Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:07:58 +0200
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <lj03hdFlavqU3@mid.individual.net>
References: <u18wy1Hl3tOo1DpOF6WVSF0s-08@jntp>
 <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$1@dont-email.me> <liqlo1Fr49eU1@mid.individual.net>
 <va9iq3$rsla$1@dont-email.me> <mi8jivrFcigra2axpPaQXJiogwg@jntp>
 <vacbei$1bpol$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 2VYWtK0068Do874oL48Z2AD+1Y623C5tsPICd/ATpJnPALNJwc
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TekMW8wsFCCSvx2MmJImBxiYh9U= sha256:simxN5KYvAFhgAGchE1yGxKVT7vPZcjy3/NWIlh86O4=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <vacbei$1bpol$1@dont-email.me>

Am Samstag000024, 24.08.2024 um 12:09 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

>>
>> 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.
> 
A piece of paper containing some time value has nothing to do with time, 
let alone 'proper time', because the value written gets immediatly out 
of synch with the clock, from which that value was copied.

If paper per se is 'observer invariant' hence paper in all other 
possible frames of reference???

I would say: no, because matter in general is 'relative'.

TH