur to anyone to place two solar clocks in their garden. If it is well oriented, the time displayed is the right one.
No need for two solar clocks.
 On the other hand, if I am no longer in Berlin, but in Nantes, I cannot be satisfied with taking continual selfies of my Berlin solar clock to have the solar time at Nantes. Everyone understands the ridiculousness of the situation (except Python and Paul.B Andersen). If I am in Nantes, I have to look at the time on a clock in a Nantes garden, and I cannot say to my wife: "What time is it now? Please send me a selfie of my clock."
 The same goes for the relativistic universe, where the time displayed on watches depends on POSITION, and where the chronotropy of watches (the speed of the hands) depends on SPEED.
 What is absolutely frightening, even highly ridiculous, is to see even the greatest experts in world physics (Stefen Hawking himself) completely drown in concepts that, once well explained, are nevertheless of a college simplicity.
 We cannot, even by slapping them in the nose, or kicking them in the balls, synchronize solar clocks with each other. They will NEVER mark noon at the same time in Berlin, and in Nantes.

I used a term called 'time domaine'.
This is the set of all places, which can use the same kind of clocks.
They do not need to show the same time, however, but need to tick at the same rate.
Timezones on planet Earth has a conncetion to the sun and where it is in the sky at a certain place.
But we could actually use concepts like GMT and use one abstract time standard around the globe, which does not refer to sunsets.
Only required is, that a second in Paris is also a second in Sydney, for instance.
This is the case for all points around the globe at sea-level.
This set of points is what I call a 'time-domaine'.
But other times are thinkable, which includes a 'time-domaine' where time flows 'sideways' or backwards.
This is so, because I regard time as imaginary pseudo-scalar and the perpendicular spacelike axes as real.
This picutre can be rotated by multiplying it with i (or multiples or fractions of i).
This is a very odd thing and not so easy to understand.
But apparently the universe allows this and uses local time only.
Now, to all such local time axes exists a world, where that time is an imaginary pseudo-scalar, which defines a perpendicular hyperplane, that beings there would call 'space'.
Iow: there exists a multitude of spaces, which all have their own axis of time.
And thes axes can have an angle towards other universes' times.
TH
see here (this is a link to my 'book')
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing