Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Sync two clocks
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:32:55 +0200
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <liqonpFr49eU5@mid.individual.net>
References: <u18wy1Hl3tOo1DpOF6WVSF0s-08@jntp> <v9nant$1d2us$1@dont-email.me>
 <vPP1Z1BJfE1Dt7SYhCzEo7ZQWFI@jntp> <va0a4f$30p95$1@dont-email.me>
 <Q5uRIW04EcKQUaDhHF3BgLlhTEc@jntp> <va2604$3cvm9$2@dont-email.me>
 <va26au$3c12c$8@dont-email.me> <DBY62RW1eKeJ1CBElubh-FukMnE@jntp>
 <va5cd7$3vdmg$1@dont-email.me> <lio63qFf36mU7@mid.individual.net>
 <va76co$blq6$8@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net Uh97FD4azEoXNh7saPq0SAymLVNScuqsUYcRpctHL95X7dAF8x
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BbqBhfvH4ZhW6iv+JcppIzgtZm4= sha256:GAYbAP4USjvqDeUbONP5TrXVlr9tCHZl5iljgy+so+I=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <va76co$blq6$8@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2881

Am Donnerstag000022, 22.08.2024 um 13:11 schrieb Python:
....
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> How is it possible to fail to understand this?
>>>
>>> If we have two stationary clocks in an inertial frame,
>>>   and clock A shows tA = t1 when it emits light,
>>>   and clock B shows tB = t1 + td when the light hits it,
>>>   and clock A shows tA'= t1 + 2⋅td when it is hit by the reflected 
>>> light,
>>>
>>> then tA, tB, tA', t1 and td are all proper times which are frame
>>> independent (invariants) and "the same for all".
>>>
>>>   tB − tA = t'A − tB = td
>>>
>>> The transit time td is a frame independent invariant and
>>> the same in both directions, which means that the clocks according
>>> to Einstein's _definition_ are synchronous in the inertial frame.
>>
>>
>> You introduced t_d or 'transit time' (aka 'delay'), while Einstein 
>> didn't use any of these terms.
> 
> But he write down two equations that implies directly that a delay
> is taken into account.


The equation on page 3 COULD be interpeted as calculation of the delay.

But Einstein wrote, that would be the definition of the speed of light.

I would miss the word 'delay' in this context (or something similar).

Also the remainder of this paper does not mention delay neither.

So: where have YOU found any use of delay or transit time in this paper?

I 'combed' the text very carefully and could not find any statement, 
which eventually would match this discription.

....

TH