- #36
WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
- 5,844
- 551
PeterDonis said:I think the clocks themselves *will* remain synchronized permanently, in the sense that a consistent one-to-one correspondence can be set up, using the method given, between events on the two clocks' worldlines, so that we have a continuous set of pairs of events that happen "at the same time".
I agree with what you have just said regarding permanent simultaneity, but if it's not too much trouble could you address my confusion(s) in post #20, which describes why it isn't 100% evident to me why there is permanent synchronization? Thanks.
PeterDonis said:But the usual sense of "simultaneity" implies more than that. It implies being able to consistently assign time coordinates to events off the worldlines of the two clocks and the (changing) common diameter between them. If all that can be "synchronized" are events on the clocks' worldlines, and no others, I don't see why such a concept of "synchronization" is worth pursuing.
Correct me if I'm wrong but your point is in agreement with the second point I made in post #2: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=732892#post4630828 right?