On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 13:46:28 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:57:53 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

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

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

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

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

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.

This is the same as on p. 514, only vice versa. You don`t understand
neither Engelhardt nor Einstein

greetings
Adi

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:30:59 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 01.10.2023 22:45, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

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

:-D

So you can't give the quote by Einstein?

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.

I asked if you were unable to give the quote by Einstein,
which you confirmed.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'." Rational scientists can understand that the clocks in the moving frame must be viewed from the stationary frame as synchronized. You concede they are not. At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the
same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed from the other frame. You keep dodging this point. I have already given the quote above. Why make childish demands?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/2/2023 11:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:30:59 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 01.10.2023 22:45, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

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

:-D

So you can't give the quote by Einstein?

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.

I asked if you were unable to give the quote by Einstein,
which you confirmed.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'." Rational scientists can understand that the clocks in the moving frame must be viewed from the stationary frame as synchronized. You concede they are not. At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the

same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed from the other frame. You keep dodging this point. I have already given the quote above. Why make childish demands?

I see you *still* are unable to provide the Einstein quote.

This behavior by Laurence makes me think there's some secret
crackpot-only anti-relativity discussion board somewhere that Laurence
follows. Someone on the board bragged that Englehardt quotes Einstein
stating whatever, but without providing the quote itself. Laurence
treats that as Gospel and repeats it here as factual, but he isn't smart
enough to find the Einstein quote (assuming it actually exists) himself.
So Laurence just hems and haws hoping people will just believe him or he somehow gets the quote.

Meanwhile, on the secret discussion board, there's likely a post by
Laurence reading "PLEASE can someone provide me with the Einstein quote
that Englehardt refers to!!!"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 06:51:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

On 10/2/2023 11:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:30:59 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 01.10.2023 22:45, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

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

:-D

So you can't give the quote by Einstein?

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.

I asked if you were unable to give the quote by Einstein,
which you confirmed.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'." Rational scientists can understand that the clocks in the moving frame must be viewed from the stationary frame as synchronized. You concede they are not. At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the

same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed from the other frame. You keep dodging this point. I have already given the quote above. Why make childish demands?

I see you *still* are unable to provide the Einstein quote.

This behavior by Laurence makes me think there's some secret

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

crackpot-only anti-relativity discussion board somewhere that Laurence follows. Someone on the board bragged that Englehardt quotes Einstein stating whatever, but without providing the quote itself. Laurence
treats that as Gospel and repeats it here as factual, but he isn't smart enough to find the Einstein quote (assuming it actually exists) himself.
So Laurence just hems and haws hoping people will just believe him or he somehow gets the quote.

Meanwhile, on the secret discussion board, there's likely a post by
Laurence reading "PLEASE can someone provide me with the Einstein quote
that Englehardt refers to!!!"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/3/2023 1:15 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

[]

Are you a member of the secret crackpot anti-relativity discussion
board? Is Laurence begging for the Einstein quote because he's too dumb
to find it himself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 03.10.2023 05:19, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

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

Yes. The context was:

According to SR, (and the Lorentz transform):

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

Rational scientists can understand that the clocks in the moving frame must be viewed from the stationary frame as synchronized. You concede they are not. At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the same frame out of sync at the same

instant as viewed from the other frame. You keep dodging this point. I have already given the quote above. Why make childish demands?

If we assume that there are clocks showing coordinate time
at x = γN m in K, and at x' = N m, then:

An observer present at event N will see the clock in
K showing 0 s, and the clock in K' showing γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s.

Which means that according to SR:
The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'

SR is thoroughly tested in innumerable experiments
and never falsified.

All rational scientists know that simultaneity is relative.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 08:53:47 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

On 10/3/2023 1:15 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

[]

Are you a member of the secret crackpot anti-relativity discussion
board?

No. But do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

Is Laurence begging for the Einstein quote because he's too dumb
to find it himself?

Neither I know, nor I care.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 09:42:38 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

If we assume that there are clocks showing coordinate time
at x = γN m in K, and at x' = N m, then:

If (false) then (anything). You assume clocks
are showing your local time absurd in your SI
seconds idiocy. Seeing they're not doesn't
affect your assumptions, as expected from
reality denying morons.

SR is thoroughly tested in innumerable experiments
and never falsified.

Anyone can check GPS, the real clocks keep
measuring t'=t, and your lie that that's what your
Shit has predicted is an incredibly impudent
absurd.

All rational scientists know that simultaneity is relative.

And all "rational" scientists are brainwashed,
reality denying idiots. Even assuming there
exists time independent on coordinate time and
matching your delusions - simultaneity is
still a matter of the coordinate time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:19:11 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,

... At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed ...

Why to you say that it is absurd?
Is it because of your own prejudice?
Because of your own miscomprehension?
Because you are a reality denier?
...

Is it absurd that you see the sun & moon to be the same size in the sky?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 14:22:55 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:19:11 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
... At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed ...

Why to you say that it is absurd?
Is it because of your own prejudice?
Because of your own miscomprehension?
Because you are a reality denier?

If you heard of a screwdriver made of
plasticine - you would know why it's an absurd,
wouldn't you? Or maybe you're too stupid
even for that; I wouldn't be very surprised.

So, answering your question - because keeping
sync it's the most important functionality of
clocks. That's how things are in the world
we inhabit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

There is no absolute rest. All frames are moving.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

My conclusion is that Englehardt's and Crother's criticism is not a steel man of relativity.
Radwan Kassir basically agrees with me.
I had this conversation with him on Linked In:
Laurence Crossen:

What do you think of the "third postulate" as described by Englehardt and Crothers?

Radwan M. Kassir: profile Author Engineer MSME, CEng, PMP, LEED AP

The related argument leading to the conclusion not in favor of Einstein, drawn from Einstein's clocks synchronization versus Lorentz transformation prediction, is inaccurate.

Laurence Crossen

Englehardt says the clocks in the moving system, as viewed from the stationary system, would be out of sync with each other at one instant. Then how is that math incorrect?

The distance to different clocks in the moving frame would give different times for each clock at the same instant.


Radwan M. Kassir

The issue stems from applying the Lorentz transformation (LT) on the S clocks coordinates (time and space) with x coordinate different from zero at time t=0, yielding t'=-vx'/c^2, while neglecting the transformation of the respective space coordinate x,
yielding x'=gamma.x in S'. Whereas, the setup is made with x'=x. In fact, the LT applied on the coordinates of a non-origin clock in S, with x space coordinate, results in S' coordinates (t' and x') other than those of the respective clock in S' with x'=
x, adjacent to the former one in S at t=0. A clock in S at x'=gamma.x will show t'=-vx'/c^2 relative to the local time (t'=0) of the clock in S' at x'=x. A simple calculation can show the local time at x'=gamma.x would be t'=0.

Laurence Crossen

Yes, the two frames have the same relative motion for all clocks. The mistake arises from measuring diagonally instead of using the perpendicular clock. I agree that they are mistaken for this simple reason.


Radwan M. Kassir

Exactly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)