(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
On 5 Sep 2003 17:17:37 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
Would you now explain why the Wilsonian method of absolutely synching clocks
will not work?

Don't your two light sources have to be synchronized (i.e, their
pulses or wave forms)?

Maybe I didn't explain my method properly.

The laser emit very fine continuous beams. These are merely used to signal when
the ends pass the clocks (assume the clocks have photocells). If very long rods
are used, this is a pretty accurate method of doing just that. There are other
ways, of course. Light does not have to be used at all.
The main thing is, no matter what the speed of the rod, when one of its ends is
adjacent to one clock, the other will also be exactly adjacent to the next.

If both clocks are subsequently set at the same reading when this happens, then
they are absolutely synched.

It matters not how fast the rod moves. Nor does the clock frame speed enter
into the equation.

I'm still having a problem with the light beams. Viewing them as
waves, wouldn't you need to make sure there peaks and troughs align
up?

Switching to just the ends of the constantly moving rod triggering
pairs of adjacent clocks. This also seems to have problems. Your
method needs the length of the rod to be the same as the distance
between the triggers on the clocks. You could separate the clocks by
using the rod, but after that you need to move that rod up to some
speed. This requires pushing or pulling which deforms its shape since
no instantaneous propagation of the push at one end moves the other
end. Now once the rod is at some velocity, doesn't it maintain a
different length. How would you overcome this deformation problem?