Re: Relativistic synchronisation method

W dniu 01.01.2025 o 14:53, Python pisze:

Le 01/01/2025 à 13:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 01.01.2025 o 12:37, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

Den 31.12.2024 11:58, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 31/12/2024 à 11:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 30.12.2024 21:59, skrev Richard Hachel:

>

Le 30/12/2024 à 21:41, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>

In physics "synchronous" means that two clocks simultaneously
show the same.
>
When two clocks are side by side and show the same,
they are synchronous by definition.

>

>
Absolutely.
>

>

At home you set your clock to  UTC+1h.
You know the station clock shows UTC+1h.
You expect the clocks will be synchronous within a second
when you arrive at the station.
>
It would be ridiculous to claim that the clocks were not
synchronous when you were at home, but in some mysterious
way became synchronous when you arrived at the station.
Or wouldn't it? :-D

>

>
If the watches are well tuned, it is logical that when I find myself in the presence of the station clock, my watch will note the same time.
The opposite would also be absurd, since by definition they must be tuned.

>
OK. So we can sum it up:
>
At home you "tune" your clock to show UTC+1h.
You know the station clock is "tuned" to show UTC+1h.
Since your clock and the station clock are well "tuned",
you expect the clocks will show the same when you arrive
at the station.

>
>
I do, but [Albert Einstein] didn't. In his madness
he imagined that synchronization is evil and
well "tuned" clocks shouldn't keep sync.

 Sure. It is soooo evil that the whole paragraph I.1 in his 1905 article

Stop fucking, poor trash, the clocks announced
"proper" by your mad religion won't keep
synchronization and you know it very well.