Its the half the time of the round trip, by definition. That's a main part of the paper..allowing this second clock be synchronized.The first clock-reading is ##t_1##. The second clock-reading is ##t_2##. The elapsed time between them is ##\Delta t=t_2-t_1##. You need two clock-readings to establish an elapsed time ##\Delta t##.
There's no second clock involved in the point I was making. One clock, two readings taken on that clock. Their difference is an elapsed time, and that's something that requires a standard to be able to measure.Its the half the time of the round trip, by definition. That's a main part of the paper..allowing this second clock be synchronized.
There is no absolute time in relativity.Don't all clocks exist at the same absolute time
I've no idea what a "relational" speed is. Do you mean a relative speed? If so, then speed relative to what?but move at different relational speeds?
No. All clocks exist, but the concept of "at the same time" is not an absolute. The question verges on the philosophical (as we can tell by the fact that it talks about existence, which is a philosphical concept), but that's the short answer. We can say that "all clocks exist", but because of "EInstein's train" (a thought experiment about the issue at hand), we can't say that they all exist at the same absolute time.Don't all clocks exist at the same absolute time, but move at different relational speeds?
it can synchronize the first clock too...There's no second clock involved in the point I was making. One clock, two readings taken on that clock. Their difference is an elapsed time, and that's something that requires a standard to be able to measure.
On the other hand, synchronizing two spatially separated clocks requires nothing of the kind, just a convention.
Learning the Special theory (SR) from Einstein's 1905 paper (OEMB) is totally fine. There's nothing wrong with it. I consider it an excellent way to learn it. However afterwards, it is extremely beneficial to learn the geometric approach of Minkowski spacetime diagrams. The geometric approach brings about a complete understanding more quickly, in most cases. His OEMB scenario setup and assumptions were very carefully (and well) defined. His paper did not show all the derivation of the stated interim equations, but they are not difficult to determine. You only need algebra to derive the Lorentz transformations (Section 3), however Einstein used both algebra and calculus in his OEMB derivation. The reason it may be done using algebra alone, is because the relation between spacetime systems of relative motion "is assumed linear", because of the observed homogeneity of space and time.I changed my mind about reading the old stuff. It's old. Give it to me short and sweet in language I can understand. This is the 21st century and I don't have all day. Thank you.