[guest39538]

I have never claimed that an instant signal is sent.

Well, I have said that if you press the two "reset" buttons on the clocks against one another  it is one action and it is local to both clocks and, since it's the same act it is simultaneous with itself for all observers because the alternative would be a violation of causality.

And  I have said that , if you have two perfect clocks next to each other, set to "zero" at the same time, they will stay synchronised.
And I have said that, if you move one of them, it will run slow, but if you move it slowly it will not lose much time (and someone kindly provided a table of how slow it would be).
So, since you know how slow it is, you can allow for that.

You keep going on about conventions; well I have tried to define mine.

You keep telling me that the apparent speed depends on epsilon.
I  keep asking you if  the apparent speed of light I measure will be  consistent and, rather than saying yes or no, you keep telling me that instant messaging isn't possible.
Well, I know that- and I never said it was.

So, yet again

If I do the experiment of synchronising two clocks (next to each other) then moving them slowly then using them to time the arrival of a flash of light- with all the details I previously specified.

And then I repeat it.
Will I get the same answer twice?

You can simply put your reset button of the two clocks exactly in the middle, the time it takes the signal to travel to both clocks will be synchronous if the wires are the same length from each clock. , this will allow both of your clocks to start ''counting'' time , synchronous. 
However you don't need a clock to time the one way speed of light. You need a strobe set to one flash per second.   You then need a detector distance x apart and the detector read out speed to be 5cm a second. 
This will firstly test that c is c.

dx=dy

ok?

[guest39538]

The box #121;

Einstein never considered the two way journey of light in his ideas .  If he had , he would of known and realised that simultaneity is nothing to do with different now's or different rates of time

.

Do more research.
1905 paper, par. 1, 2; A. Einstein:
We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events.
We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.

And he is talking about sight, think about it.

Imagine you are on Earth and I will be on Saturn and we are both observing the Sun,   we are both seeing the Sun at different times due to the nature of how sight/light works.
However your next increment of time is immediately ahead of you, the same as mine, our times are synchronous and remain synchronous although we see things at different times.

That would be the conventional understanding of simultaneity of events.  However , when we look at the vector analysis of the light involved, we see each other synchronously as well.

Δt=tP  adds absolute significant

vector analysis of light between two observers using the distance of L=299 792 458m

Vector =v+(c)1.s

Vector =v-(c)1.s

net difference t = 0t


net difference.jpg (22.3 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4588 times)


Because X amount of time Planks = 1.s = 299 792 458m

=1.855e+43 tP's / second

All observers anywhere in the Universe experience 1.855e+43 tP's/second because c is constant.  My clock is very accurate.

In time dilation theory and the Lorentz length contraction, this is not accounted for, the shorter slower time being exactly that, a short measurement that has not travelled 1.855e+43 tP's/second .

[Bored chemist]

You can simply put your reset button of the two clocks exactly in the middle, the time it takes the signal to travel to both clocks will be synchronous if the wires are the same length from each clock. , this will allow both of your clocks to start ''counting'' time , synchronous. 
However you don't need a clock to time the one way speed of light. You need a strobe set to one flash per second.   You then need a detector distance x apart and the detector read out speed to be 5cm a second. 
This will firstly test that c is c.

dx=dy

ok?

No.
Sorry, but it's not OK.
You can't synchronise two clocks unless they are in (essentially) the same place.
And the rest makes no real sense.

[Bored chemist]

You keep going on about conventions; well I have tried to define mine.

So it's a convention. CASE CLOSED my first post stands correct. Good bye.

Bye
Pity you didn't have time to answer my question before you went.

[guest39538]

You can simply put your reset button of the two clocks exactly in the middle, the time it takes the signal to travel to both clocks will be synchronous if the wires are the same length from each clock. , this will allow both of your clocks to start ''counting'' time , synchronous. 
However you don't need a clock to time the one way speed of light. You need a strobe set to one flash per second.   You then need a detector distance x apart and the detector read out speed to be 5cm a second. 
This will firstly test that c is c.

dx=dy

ok?

No.
Sorry, but it's not OK.
You can't synchronise two clocks unless they are in (essentially) the same place.
And the rest makes no real sense.

Huh? you suggested the reset button to synchronise the clocks, I just told you too put your reset button an equal length apart from each clock, i.e in the middle.

Added - I tell you what my friend lol, you can use the clock I am using if you want to , a Planck light clock.


Δt==c

I think you will find it very accurate and constant in any inertia frame of reference or in motion.

You can use the value 1.855e+43 tP's = 1 second

[Bored chemist]

The clocks have to be in the same place in order for "synchronisation" to make sense.
If you are stood next to one clock a and you see the other as reading the same time , you might say they are synchronised.
But if you go to the other and look back you will say that they no longer agree.
Synchrony only exists locally.

[guest39538]

The clocks have to be in the same place in order for "synchronisation" to make sense.
If you are stood next to one clock a and you see the other as reading the same time , you might say they are synchronised.
But if you go to the other and look back you will say that they no longer agree.
Synchrony only exists locally.

Only if you are using a crap clock such as the caesium atomic clock. It is  the clock that is faulty not the synchronisation of time. 

You quite clearly ignore my notions , but if you accepted my notions and used the Planck light clock, then you would not have a problem of synchronising clocks to worry about .

[David Cooper]

Pity you didn't have time to answer my question before you went.

The answer is that if you repeat your experiment, you'll get the same result, and if the whole system has accelerated in between the original experiment and the repeat, you'll still get the same result. You will think you've kept the clocks in sync each time regardless of whether they are really still in sync or not.

[guest4091]

And he is talking about sight, think about it.

Most of our sensory input is via sight, and he surely thought about it. If you don't understand the theory, just say so. We are all ignorant of something.

[guest4091]

The clocks have to be in the same place in order for "synchronisation" to make sense.
If you are stood next to one clock a and you see the other as reading the same time , you might say they are synchronised.
But if you go to the other and look back you will say that they no longer agree.
Synchrony only exists locally.

Einstein described the clock synch method since there was no universal time,or common time for A and B. The idea is not to see the other clock indicate the same as the one next to you, but after the distant clock signal arrives, you deduct the transit time, and conclude the distant clock was indicating the same time when/while/simultaneusly you were viewing the one next to you.
The synch convention does not require adjacent clocks. That's why you use light signals. Yes the simultaneity is local, since it depends on the speed of the frame.

[guest39538]

And he is talking about sight, think about it.

Most of our sensory input is via sight, and he surely thought about it. If you don't understand the theory, just say so. We are all ignorant of something.

What is to understand? 

Let us look at the Wiki explanation.

According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space. For example, a car crash in London and another in New York, which appear to happen at the same time to an observer on Earth, will appear to have occurred at slightly different times to an observer on an airplane flying between London and New York. The question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in the stationary Earth reference frame the two collisions may happen at the same time but in other frames (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still other frames the New York crash may occur first. However, if the two events could be causally connected (i.e. the time between event A and event B is greater than the distance between them divided by the speed of light), the order is preserved (i.e., "event A precedes event B") in all frames of reference.

Of course I am clueless. Relative to C and D the event is absolute where relative to A and B the event happened at different times,

L(xy)≠L(x)

L(yx)≠L(x)


clueless.jpg (37.1 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4405 times)

No idea me .....

v-=v+≠v-

p.s of course when I look at the truth of this and consider my own notions on the nature of light, the notions fail and the reference frame is always absolute to the observer. I.e simultaneously .

My model rubs out the lines between events, the only change we observe is of the body itself in its exact location.


transparent.jpg (21.21 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4427 times)

Because light and dark only exists of bodies. I observe the entire length of space between my eye and object.  I observe the objects colour in its exact geometrical position relative to me, I can measure this , I can move towards the object and the object will occupy my present, I can move away from the object the object is my past geometrical position but remains in my present always , I can go back to the object to prove this over and over again .
Time can not slow down if I return to the present or the object returns to my present, I do not see objects in the past I see them in the present a distance away, an entire distance we can as a part of the whole we can see, we observe the entire universe simultaneously.
However I can not force anybody to believe this although I am being totally objective to what I observe. I observe visible light to be only that of substance, the same as dark and light is only that of substance, the reality is that all bodies are existing in absolute nothingness , absolute nothingness is where time , light or dark do not exist without physical substance.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

And as far the Lorentz contractions I have also shown that to be false in my diagrams in my paper using tP (time Planck).

In the beginning there was absolute nothingness 0∞, where time , light and dark did not exist.

[Bored chemist]

The clocks have to be in the same place in order for "synchronisation" to make sense.
If you are stood next to one clock a and you see the other as reading the same time , you might say they are synchronised.
But if you go to the other and look back you will say that they no longer agree.
Synchrony only exists locally.

Only if you are using a crap clock such as the caesium atomic clock. It is  the clock that is faulty not the synchronisation of time. 

You quite clearly ignore my notions , but if you accepted my notions and used the Planck light clock, then you would not have a problem of synchronising clocks to worry about .

The thing about, for example, a caesium clock, is  that it tells the time.
If your "clock" doesn't agree with it then it isn't really a clock.

[Bored chemist]

Pity you didn't have time to answer my question before you went.

The answer is that if you repeat your experiment, you'll get the same result, and if the whole system has accelerated in between the original experiment and the repeat, you'll still get the same result. You will think you've kept the clocks in sync each time regardless of whether they are really still in sync or not.

I did specify that gravity was the same throughout the experimental arena.
Since you can't distinguish gravity from an acceleration...

If I was accelerating I'd know about it (in principle).
I'm not.
So, I should get the same answer each time.
Right?

[David Cooper]

If I was accelerating I'd know about it (in principle).
I'm not.
So, I should get the same answer each time.
Right?

Yes, you'll get the same answer each time. My point was that even if you accelerate in between, you'll still get the same answer, unless you try to account for the acceleration, at which point you could base things on the original frame of reference in which you were at rest and determine that the second measurement gives you a speed of light relative to the clocks that isn't c, or alternatively you might reassess your first measurement on the basis that you're now at rest, in which case you'll decide that your first measurement gave you a value different from c.

[guest39538]

The clocks have to be in the same place in order for "synchronisation" to make sense.
If you are stood next to one clock a and you see the other as reading the same time , you might say they are synchronised.
But if you go to the other and look back you will say that they no longer agree.
Synchrony only exists locally.

Only if you are using a crap clock such as the caesium atomic clock. It is  the clock that is faulty not the synchronisation of time. 

You quite clearly ignore my notions , but if you accepted my notions and used the Planck light clock, then you would not have a problem of synchronising clocks to worry about .

The thing about, for example, a caesium clock, is  that it tells the time.
If your "clock" doesn't agree with it then it isn't really a clock.

How absurd, the Caesium atom is no more than a measuring tool , we count the amount of cycles to equal 1 second of time passed. The Caesium does not tell the time period.
Quite clearly you have no response to my axiom notions and are clutching at straws with false beliefs.   Like it or not I am correct about time.

[guest4091]

My point was that even if you accelerate in between, you'll still get the same answer,

SR clock synch is relative to the frame speed. If the frame increases speed, the clocks will be out of synch.

[Bored chemist]

If I was accelerating I'd know about it (in principle).
I'm not.
So, I should get the same answer each time.
Right?

Yes, you'll get the same answer each time. My point was that even if you accelerate in between, you'll still get the same answer, unless you try to account for the acceleration, at which point you could base things on the original frame of reference in which you were at rest and determine that the second measurement gives you a speed of light relative to the clocks that isn't c, or alternatively you might reassess your first measurement on the basis that you're now at rest, in which case you'll decide that your first measurement gave you a value different from c.

Well, that's nice.
It means that, whatever epsilon may be, it doesn't matter.
For the moment, I'm leaving out other complications like a passing spaceman or nearby black holes.

[David Cooper]

My point was that even if you accelerate in between, you'll still get the same answer,

SR clock synch is relative to the frame speed. If the frame increases speed, the clocks will be out of synch.

If you do the experiment, then accelerate, then do the experiment again, clearly doing the experiment again involves reuniting the clocks and making sure they're in sync before separating them again.

____________________________________________________________________

Well, that's nice.
It means that, whatever epsilon may be, it doesn't matter.

It does matter, because whenever you do your experiment, you are using epsilon=1/2 without realising it.

[Bored chemist]

My point was that even if you accelerate in between, you'll still get the same answer,

SR clock synch is relative to the frame speed. If the frame increases speed, the clocks will be out of synch.

If you do the experiment, then accelerate, then do the experiment again, clearly doing the experiment again involves reuniting the clocks and making sure they're in sync before separating them again.

____________________________________________________________________

Well, that's nice.
It means that, whatever epsilon may be, it doesn't matter.

It does matter, because whenever you do your experiment, you are using epsilon=1/2 without realising it.

Is that the same value they use for measuring the speed of Usain Bolt?

[guest4091]

If you do the experiment, then accelerate, then do the experiment again, clearly doing the experiment again involves reuniting the clocks and making sure they're in sync before separating them again.

For some strange reason, I misread his original description. Mind must be wandering!