Einstein Hid His Third Postulate

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt

On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers

Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus

Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers

[rotchm]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:21:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.

That is a lie on your part, until you can present a reference where he claimed that.
Can you?


> ... they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.

No, not 'due to the LT.'.
Its due to the fact that they do; its the way our universe operates.
The LT's simply model this behavior. The LT's don't dictate. You are so confused.

> That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

Nope. Actual exps show that you are wrong.
You are a reality denier now?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 20:31:41 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:21:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> That is a lie on your part, until you can present a reference where he claimed that.
> Can you?
>
>
> > ... they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
>
> No, not 'due to the LT.'.
> Its due to the fact that they do

But they don't. Anyone can check GPS.

> Nope. Actual exps show that you are wrong.

And that communism must win.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

"In order for the theory to survive long enough for this to happen, its dependencies
and design weaknesses as a physical theory could perhaps not be made too explicit: It would have
been counterproductive to Einstein’s project to tell his opponents exactly where special
relativity’s approach was weakest, until he had had a chance to fix the problems himself. Until
Einstein had produced his general theory, it was probably easier to keep the real basis of special relativity ambiguous." "Einstein's Missing Third Postulate" -Baird

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Hey mule, you didn't read the reference and complain I didn't provide one.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

"A theory supplied without conventional physical postulates can be
legitimate, but a theory presented as being constructed from only the main postulates provided,
but requiring additional major unstated assumptions to reach its goal, is perhaps a case of false
advertising." - Baird = "Einstein's Missing Third Postulate"

[Richard Hertz]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:21:32 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> What was he hiding?
> If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

<snip>

Much simpler than that.

Having a rod of length L with one clock at each end, they would be automatically out of sync as both pass by the origin.
While the clock located at the B end of the rod is being reset by light signals, while passing by the origin at rest, the clock
located in the rear end A would have been forced to reset after L/v seconds. This put both clocks out of sync.

That's why, when deriving his Lorentz transforms, the cretin only used ONE POINT (x' = 0), which would be the rear end A.

Cretinism = relativism

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The twins clocks are out of sync with each other. You have read Englehardt's article. Can you explain the math? How would the multiple clocks in one IRF go out of sync with each other?

[Richard Hertz]

What I wrote is elementary logic BEFORE Lorentz transforms are "derived". Pure logic, because when a rod of length L = BA
pass by the origin x = 0, clock located at B (rod moving to the right side) is reset by a light signal.

IF the same procedure is applied to the clock located at the A rear end, then automatically B clock is out of sync.

1) End B passes by origin x = 0. Clock tB = clock t = 0.
2) End A passes by the origin x = 0. Clock tA = clock t = 0, BUT clock tB is running L/v seconds ahead of tA = t = 0.
This problem has no solution, unless A COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM sets clock A = L/v, which is EXACTLY the time t. So NO RESET!

Lorentz transforms:

x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

Now, reading the paper you mentioned, it's obvious what happens. He replaced

x = x'/γ + vt in t', what gives time in the moving frame related to position in the moving frame:

t' = γ (t - x'v/(γc²) - vt v/c²) = γ (t - t v²/c² - x'v/(γc²) ) = γ (t/γ² - x'v/(γc²) = (t/γ) - x'v/c²

t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²

If, once using Lorentz, Einstein tries to sync t' when t = 0, HE CAN'T because for t = 0, t' = - x′v/c²

Being t' = - x′v/c² WHEN t = 0 only has ONE SOLUTION: Using only ONE CLOCK at x' = 0. Then he could synchronize ONE moving
clock located at the rear end of the rod BA (or just the clock A).

That's ONE OF MANY deceiving manipulations of the 1905 paper. It's WRONGFUL, it's called CHEATING, COOKING, FUDGING, etc.

But cretinism = relativism has prevailed on this evil, rotten world.

[rotchm]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:54:18 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:31:41 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:

> Hey mule, you didn't read the reference and complain I didn't provide one.

You did not provide any reference of where Einstein said what you claimed he said,
nor did you quote him on it.
Google kept a record of your lies.

[JanPB]

You guys are completely incompetent. You are never going to
get anywhere with your silly useless rants.

--
Jan

[Dono.]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 4:23:29 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> 1) End B passes by origin x = 0. Clock tB = clock t = 0.
> 2) End A passes by the origin x = 0. Clock tA = clock t = 0, BUT clock tB is running L/v seconds ahead of tA = t = 0.
> This problem has no solution, unless A COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM sets clock A = L/v, which is EXACTLY the time t. So NO RESET!

>

Dumbestfuck,

The problem has had a solution, since 1905 but you are too dumb to learn it. Instead, you keep showcasing your utter imbecility. Keep it up, dumbestfuck.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

See above first posted comment:

[Dono.]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
> Relativity
> Stephen John Crothers
>
> Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
> Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
> Relativity”
> Vladimir A. Leus
>

Dumbotron

Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.

[Richard Hertz]

Hey Dono!

Welcome back from under the rock you were hiding near hell!

Now that you spat your poison and reaffirmed your cretinism, you can crawl back to under that hot rock.

Nothing that your deranged, sick mind can think and make you write about this topic will challenge, even slightly, the
truthful power of elementary mathematics, logic and critical thinking.

You fail miserably at the last two abilities because you are a cretin gypsy. Not that's something wrong with that.

It's the way God made you, so you can barely survive in this world, Adrian.

[Sylvia Else]

On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> What was he hiding?
> If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they
continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

Sylvia.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> What was he hiding?
> If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
>

Nonsense.

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

:-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Richard Hachel]

The primum movens of the theory of relativity is the notion of the
relativity of simultaneity.

What is particularly astonishing is that all of humanity seems to have
missed this obvious fact.

Physicists have understood very well one of the visible consequences
experimentally of this phenomenon, that is to say the notion of relativity
of chronotropy by change of inertial frame of reference.

But NOT the primum movens, although much simpler to understand.

This incomprehension calls for others: the Langevin paradox which they
have never been able to really resolve (all the descriptions proposed are
fakes), the incredible confusions of the equations proposed in the
accelerated relativistic frames of reference, etc...

For years I have been advising physicists to take baby steps in their
concepts and be careful about what they say.

In vain...

The way they think they can synchronize their clocks is one of the
greatest intellectual catastrophes in human history.

I remind you that in the end, with all these deviations we end up with
false, stupid or contradictory equations.

Example of a very important equation, but completely unknown to physicists
because of this blindness that I deplore. It concerns the instantaneous
observable speed (Voi) of an accelerated body as a function of its own and
constant acceleration and the distance traveled.

Voi/c = [1+c²/ax]^(-1/2)

This is much less than physicists assume.

Paul B. Andersen, who is not a moron, who is not a bandit, who is not a
thug, will respond with absolute sincerity:
"But no! We must find the time observable at point B, subtract the time
observable at point A, and set Vo=AB/To2-To1"

We then find a much more impressive speed than what I am proposing.

The problem is that no one sees the terrible stumbling blocks of
physicists.

They thoughtlessly subtract T01 from To2 as if it were self-evident.

Except that To1 is measured by one watch, and To2 is measured by another,
placed elsewhere.

So we subtract a carrot from a turnip.

We then obtain very fanciful instantaneous speeds, as we also obtain very
fanciful clean times.

I recall that the instantaneous speed of a rocket arriving at Tau Ceti in
the problem of the same name is Vo=0.980c.

And not 0.997c.

I remind you that the passenger's life time will be 4,776 years, and not
3,564 years.

These predictive differences are colossal, and it is urgent to fully
understand their causes, and to verify experimentally that everything I
say is true.

R.H.

[rotchm]

So you can't quote Einstein, you can't prove your claim.
Engelhardt is NOT Einstein, DuH!
Do you know what to quote someone means?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 13:54:09 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 30/09/2023 à 09:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> > Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >> He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> >> What was he hiding?
> >> If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of
> >> synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> >> That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
> >>
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> The primum movens of the theory of relativity is the notion of the
> relativity of simultaneity.
>
> What is particularly astonishing is that all of humanity seems to have
> missed this obvious fact.
>
> Physicists have understood very well one of the visible consequences
> experimentally of this phenomenon

Physicist has gedanken/fabricated, and the mumble of
your idiot guru wasn't even consistent.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> What was he hiding?
> If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

A frame has its own time. There can be other frame clocks around it to compare.

[The Starmaker]

paralell universes are ...Postulates.


--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[The Starmaker]

rotchm wrote:
>
> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:21:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
>
> That is a lie on your part, until you can present a reference where he claimed that.
> Can you?

if i'm running
trying to catch
the next train..
and I look
at my clock/watch

"Time is what a clock reads".

How can I tell if I'm late if I have more than one clock????

Your body is your frame of reference.

You can only have one clock.


It doesn't work with two clocks or more clocks.


You are Spam rotchm because your post message is irrelvant.


You're irrelvant! I incite others to report your spam.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame? We could just use one clock in each frame. Was he mistaken or did he have a good reason?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I already told you he quotes Einstein.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

You are disagreeing with Einstein. Are you more intelligent than him?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Then you know better than Einstein or did he make a dumb remark forbidding multiple clocks?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I think this issue calls into question Einstein's intelligence more than it does the LT's.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Do you think Engehardt was right to be suspicious of these word of Einstein's? "
IV. CONCLUSION
Analyzing Einstein’s own demonstration of time dilation, we have found that his third postulate formulated in
the context of his synchronization procedure cannot be satisfied in view of the relationship between the readings of
moving clocks as predicted by the Lorentz transformation.
Einstein resolved the problem by sketching only a single
clock in the moving system. Whether this was intentional
or not may be open to discussion, but it is noteworthy that,
for the case where the upper system S0 is at rest and the
lower system S moves to the left—thus maintaining the
same relative velocity—he wrote: “Certainly the same
result [for time dilation] could be found if the clock moved
relative to an observer at rest in the upper c.s.; in this case
there would have to be many clocks in the upper c.s. and
only one in the lower.” This would not seem to be a
“simple” prescription, but rather appears to be an ingenious
measure in view of the fact that the two systems are indistinguishable in principle, as indeed Einstein emphasized himself." - ENGLHARDT

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I give the quote below in reply to Starmaker.
Here's a link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311218110_Einstein's_third_postulate

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.

> What was he hiding?
> If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
>

> Einstein’s third postulate
> W. Engelhardt
>

> On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
> Relativity
> Stephen John Crothers
>
> Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
> Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
> Relativity”
> Vladimir A. Leus
>
> Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
> the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
> of Relativity’”
> Stephen J. Crothers

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Einstein was not a genius.

[Dono.]

Dumbotron,

Leus already demolished Crotches

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Neither of you have answered his reply.

[Dono.]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> > > What was he hiding?
> > > If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> > > That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
> > relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they
> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?

Dumbotron

There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:

That makes Einstein Dumbotron in your view.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:56:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Your paper says, "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!" Yet there is nothing surprising about the fact the results are self-contradictory reductio ad absurdum.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:56:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

By saying, "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!" you admit Dingle's criticism is correct.

[Dono.]

The only dumbotrons here are you, Dick, Engelhard and Crotches. Crotches used to post in this forum , after the savage beatings he got here, he withdrew in the safety of the npa-relativity forum.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

As usual. you are unable to give substantive reasons for your vacuous views. Leus said: "There is nothing as ludicrous as an unsubstantiated criticism." - Leus, relativist.

[Volney]

Then you need to skip Engelhardt entirely and provide Einstein's quote
here directly and show how Einstein's quote makes your case. For all
anyone knows, Engelhardt is a crackpot even nuttier than you are, and he
quotes Einstein stating "E=mc^2" or misinterprets something else which
doesn't support your claim.

[Volney]

So you refer to Crothers who refers to Engelhardt who (purportedly)
refers to Einstein. Are we playing the kid's game "Telephone"?

[Paul Alsing]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Leus said: "There is nothing as ludicrous as an unsubstantiated criticism."

I suggest that you heed this advice yourself because you have made plenty of unsubstantiated criticisms of Einstein!

[Dono.]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 3:58:38 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:

> Engelhardt is the most skilled of the cranks. He used to be a real physicist driven into insanity and embarrassment by his hate of Einstein.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 4:05:46 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> I already told you he quotes Einstein.

Then why can't you present that quote?
Its simple to quote someone, yet you can't do it. That says it all.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 4:18:28 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Here's a link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311218110_Einstein's_third_postulate

Again I ask you: Quote Einstein. don't quote hearsay, don't quote Engelh...
YOU said that Einstein said ...., so, quote EINSTIEN, referencing where he said it.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:05:16 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> > What was he hiding?
> > If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> > That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
> >

> > Einstein’s third postulate
> > W. Engelhardt
> >

> > On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
> > Relativity
> > Stephen John Crothers
> >
> > Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
> > Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
> > Relativity”
> > Vladimir A. Leus
> >

> > Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On

> > the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory

> > of Relativity’”
> > Stephen J. Crothers
> paralell universes are ...Postulates.

How do you know what universe you are in?

[Richard Hertz]

So he's right and you are not, fucking relativist.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:56:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

> > He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> > What was he hiding?
> > If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> > That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
> >

> Nonsense.
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

You said, "This is what is meant by mutual time dilation." This is a reductio ad absurdum disproving time dilation. You deny this saying, "Conclusion #1 does not contradict conclusion #2 because the temporal interval between different sets of events are compared." This is not true because the directions contradict. "Conclusion #3: The co-ordinate time of frame K runs fast as observed in frame K.'
... Conclusion #4: The co-ordinate time of frame K' runs fast as observed in frame K
There is nothing contradictory between conclusion #3 and #4 either." This proves the effect is illusory, as is the small apparent size of distant objects. Your exclamation also admits that time dilation is subjective or perspectival and not real. Your expression of surprise is a declaration of credulity.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> What was he hiding?
> If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
>

> Einstein’s third postulate
> W. Engelhardt
>

> On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
> Relativity
> Stephen John Crothers
>
> Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
> Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
> Relativity”
> Vladimir A. Leus
>

> Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On

> the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory

> of Relativity’”
> Stephen J. Crothers
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers: "Thus, for every t > 0 of the “stationary system K” there exists a point ξ ≠ 0 in the “moving system k” where τ = 0 . However, according to Einstein’s clock-synchronisation method this is impossible because all clocks in his moving system k are synchronised, so that when t > 0, τ > 0 too. Thus, Einstein’s clock-synchronisation method is inconsistent with the Lorentz Transformation [2] [3] [4]... Systems of stationary observers consistent with the Lorentz Transformation
cannot be clock-synchronised. In §5 of [2] I mathematically constructed a set of
clock-synchronised observers consistent with the Lorentz Transformation,
proving thereby that they cannot all be stationary observers. Systems of
clock-synchronised stationary observers consistent with the Lorentz Transformation cannot be mathematically constructed. Einstein’s tacit assumption that
they can be mathematically constructed is false, yet they are essential to his
theory. Therefore his Theory of Relativity is false because it contains an insurmountable logical inconsistency." - Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On

the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory

of Relativity’” -Crothers

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:46:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

You are a lazy fool.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

No, there are thousands of excellent papers and books by excellent scientists substantiating what I have said. Can you read?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

In the presently discussed matter of the number of clocks allowable in the moving frame he over-estimated Einstein.

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
> method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:

I have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description is
impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).

But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates (t,x,y,z),
and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with coordinates
(t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds among clocks at
rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among clocks at rest
anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is what is meant by
"inertial frame".

So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.

Tom Roberts

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the same. Everyone agrees with that. The question is whether any relativists here can grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt. Einstein himself tacitly admitted this in the quote where he says the moving frame could not have more than one clock. I admit I don't yet have a grasp of their argument. I am surprised that the defenders of relativity have not already contended with it.

[Dono.]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt

There is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:14:50 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> > But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates (t,x,y,z),
> > and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with coordinates
> > (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds among clocks at
> > rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among clocks at rest
> > anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is what is meant by
> > "inertial frame".
> >
> > So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
>
> I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the same.
> Everyone agrees with that. The question is whether any relativists here can

> grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchroni-

> zation method doesn't work with the Lt.

Engelhardt ASSUMED the the t' from the LT was actually the time of clocks an
observer in S' would see. He wouldn't. That's what the relativity of simultaneity
is all about.

> Einstein himself tacitly admitted this in the quote where he says the moving
> frame could not have more than one clock.

Einstein didn't say that. Engelhardt invented it.

> I admit I don't yet have a grasp of their argument.

But you presume out of thin air the Engelhardt is right and Einstein is wrong.

> I am surprised that the defenders of relativity have not already contended
> with it.

It's almost too simplistic to bother with. OTOH, relativity of simultaneity has
some rather deep implications that have unseated many would be knights
errant, including one W. Engelhardt as well as anyone who falls for his error.

[Richard Hertz]

You are wrong, as usual:

x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

Replacing x by x' in t' gives

t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²

For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync in
the same inertial frame:

Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,

t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²

t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
....
t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m


All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).

[Paul Alsing]

Only in your fantasy world. The "scientists" you think are excellent are mostly not physicists at all and none have shown Einstein to be wrong. Not one.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Well, the mumble of your idiot guru was not
even consistent, but showing to a fanatic idiot
what he doesn't want to notice is next to impossible.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:

>>>> On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
>>>>> What was he hiding?
>>>>> If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
>>>>> That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

>>>> That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
>>>> relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they
>>>> continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>> Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
>> Dumbotron
>>
>> There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.

> Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.

:-D

So you can't give the quote by Einstein?


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Richard Hachel]

Le 01/10/2023 à 04:38, Tom Roberts a écrit :
> On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>> Einstein's time synchronization

> Einstein's synchronization

> Tom Roberts

"On n'est pas sorti de l'auberge".

Proverbe français.

R.H.

[Adolf Göbel]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> > On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> > > He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
>>> > > What was he hiding?
>>> > > If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
>>> > > That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
>>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
>>> > relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they
>>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
>>> >
>>> > Sylvia.
>>> Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
>> Dumbotron
>>
>> There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
> Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.

In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:


“For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles
outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).


greetings
Adi

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:51:32 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> x' = γ (x - vt)
> t' = γ (t - xv/c²)
>
> Replacing x by x' in t' gives
>
> t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²

Note #1: This resolves to t = γ(t' + vx'/c²).

Note #2: You can also derive x = γ(x' + vt')

> For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows
> that those clocks are out of sync in the same inertial frame:
>
> Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,
>
> t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²
>
> t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
> t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
> t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
> ....
> t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
>
>
> All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as
> perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).

Exactly, as PERCEIVED by the observer who remains at x = 0. IOW, from the
perspective of S, not S'. This just proves the relativity of simultaneity from the
perspective of S.

Now use Note #1 to prove that clocks stationary in S are out of sync from the
perspective of S'. This proves the relativity of simultaneity from the perspective
of S'.

[Dono.]

...and in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies", where ge explains the clock synchronization method (the one that Engelhardt keeps bungling), there are two clocks, one at the A end of the rod and one at the B end of the rod. (nothing changes if there is an arbitrary number of clocks between A and B). Engelhardt is an imbecile.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:41:17 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:

No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.

[Dono.]

you are an idiot

[Adolf Göbel]

Maybe you should reread p. 514? Or can`t you read?

[rotchm]

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 11:23:59 AM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.

You *still* havent quoted Einstein.
Many of us here have been waiting for you to support your claim, but you fail to do so.
It's obvious by now that you are a liar and a crank.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
>> On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
>>> method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:

I assume the claim is:

According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
in both their respective frames.

>
> x' = γ (x - vt)
> t' = γ (t - xv/c²)
>
> Replacing x by x' in t' gives
>
> t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²

No, t' = f(t,x') gives:

t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 - γ²v²/c²)

Your error is that you have set x = γ (x' - vt')
and then the denominator would be (1 + γ²v²/c²) = γ².

But x = γ (x' + vt') and (1 - γ²v²/c²) ≠ γ²

>
> For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync

Your conclusion is correct, though, t'≠ t unless x'= x = 0

> in the same inertial frame:

Don't be ridiculous!
Let's call the frames K'(t'x') and K(t,x).

t'≠ t means that the temporal coordinates of the event
are different in K' and K.

That doesn't mean that the coordinate clocks i K
not are in sync with each other, and that the coordinate
clocks i K' not are in sync with each other,

>
> Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,

You can't mix natural and SI units, so with v = 1 m/s and x' = N m,
c = 299792458 m/s, γ ≈ 1+5.56E-18

>
> t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²

The coordinates of event N in in K' = ( tₙ', N m)
the coordinates of event n in K = (0 s,xₙ)

The LT:
xₙ = γ(N + v⋅tₙ)m ≈ (1+5.56E-18)⋅(N+v⋅0)m = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m

tₙ' = γ(0 - vxₙ/c^2) = -γvxₙ/c^2
tₙ' = -(1+5.56E-18)⋅1⋅(1+5.56E-18)⋅N⋅1.11E-17) s ≈ - N⋅1.11E-17 s

>
> t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
> t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
> t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
> ....
> t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m

Nonsense.
The coordinates of event N are:
in K : tₙ = 0 s, xₙ = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
in K': tₙ'≈ -N⋅1.11E-17 s, xₙ'≈ N m

Approximated to 15 significant digits we get:
When tₙ = 0.00000000000000, tₙ'= 0.00000000000000

This shouldn't surprise you.
When v = 1m/s the result will to a very good approximation be equal
to the results of Galilean relativity, which is that all clocks
always show the same. t'= t, remember?

But you didn't think of that, and got a result which was
1E17 times too high! :-D

HOWEVER;
If the coordinates in K of event N are t = 0 s, x = γN m
then the coordinates in K' of event N are t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s, x' = N m

So why is your statement below absolute ridiculous?

>
> All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).

Because the N+1 different t' are the temporal coordinates of
N+1 different events. It is NOT N+1 coordinate clocks which,
simultaneous in K', show different values.

The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'.

When the coordinate clock at x' = N m show t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s,
then, simultaneously in K', all the other coordinate clocks
show the same.

This:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.

If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
in the reference above.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Those who refuse to look through the telescope are history. If you are such a child, you don't know how to make a request. Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and his article is easily available.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Yes, from the perspective of the "stationary" frame, the other frames' clocks are out of sync within their frame. How can this be in an IRF in real physics? It can't. That disproves SR. There is no relativity of simultaneity. In any case, it reduces, at best, to a subjective or perspectival phenomenon.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On p. 515: "he wrote: “Certainly the same
result [for time dilation] could be found if the clock moved
relative to an observer at rest in the upper c.s.; in this case
there would have to be many clocks in the upper c.s. and
only one in the lower.”" You only prove Einstein contradicted himself. That is just what we are saying. The method of synchronization contradicts the LT.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

but they are NOT simultaneous in K'. " Here you concede the point.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Why would I kick a mule for kicking me?

[Richard Hertz]

I quit reading after your stupid claim of a mistake of mine. Read the first post that I wrote in this thread:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/I9UaMnndraA/m/pwHNy-RDAQAJ

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

""We didn't leave the hostel." French proverb."- Babylon

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The relativists are the cranks, and all of you are dumber than Einstein. "crank2
n. 1 an eccentric person, esp. one who is obsessed by a particular subject or theory." I'm not obsessed with relativity. It is tangential to real science.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> What was he hiding?
> If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
>

> Einstein’s third postulate
> W. Engelhardt
>
> On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
> Relativity
> Stephen John Crothers
>
> Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
> Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
> Relativity”
> Vladimir A. Leus
>
> Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
> the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
> of Relativity’”
> Stephen J. Crothers
Anyone interested in getting at the elementary basis may like Crother's earlier article specifically on this issue: Einstein's anomalous clock synchronization
Article in Physics Essays · September 2017;
And Hertz's detailing of it is clear.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
> What was he hiding?
> If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
> That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
>
> Einstein’s third postulate
> W. Engelhardt
>
> On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
> Relativity
> Stephen John Crothers
>
> Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
> Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
> Relativity”
> Vladimir A. Leus
>
> Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
> the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
> of Relativity’”
> Stephen J. Crothers

It is hard for anything to be more self-contradictory nonsense than to have different times at the same time in a single IRF, as relativity does by the concession of several relativists' comments above. Reductio ad absurdum. Relativity is nonsense.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 01/10/2023 à 22:17, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>> On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
>>>> method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
>
> I assume the claim is:
>
> According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
> in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
> in both their respective frames.

Questions relating to the synchronization of watches are fundamental in
relativity.

This is the primum movens of the theory.

It is the relativity of the notion of universal simultaneity
(anisochrony),
and the relativity of the relative beating of moving clocks (relative
chronotropy) which is obviously at the basis of most phenomena.

So it is very good (for me, it is remarkable and fundamental) to make pdfs
on this.

On the other hand, you did not respond to this good doctor Hachel who
introduces himself
as an outstanding theorist of relativistic kinematics.

However, the question is of immense importance.

How do you synchronize the thirteen clocks that we will place along the
route of the Tau Ceti traveler?

A clock every light years.

I remind you that according to Paul B Andersen, the journey will last
t=12,915 years.

What Doctor Hachel confirms (he’s not bad Hachel)

Just very picky and in perfect disagreement with certain geometric notions
of space-time which he classifies in the doctrine of abstract ideas, such
as the determination of instantaneous speeds in this nevertheless simple
problem, as well as all the predicted proper times,
and which are terribly false.

We pose
x=12 ly,
a=1.052ly/y²~ 10m/s²

How do you synchronize the thirteen clocks that we will place along the
route of the Tau Ceti traveler?


R.H.

[Paul Alsing]

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:06:45 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> > Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
> > the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
> > of Relativity’”
> > Stephen J. Crothers

A reminder...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers

“I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. More accurately, I'm a gardener and home handyman who does science in his spare time."

[Dono.]

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:38:33 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt
> > There is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.
> The relativists are the cranks

An inpatient escapes from the lunatic asylum, steals a car and starts driving on a freeway against the traffic. He turns on the radio and an announcer comes on saying:"There is a crazy man who escaped from the local lunatic asylum and is driving against the normal flow of traffic". The lunatic mumbles to himself: "They are all crazy, they are all driving against the traffic".

That crazy man is you, Dick Hertz, pat dolan, "Lou"....

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul, I have read more articles in Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazines than you have. Rational Wiki is a purveyor of the science-pseudoscience dichotomy used to avoid discussion with alternative views by mainstream Big Science boondogglers.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Ad populum dummy!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

lemming!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

"The many are ignorant, the few are wise." - Socrates

[Gary Harnagel]

Nobody has denied that. What you have failed to realize is that an
observer stationary in K' can set up simultaneous events in K', but
they will NOT be simultaneous in K. This IS relativity of simultaneity
(RoS), a fundamental consequence of relativity -- and of the real world,
which relativity models. You seem to believe that since simultaneous
events in K aren't simultaneous in K', relativity is wrong. NO! It means
relativity correctly models the real world.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Gary, it is easy to understand that if it goes for the one it does for the other! That is relativity of simultaneity and that is what is not true, and not real physics or the real world. Your head is in the clouds silly man!

[rotchm]

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:45:54 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein?

Well, yes, DuH! That is what to quote means!

> Englehardt gives that citation,...

Irrelevant, since he may be making stuff up.
So you must provide Einstein's direct source, and quote, and page/passage etc.
That is what to quote means, DuH!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Lazy mule!

[rotchm]

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:43:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> > So you must provide Einstein's direct source, and quote, and page/passage etc.
> > That is what to quote means, DuH!
> Lazy mule!

You are the one that made the claim, so its up to you to prove it.

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/30/23 10:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts

> wrote:
>> On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
>>> method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:

>> I have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description
>> is impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).
>>
>> But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates
>> (t,x,y,z), and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with
>> coordinates (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds
>> among clocks at rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among
>> clocks at rest anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is
>> what is meant by "inertial frame".
>>
>> So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the
> same.

... when read simultaneously in their rest frame. Without that condition
your statement makes no sense.

> The question is whether any relativists here can grapple with first

> Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method

> doesn't work with the Lt.

There is nothing to "grapple" with -- such a claim is manifestly incorrect.

As you seem to have trouble with basic logic, let me point out that my
paragraph above outlines a proof that Englehardt's and Crothers's claims
are incorrect, by showing that Einstein synchronization is compatible
with the Lorentz transform. The proof is easily completed by anyone
familiar with SR and basic algebra (which apparently excludes you and
other cranks around here).

> Einstein himself tacitly admitted this [...]

You are wrong, apparently because YOU CANNOT READ. Einstein did not say
what you claim.

Tom Roberts

[Gary Harnagel]

No need to argue ad hominem.

"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

Your assertion that RoS is wrong is refuted by experimental evidence in
the GPS atomic clocks being set to run slow locally to compensate for
the RoS between the earth's surface and conditions at the satellite.

RoS happens because of time dilation and there are many experiments
confirming time dilation, here's an example:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/?mobileFormat=true

Here's another:

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

You can bury your head in the sand like you've been doing, but the real world
exists in spite of your denial.

[Volney]

So you really can't supply the quote by Einstein.