Re: Relativistic synchronisation method

Den 01.01.2025 23:28, skrev J. J. Lodder:

Paul B. Andersen:

Den 31.12.2024 16:29, skrev J. J. Lodder:

Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

>
Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
frame of reference (ECI-frame).

>
You keep repeating this mistake.
TAI, hence UTC, is defined as time on the rotating geoid,
>
Jan
>

>
I keep repeating the fact that the TAI and UTC are synchronous
in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame).

 Right of course, but silly, if you rephrase it in this way.
They are the same time, by definition.
(up to a defined offset of a whole number of seconds)
So no frame comes into it.

TAI is irrelevant to my "original formulation". You mentioned TAI.
My "rephrasing" is that _both_ TAI and UTC are
_synchronous in the ECI frame_.
You snipped this:

It is impossible to synchronise clocks in the rotating
Earth fixed frame of reference.

The point is that clocks showing UTC (or TAI) are _not_
synchronous in the Earth fixed frame.
Of course frames "come into it". It is the very point!

Your original formulation is still wrong.

"The original formulation" was written for Richard Hachel.
Hachel's clock in France and my clock in Norway and
the clock on the railway station in Paris all show UTC+1h.
My "original formulation" is correct:
"Your clock and my clock and the clock on the railway station
  in Paris are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred
  frame of reference (ECI-frame)."
The discussion is about synchronisation of clocks,
and "synchronisation" is meaningless if the frame
of reference isn't defined.
But you know this, so why are you quibbling?
Why can't you accept that you were wrong when you said it was
a mistake to say that UTC-clocks are synchronous in the ECI-frame?
(Probably because you somehow misread my statement)

Perhaps you should have a look at BIPM bulletin CCTF/09-27,
or some other source on the definition of TAI.
Summary: TAI is the (best possible) realisation of the SI second,
on the rotating geoid, at mean sea level, [1]

Yes, of course.
But TAI is irrelevant to my "original formulation".
UTC is based on TAI and has the same second.
You snipped:

But the rate of UTC is defined such that clocks on the geoid
will be synchronous with UTC.
 See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

See: 1.2.2 page 2
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/