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.

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.

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.