Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Relativistic synchronisation method
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2025 21:22:24 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <vl482d$2tv8d$1@dont-email.me>
References: <4-GlI_h7vkz4Ndsd_KixgDLS7Gg@jntp> <vk9qtr$p308$1@dont-email.me>
 <6s8YJGP42H0C-4FoL8dk0ahw7GU@jntp> <vkrfq7$vgn7$1@dont-email.me>
 <aPHxGjD_dpkbBzSp5qyOiHozthM@jntp> <vkv0i5$1pqpi$1@dont-email.me>
 <_CYXv7AxHmksXdC3qC_LVC1ERDY@jntp> <vl0g4p$26cgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <MY2rAPs--8tACK2xmT07V_aMmMI@jntp> <vl39ac$2opud$1@dont-email.me>
 <kUWvT_EEqhHVAYrxetfJ6kARfrk@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2025 21:20:29 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="969fd7691dda1b0d41ea875fbddc8efe";
	logging-data="3079437"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18HK/uAh/79i/QqRGLNI7l4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:j2arsyhAoESvMpLbAwJvDCF+jVI=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <kUWvT_EEqhHVAYrxetfJ6kARfrk@jntp>
Bytes: 2709

  Den 01.01.2025 18:55, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 01/01/2025 à 12:35, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :> 
>> Den 31.12.2024 11:58, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 31/12/2024 à 11:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> At home you set your clock to  UTC+1h.
>>>> You know the station clock shows UTC+1h.
>>>> You expect the clocks will be synchronous within a second
>>>> when you arrive at the station.
>>>>

>>> If the watches are well tuned, it is logical that when I find myself in the presence of the station clock, my watch will note the same time.
>>> The opposite would also be absurd, since by definition they must be tuned.


> No, what I say is not ridiculous at all.

"Being well tuned" is obviously the same as "being synchronous",
so what you say is OK.

But why do you use a different word than what is common in physics?

> It is you who do not understand what I have been saying for several 
> years now.

I understand that you have called synchronised clocks for "well tuned"
for several years.

> 
> I was already saying the same thing forty years ago, and I have never 
> changed an inch.

Why haven't you during those 40 years discovered that what you call
"well tuned" is what physicists call  "synchronised"?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/