Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Sync two clocks
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 15:16:42 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <va9uja$thk5$1@dont-email.me>
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$1@dont-email.me> <liqlo1Fr49eU1@mid.individual.net> <va9iq3$rsla$1@dont-email.me> <mi8jivrFcigra2axpPaQXJiogwg@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 14:16:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bfc65ec5aa48ce91b41c9d094026f89c";
	logging-data="968325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7l0utYMrsWHSchJcle17v"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jD0syZWWgFeqmoPRkgIbxod8lgc=
Bytes: 2803

On 2024-08-23 11:30:06 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 23/08/2024 à 10:55, Mikko a écrit :
>>> 
>>> This is not, what 'invariant' means in the context of relativity.
>> 
>> Yes, it is.
>> 
>>> Meant is, that time would not change, if you switch from one frame of 
>>> reference to another.
>> 
>> No, it means that whatever is called "invariant" is the same for all
>> frames. In the current case, the number wirtten on the paper is invariant.
>> 
>> Mikko
> 
> Here is yet another proof of what I am saying, and of the need to 
> re-explain things correctly.
> When I say "I bought a white horse, and I gave it to Father François; 
> he will take care of it because he is retired, and he owns a field", 
> everyone understands what I am saying.

We understand what is said and assume what is not said is not important.

> But if I say: "All the watches will be desynchronized", it is clear 
> that no one will clearly understand what that means, and so on for a 
> great many terms used.

Why not? It is clear what is said and what is not. Perhaps we may think
that something unsaid is not unimportant but that is a matter of opinion
were disagreement is OK. In particlar we might want to know whther the
desynchronization is small enough that we needn't worry.

Of couse, if the author wanted to express something else than what we
understood then the author has ailed to express his intended meaning
with sufficient clarity. But if only an illiterate cannot read then
that is not worth of any consideration.

-- 
Mikko