Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: [SR and synchronization] Cognitive Dissonances and Mental Blockage
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:39:36 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <vap8jo$3su34$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v9q6eu$1tlm9$1@dont-email.me> <liduroFtbroU2@mid.individual.net> <vah9hs$2c43u$1@dont-email.me> <lj56luFe0luU3@mid.individual.net> <M4vxPZKxPU6U7NDCGNWCGCM0lRc@jntp> <ljahm9F9dfdU2@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:39:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c948caf3b83c4e4b3429e0e567f690b2";
	logging-data="4094052"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19BPHgFIlWlzY02J8oEckoc0u2kEFA/n2k="
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3UgLqhlTLH7kaDiF+erUhffmYaQ=
Bytes: 4739

On 2024-08-29 06:10:54 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am Dienstag000027, 27.08.2024 um 12:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>> Le 27/08/2024 à 07:31, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> 
>>> The very word 'relativity' requires mutually symmetric perspectives.
>> 
>> Absolutely.
>> 
>>> Since both perspectives are of equal rights, we need to accept both 
>>> views as valid, hence need mutually symmetric perspectives.
>> 
>> Magnifico! Wunderschön !!!
>> 
> Thanks.
> 
> But this is obvious and certainly not disputed.
> 
> But Einstein, however, had not written about a symmetric system of 
> clock synchronization.

Another of your lies, I suppose. When you write "Einstein" you don't 
mean Einstein but some other person. Have you tried reading what 
Einstein actually wrote? Not too difficult, I suppose, for a German 
speaker. I've been reluctant to put you at the same level of 
crackpottery as Wozzie, "Dr" Hachel*, or Ken Seto, but at some point 
one has to accept the evidence.

*The quotation marks are not necessary for Dr Lengrand, as long as we 
agree that Dr Lengrand  has no qualifications in physics, but for "Dr" 
Hachel they are, unless he tells us which university awarded him his 
relevant doctorate. It would be nice to know the title of his thesis as 
well. Maybe he could provide some evidence of his three Nobel prizes, 
while he's at it.
> 
> Instead he used something, one could call 'external time' (kind of 
> 'true time').
> 
> But there exists no such thing as true time and time is only local.
> 
> This would mean, that a clock at point A would shows the local 'A-time' 
> and clocks at point B show B-time.
> 
> This would not necessarily allow to synchronize clocks at all, if 
> A-time does not run at the same tick rate as B-time.
> 
> But supposed you have a clock from A, bring that to B and synchronize 
> this by technical means with A-time-clocks at A.
> 
> Now: what would you need to do, to synchronize these clocks?
> 
> It needs to be a way, which could also be applyed at B and would give 
> the same result.
> 
> Since we need some sort of operators at both sides, we need to assume, 
> that at both locations are some kind of itelligent beings and these 
> able to read messages and operate a clock.
> 
> These 'observers' get also names and we could them 'A' and 'B' for simplicity.
> 
> The operator A would send out a signal, which gets sent back by B, once 
> it arrives at B.
> 
> 'A' would measure the delay for the round trip, cuts that value in half 
> and send the value to the far side B, together with a coded time 
> message.
> 
> The observer B would decode the message and adjusts the clock in 
> question aappropriately.
> 
> Now B could do the same and would gain the same result.
> 
> This is therefore a valid method to synchronize clocks.
> 
> The method used by Einstein is not valid, because actually ONLY 
> 'A-time' was used and no operator at the far side was mentionend.
> 
> Another method, which is often used in textbooks about relativity 
> requires a 'man in the middle' (called 'M', for instance).
> 
> This is a possible way to synchronize clocks, too.
> 
> But this method had the disadvantage, that synchronization would depend 
> on the position and state of motion of the observer 'M'.
> 
> This method would also only allow to synchronize two clocks, while 
> synchronization should be valid throughout an entire frame of reference.
> 
> TH


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots