Thanks for the replies.
I apologise for referring to the 'twin paradox'. This occurred because, so many times, I have seen someone explaining special relativity, and then producing the classic twin paradox as an example. As these examples never came with an explanation, and as they were always...
I have seen many attempts to rationalise the 'Twins Paradox', but none of the seem satisfactory. They usually use acceleration or asymmetric differences in inertial frame, or other aspects of special relativity that tend to obfuscate the problem/explanation.
So proposing an experiment that...
Thanks. That's what I thought. Saying they are not synchronised only implies that they so not display the same time.
So two clocks that tick at the same rate when co-located will also tick at the same rate when one is moved, provided they remain in the same inertial reference frame.
That doesn't actually answer the question.
What I am asking is not about a synchronisation convention, but about what it covers.
If you move two clocks apart, it is fairly obvious, from special relativity, that their offset and phase will change to some extent.
But will their speed?
When reading about the one way speed of light, I think it's fair to say that most potential methods to obtain this fail because it is said to be impossible to have two non co-located clocks in synch.
My question is really about terminology.
Normally, two things can be said to be in synch if...