c = 299792458 m/s = 299.792458 m/μs

Two perfect mirrors (A,B) are placed 149,896229 m apart, being A at the origin of the relatively moving frame K'.

A photon, in the visible light range, is emitted from the mirror A (which also contains a clock) exactly towards mirror B.

The photon bounces back at mirror B, towards mirror A. Its arrival from the roundtrip is marked in tA clock as being exactly 1.0000000 μs.

This process continues forever, without any losses, while A clock is accumulating 1.0000000 μs counts.

The arrangement in K' moves at v speed wrt the origin at K, where a clock tK is located (it also ticks at 1.0000000 μs.

Both clocks (tK and tA) are reset to zero exactly when A pass by the origin K, and it forces the emission of the photon.

Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.

The speed v = 0.9 c = 269813212 m/s

WHAT SR (LORENTZ) SAYS THAT HAPPENS AFTERWARDS.
γ = 2.294157339

LENGTH CONTRACTION (Horizontal light clock is perceived to run faster)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c1

x' = γ (x - vt)

Δx' = AB AND Δx = AB/γ = 0.435889894 AB, as measured in the frame at rest. As both measurements are made simultaneously in the frame at rest, there is A PERCEIVED LENGTH CONTRACTION of AB in the moving frame.
But the speed of light IS INVARIANT wrt to any frame, so IT'S PERCEIVED that clock tA IS RUNNING FASTER.

The roundtrip of the photon is PERCEIVED to travel 2 x 0.435889894 AB = 0..871779789 x AB, which means that the clock's tick in the moving frame IS PERCEIVED TO TICK every 0.871779789 μs, instead of 1.00000000 μs.

TIME DILATION (Horizontal light clock is perceived to run slower)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c2

t' = γ (t - vx/c)

Δt' = Δt/γ = 0.435889894 Δt (Time is PERCEIVED as running slower in the moving frame).

For every 1.00000000 μs in the frame at rest, it's PERCEIVED that only 0.435889894 μs passed in the moving frame.

The time measurements are made in the same location, so it doesn't affect the results.

CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict. Clock tA is PERCEIVED to run faster or slower than clock tK, in the two different transforms.

QUESTION: WHERE IS THE TRICK EMBEDDED IN THIS PARADOX?

On 11/8/23 3:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> [...] Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.

These clocks are at rest in different inertial frames, and thus cannot
be synchronized with each other.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:56:18 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> c = 299792458 m/s = 299.792458 m/μs
> Two perfect mirrors (A,B) are placed 149,896229 m apart, being A at the origin of the relatively moving frame K'.

Ok, so this sentence means that both A & B are in the same iframe K'.

> A photon, in the visible light range,

"in the visible light range" is irrelevant & overkill. Be to the point & concise.

> is emitted from the mirror A (which also contains a clock) exactly towards mirror B.

"exactly " also not needed.

> The photon bounces back at mirror B, towards mirror A. Its arrival from the roundtrip is marked
> in tA clock as being exactly 1.0000000 μs.

Yes, by construction/definition of the 'meter'. The values of clock A will log values of
1,2,3,... μs upon reception of the photon(s).

> This process continues forever, without any losses, while A clock is accumulating 1.0000000 μs counts.

You mean will display the values of 1,2,3,... μs upon reception of the photon(s).
Forget about the terminologies of "accumulating" or "interval" for now.

> The arrangement in K' moves at v speed wrt the origin at K, where a clock tK is located (it also ticks at 1.0000000 μs.

You mean that there is a frame K which moves with speed v wrt frame K. Ok.

Yes, all clocks 'trick at their rate', this rate being 1 tick per tick.
Also meaning that any given clock displays 1, then 2, then 3 etc.... (or whatever sensitivity/decimals/units you want).

> Both clocks (tK and tA) are reset to zero exactly when A pass by the origin K, and it forces the emission of the photon.

Ok, the usual scenario.

> Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.

No, that is not what "einstenian way" or "einstenian synch", Esynch, means.
You (E)synch two clocks *in a same frame*. For instance, you can Esynch the clocks A & B.
You dont Esynch clock K & A , nor any clock in frame K with clocks in frame K'.

You need to clear that up before we continue.

> The speed v = 0.9 c = 269813212 m/s

c = 269813212 m/s ??
Why? Where does this come from?
We both agreed that the symbol 'c' means the SoL, a given constant with numeric value 299792458 (in the SI units where applicable).
Now you want 'c' to represent another value?

Fix all that else we will no longer comprehend ourselves...

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 8:12:14 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/8/23 3:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > [...] Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.
>
> These clocks are at rest in different inertial frames, and thus cannot
> be synchronized with each other.
>
> Tom Roberts

I clearly wrote that tK and tA are synchronized as Einstein claimed in his 1905 paper:

When A (at origin of K') passes BY THE ORIGIN of K, tA = tK = 0, exactly BEFORE the photon is emitted from A to B.

What didn't understand, Tom?. It's crystal clear.

The only difference with Einstein's 1905 SR paper is the use of an HORIZONTAL LIGHT CLOCK. This single fact introduces the
conflict with the second postulate, so there are serious doubts about the consistency of SR, as I see it.

I closed my post asking for anyone to mark ANY ERROR on my line of thoughts and calculations.

Your post is incorrect, as both clocks ARE SYNCHRONIZED as Einstein proposed in his 1905 paper.

At any case, complain with Einstein about his rules for sync.

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 8:34:24 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:56:18 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > c = 299792458 m/s = 299.792458 m/μs
> > Two perfect mirrors (A,B) are placed 149,896229 m apart, being A at the origin of the relatively moving frame K'.
> Ok, so this sentence means that both A & B are in the same iframe K'.
> > A photon, in the visible light range,
> "in the visible light range" is irrelevant & overkill. Be to the point & concise.
> > is emitted from the mirror A (which also contains a clock) exactly towards mirror B.
> "exactly " also not needed.
> > The photon bounces back at mirror B, towards mirror A. Its arrival from the roundtrip is marked
> > in tA clock as being exactly 1.0000000 μs.
> Yes, by construction/definition of the 'meter'. The values of clock A will log values of
> 1,2,3,... μs upon reception of the photon(s).
> > This process continues forever, without any losses, while A clock is accumulating 1.0000000 μs counts.
> You mean will display the values of 1,2,3,... μs upon reception of the photon(s).
> Forget about the terminologies of "accumulating" or "interval" for now.
> > The arrangement in K' moves at v speed wrt the origin at K, where a clock tK is located (it also ticks at 1.0000000 μs.
> You mean that there is a frame K which moves with speed v wrt frame K. Ok..
>
> Yes, all clocks 'trick at their rate', this rate being 1 tick per tick.
> Also meaning that any given clock displays 1, then 2, then 3 etc.... (or whatever sensitivity/decimals/units you want).
> > Both clocks (tK and tA) are reset to zero exactly when A pass by the origin K, and it forces the emission of the photon.
> Ok, the usual scenario.
> > Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.
> No, that is not what "einstenian way" or "einstenian synch", Esynch, means.
> You (E)synch two clocks *in a same frame*. For instance, you can Esynch the clocks A & B.
> You dont Esynch clock K & A , nor any clock in frame K with clocks in frame K'.
>
> You need to clear that up before we continue.
> > The speed v = 0.9 c = 269813212 m/s
> c = 269813212 m/s ??
> Why? Where does this come from?
> We both agreed that the symbol 'c' means the SoL, a given constant with numeric value 299792458 (in the SI units where applicable).
> Now you want 'c' to represent another value?
>
> Fix all that else we will no longer comprehend ourselves...

v= 269813212 m/s = 0.9 c is an arbitrary value of v that I selected so γ = 2.294157339 could be noticeable. You can select any other value of v.

Regarding the mechanisms for synchronization, they are used as Einstein did in 1905: When x = x' = 0, set t = t' = 0.

I didn't change ANY CONCEPT from the paper, except for the introduction of a horizontal light clock, where the use of light is disruptive because
of the second postulate. You CAN'T change c, as perceived from ANY reference frame (Einstein's dixit).

On 11/8/23 5:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 8:12:14 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts
> wrote:
>> On 11/8/23 3:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> [...] Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.
>> These clocks are at rest in different inertial frames, and thus
>> cannot be synchronized with each other.
>
> I clearly wrote that tK and tA are synchronized as Einstein claimed
> in his 1905 paper:

You can write whatever you want; that does not make whatever you wrote
correct or possible. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to synchronize clocks
that are at rest in different inertial frames [#], and Einstein NEVER
described what you wrote as "synchronization".

[#] The GPS synchronizes satellite clocks in ECI coordinates;
while they are called "clocks", they are NOT standard clocks,
and are not at rest in inertial frames (SR). Moreover, earth's
gravitation is an essential aspect of this, required to keep
them in orbit, which is not possible in SR.

Note: you may set clocks tK and tA to the same value when they pass each
other, but that does NOT synchronize them with each other, and that is
NOT how Einstein synchronized clocks in his 1905 paper (or anywhere
else). Only clocks at rest in a single inertial frame can be mutually
synchronized, and Einstein's methods EXPLICITLY require this.

You REALLY need to understand SR before attempting to write about it, or
criticize it.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 6:52:10 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> v= 269813212 m/s = 0.9 c

Ok, v=0.9c vs v = 0.9 c. That extra space between the 0.9 & c sufficed for a miscommunication between us. Resolved.

> Regarding the mechanisms for synchronization, they are used as Einstein did in 1905: When x = x' = 0, set t = t' = 0.

Then , as now, the word synchronization or synch or Esync etc all mean the same thing, and involves two clocks *in the same frame*, not two clocks in different frames. When two relatively moving clocks coincide and set themselves to zero, that is not 'synching'. Use the correct language else we will not understand each other. Yes, some people refer to 'synch' as two clocks coincide, but that is not its typical meaning in physics.

> I didn't change ANY CONCEPT from the paper,

Nowhere did you refer to 'the paper' in your OP. We are not discussing the 'paper', we are solely discussing your setup and what SR will say about it, not what Einstein said about it or anyone else.

> You CAN'T change c, as perceived from ANY reference frame (Einstein's dixit).

In our discussion, 'perceived' is a useless & undefined word at the moment. It is not needed. Be concise.
Continuing where I left off...

> WHAT SR (LORENTZ) SAYS THAT HAPPENS AFTERWARDS.

Ok.

> γ = 2.294157339

Ok

> LENGTH CONTRACTION (Horizontal light clock is perceived to run faster)
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c1

No, nowhere does *SR* say that.
Perhaps some author says it, but SR doesnt say that.
Moreover, LENGTH CONTRACTION has nothing to do with *your* setup (as for now...perhaps later).

> x' = γ (x - vt)

Correct. Thats a formula implied by SR and relates to *values* displayed by the instruments (rulers & clocks here) of specified *events*.
Operative word here is *events*. The x, x', etc are the values (coordinates) of an *event*. Remember this as we go along.

> Δx' = AB AND Δx = AB/γ = 0.435889894 AB, as measured in the frame at rest.

'AB' designates the distance between A & B, two fixed points (mirrors) in iframe K'.
This distance is posited by your setup, namely AB = 149,896229 m.
The Δx' refers to the positions of two *events* wrt K'.
If an observer in K' attempts to measure the distance between A&B
(by setting up an event at each position) he will get B = 149,896229 & A = 0, thus giving
Δx' = 149,896229 for the two chosen events. Yes, for your setup this will give the same value for AB, by construction!

The idea here, AB refers to a distance, whereas Δx' refers to two events, the difference in their *positions*.
This needs to be pointed out.

> As both measurements are made simultaneously in the frame at rest,

Which measurements? What two events are you referring to? Specify them.

> there is A PERCEIVED LENGTH CONTRACTION of AB in the moving frame.

Perceived? That words has not been defined in this discussion , and is not needed.
Lets see what SR says about the *values* one would get if K measures the length of the moving rod, that is,
the distance between the mirrors (A&B) , meaning taken *simultaneously in K*.

Given two events such that t2 - t1 = 0, using simply the LT's, a little algebra readily gives
(x2' - x1')/γ = x2 - x1

Δx' /γ = Δx.

If the events occur at mirrors A & B, and these are always fixed in K', thus x2' - x1' = the distance between A&B as measured in K'.
Thus distance(AB) /γ = the difference in *values* of x2 & x1.
W/O explicitly giving the two events, we cant specify the values of x2 & x1 but we can deduce their difference.
(If you give the values to x2' & x1' we can explicitly get the values of x2 & x1. These *values* are not *perceived* but are
actual values on the measuring instruments of K, his ruler for instance)

SR says that Δx is smaller than Δx' by the gamma factor.

No perception, only *values* on instruments.

> But the speed of light IS INVARIANT wrt to any frame,

Irrelevant to the above algebra. Do the math: Δx' /γ = Δx..
No perceptions, no invoking light ...

> so IT'S PERCEIVED that clock tA IS RUNNING FASTER.

We were not talking about the 'speed of ticking' of clocks. We were talking about *values* on instruments.
Clocks dont run fast nor slow. We have *values*. E.g.: 3<4.

Taking a break.

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:56:18 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
<snip>

Reading the rest of your posts, I summarize my replies as:

Lets reconsider your setup, relabeling a few things for simplicity (K' switches for K).
Also using normalized units.

In frame K, two fixed mirrors A & B, at x = 0 & x = 1/2 resp.
Send a photon from A to B back to A.
The three corresponding events (x,t) are

E1(0,0), E2(1/2,1/2), E3(0,1)

This is exactly your setup.
I shall use v = 0.5c (thus v=1/2 since we are using normalized units).
Using the LT's to find values on K' instruments (his ruler & clocks) we get

E1(0,0)', E2(√3/6, √3/6)', E3(-√3/3, 2√3/3)'

Again, these are the *values* that K' will obtain.

No mention about length contraction, time dilation, ticks, running slow, perception, etc.
So, whats your problem?

You want to now talk about different events?
Like, two specific events (0,0) & (1/2,0) refering to the distance between A&B in K ?
Or do you want to talk about two simul events (x1',0)' and (x2',0)' in K' ?
Or some other events?

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:24:12 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/8/23 5:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 8:12:14 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts
> > wrote:
> >> On 11/8/23 3:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> [...] Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.
> >> These clocks are at rest in different inertial frames, and thus
> >> cannot be synchronized with each other.
> >
> > I clearly wrote that tK and tA are synchronized as Einstein claimed
> > in his 1905 paper:
> You can write whatever you want; that does not make whatever you wrote
> correct or possible. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to synchronize clocks
> that are at rest in different inertial frames [#], and Einstein NEVER
> described what you wrote as "synchronization".
>
> [#] The GPS synchronizes satellite clocks in ECI coordinates;
> while they are called "clocks", they are NOT standard clocks,
> and are not at rest in inertial frames (SR). Moreover, earth's
> gravitation is an essential aspect of this, required to keep
> them in orbit, which is not possible in SR.
>
> Note: you may set clocks tK and tA to the same value when they pass each
> other, but that does NOT synchronize them with each other, and that is
> NOT how Einstein synchronized clocks in his 1905 paper (or anywhere
> else). Only clocks at rest in a single inertial frame can be mutually
> synchronized, and Einstein's methods EXPLICITLY require this.
>
> You REALLY need to understand SR before attempting to write about it, or
> criticize it.
>
> Tom Roberts

I understand what is meant as SR, and reject it all for being fallacious and derived from preemptive circular thoughts. A pseudoscience.

You may keep thinking that the 2,409 words written in the first part of the 1905 paper:

Introduction
§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity
§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion
of Translation Relatively to the Former (first 4 paragraphs)

have a mystical meaning that only can be deciphered by a few chosen, illuminated people.

You need to think that way, so you may feel "special".

But the reality is that those 2,409 initial words are anything but mystical and that if they are REDUCED to 600 words by filtering the extra wording,
done on purpose to retort, confuse and distort their meaning, a VERY SIMPLE description of the opening of the paper EMERGES.

In particular, the clock's synchronization in the two frames is done by EQUATING their readings when selected points instantaneously coincide
in the horizontal x position. This is EXACTLY the same as to say: "when x = x' = 0, then set t = t' = 0".

If you negate the above paragraph, you are acting deceivingly to hide the simple truth embedded into these initial 2,409 words.

This is how FANATICS act about their credence, even when the evidence is spitting at their face.

I think that this is due to your current stance within SR/GR and the four-x "parameters", which caused that you LOST THE TRACK from the origin,
which is the paper published in Sep 1905.

Go back to the beginning, and re-read and simplify the wording, in the initial parts, as I marked above.

Then, come back and try again to refute my post.

The "word of god" is not contained in such small amount of bla-bla-bla, as you pretend or NEED to believe.

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 12:18:30 AM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:56:18 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Reading the rest of your posts, I summarize my replies as:
>
> Lets reconsider your setup, relabeling a few things for simplicity (K' switches for K).
> Also using normalized units.
>
> In frame K, two fixed mirrors A & B, at x = 0 & x = 1/2 resp.
> Send a photon from A to B back to A.
> The three corresponding events (x,t) are
>
> E1(0,0), E2(1/2,1/2), E3(0,1)
>
> This is exactly your setup.
> I shall use v = 0.5c (thus v=1/2 since we are using normalized units)..
> Using the LT's to find values on K' instruments (his ruler & clocks) we get
>
> E1(0,0)', E2(√3/6, √3/6)', E3(-√3/3, 2√3/3)'
>
> Again, these are the *values* that K' will obtain.
>
> No mention about length contraction, time dilation, ticks, running slow, perception, etc.
> So, whats your problem?
>
> You want to now talk about different events?
> Like, two specific events (0,0) & (1/2,0) refering to the distance between A&B in K ?
> Or do you want to talk about two simul events (x1',0)' and (x2',0)' in K' ?
> Or some other events?

My description is quite simple:

1) Mount an artifact with two mirrors located at A and B. Let it move (being a moving frame K' with origin in A) at uniform speed v =0.9c.
2) When the point A in the moving frame K' happens to be (for an infinitesimal amount of time) coincident with the origin of frame K (at relative rest)
then set both clocks (tK at frame K origin and tA at frame K' origin) to zero. This is the same as of saying that when x = x' = 0, then make t = t' = 0.

3) Being that tK and tA are counting 1.0000000 μs ticks, classic physics said that both clocks will show the same amount of ticks, as time passes..
SR says that, while tK shows a TRUE COUNT of 1.0000000 μs ticks, any observer standing by tK will PERCEIVE that tA accumulates ticks at a higher
rate. BUT, any observer moving with frame K' (standing by the clock tA) will say that the accumulation of ticks keep going at 1.0000000 μs/tick.

The best way to show the incoherence of SR is that the readings in the moving frame use digital counters AND A GIANT DISPLAYS pointing at the
origin of K, so the REAL COUNT at K' could be observed from the origin of K (using a telescope, if needed in this thought experiment).

By moving to the DIGITAL DOMAIN in K', all the equations of SR COLLAPSE, because the analog math of SR is KILLED by digitalization.

So, the observer at relative rest in the origin of K FACES A DILEMMA: Because of Lorentz, he PERCEIVES A FALLACIOUS TIME at tA, which is in
absolute conflict with the remote reading of the DIGITAL DISPLAY located at A, moving at 0.9c.

How do you assist, psychologically, to the observer at K origin, to avoid that he become crazy? His PERCEPTION crashes with his observation of the display.

On 11/8/2023 6:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 8:12:14 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/8/23 3:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> [...] Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.
>>
>> These clocks are at rest in different inertial frames, and thus cannot
>> be synchronized with each other.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> I clearly wrote that tK and tA are synchronized as Einstein claimed in his 1905 paper:
>
> When A (at origin of K') passes BY THE ORIGIN of K, tA = tK = 0, exactly BEFORE the photon is emitted from A to B.
>
That's not Einstein synchronization. Einstein synchronization is for two
objects not located at the same point but stationary relative to each
other. (so it's impossible to set t=t'=0 since x is never equal to x'
(so x=x'=0 never happens).

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 2:52:15 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 11/8/2023 6:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 8:12:14 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 11/8/23 3:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> [...] Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.
> >>
> >> These clocks are at rest in different inertial frames, and thus cannot
> >> be synchronized with each other.
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> > I clearly wrote that tK and tA are synchronized as Einstein claimed in his 1905 paper:
> >
> > When A (at origin of K') passes BY THE ORIGIN of K, tA = tK = 0, exactly BEFORE the photon is emitted from A to B.
> >
> That's not Einstein synchronization. Einstein synchronization is for two
> objects not located at the same point but stationary relative to each
> other. (so it's impossible to set t=t'=0 since x is never equal to x'
> (so x=x'=0 never happens).

K' origin is moving from - infinity towards + infinity, at 0.9c.

When A pass by K origin, light signaling is used to set tK = tA = 0.

You forgot that K' frame is moving at 0.9c relative to K frame. Why do you dismiss the positions in the negative axis? Is that the drawing of
galilean transform is stuck into your brain, as it's commonly shown for x > 0?

On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 00:34:24 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:56:18 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > c = 299792458 m/s = 299.792458 m/μs
> > Two perfect mirrors (A,B) are placed 149,896229 m apart, being A at the origin of the relatively moving frame K'.
> Ok, so this sentence means that both A & B are in the same iframe K'.
> > A photon, in the visible light range,
> "in the visible light range" is irrelevant & overkill. Be to the point & concise.
> > is emitted from the mirror A (which also contains a clock) exactly towards mirror B.
> "exactly " also not needed.
> > The photon bounces back at mirror B, towards mirror A. Its arrival from the roundtrip is marked
> > in tA clock as being exactly 1.0000000 μs.
> Yes, by construction/definition of the 'meter'. The values of clock A will log values of
> 1,2,3,... μs upon reception of the photon(s).

Keep dreaming, poor trash. Anyone can check GPS,
the real measurements are not going to obey your
idiotic commands, no matter how many porsches
you have.

On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 01:24:12 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/8/23 5:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 8:12:14 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts
> > wrote:
> >> On 11/8/23 3:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> [...] Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.
> >> These clocks are at rest in different inertial frames, and thus
> >> cannot be synchronized with each other.
> >
> > I clearly wrote that tK and tA are synchronized as Einstein claimed
> > in his 1905 paper:
> You can write whatever you want; that does not make whatever you wrote
> correct or possible. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to synchronize clocks
> that are at rest in different inertial frames

What is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for your bunch of idiots
was just a task of medium difficulty for the professionals
of GPS.
Many things would become possible also for you - if you ever
understood you're not at all FORCED to THE BEST WAY of your
idiot guru.

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 11:24:18 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> My description is quite simple:
>
> 1) Mount an artifact with two mirrors located at A and B. Let it move (being a moving frame K' with origin in A) at uniform speed v =0.9c.
> 2) When the point A in the moving frame K' happens to be (for an infinitesimal amount of time) coincident with the
> origin of frame K (at relative rest) then set both clocks (tK at frame K origin and tA at frame K' origin) to zero.
> This is the same as of saying that when x = x' = 0, then make t = t' = 0.

Then just say "when x = x' = 0, then make t = t' = 0".
The rest of your paragraph is unnecessary. Be concise and remove all unnecessary stuff.

> 3) Being that tK and tA are counting 1.0000000 μs ticks,
....

> classic physics said

What I ate for breakfast is irrelevant to the scenario. Stay on topic.

> SR says that, while tK shows a TRUE COUNT of 1.0000000 μs ticks,

No, SR does not say that. Nowhere in SR is there any mention of 'TRUE'.
Thats a made up word by you and is unnecessary to the discussion.

The setup is that all clocks will gradually display 0,1,2,3... (μs). No SR, no classical physics involved in that.

> any observer standing by tK will PERCEIVE that tA accumulates ticks at a higher rate.

Again 'PERCEIVE ' is not part of the vocabulary (and less so in SR). Stop inserting random undefined words into the setup.
This can also be said for the superfluous word 'rate'. Try to refrain from using those useless and ill defined concepts. Keep it clear and concise.

> BUT, any observer moving with frame K' (standing by the clock tA) will say that the
> accumulation of ticks keep going at 1.0000000 μs/tick.

As implicitly posited by the setup, as I already mentioned, all clocks will gradually display 0,1,2,3... (μs).
The difference between two successive values is 1.

> The best way to show the incoherence of SR is that the readings in the moving frame use digital counters

Need not be digital... but lets go on...

> AND A GIANT DISPLAYS pointing at the origin of K,

No need of giant displays, nor pointing in some direction.
Observers, which is synonym to 'logging device', just logs, notes, its value as an event occurs at it.
For instance, when tK & A coincide, the logged values of the devices 'clocks' are t=0 & t'=0 and
the values of the devices 'rulers' are x=0 & x'=0.

> so the REAL COUNT

'REAL COUNT'? Again, a made up and undefined expression by you, and unnecessary to the discussion.
The device 'clock A' logs the value 0 as it coincides with tK. The words 'real' or 'apparent' will not change that, agreed?

> at K' could be observed from the origin of K (using a telescope, if needed in this thought experiment).

K' can count how many photons he will *receive* from A (from the giant display).
K' will receive 1 photon, then another, then another etc.
These received photons will have the values 1,2,3,... (μs).
Lets call these photons, photon #1, photon #2 etc... or just p1, p2, ....
IOW, clock A sends out p1,p2,p3 as it logs 1,2,3... μs. eventually, tK will receive these p1,p2,p3...

Nothing contradictory here!

> By moving to the DIGITAL DOMAIN in K', all the equations of SR COLLAPSE,

How so? Digital or not, clock A will go through the values 0,1,2,3 (μs) and
send out p1,p2,p3 for everyone to eventually receive.

> because the analog math of SR is KILLED by digitalization.

The math of SR is indiscriminate to the nature of the clocks.
They can be digital or not; the same math will be used, x' = (x-vt)γ..

> So, the observer at relative rest in the origin of K FACES A DILEMMA: Because of
> Lorentz, he PERCEIVES A FALLACIOUS TIME at tA,

No, tK will *receive* p1, p2 p3.... as posited by the setup.
The values displayed by these photons are 1,2,3,...(μs) as posited by the setup.
And 'he PERCEIVES A FALLACIOUS TIME at tA' is impossible because he [tK] is not at tA.
He [tK] receives the photons. He [tK] knows that tA will go through (tA will log) the values of 1,2,3 ...because
it is posited by the setup.

Nowhere in all the above has there been any use of SR.
Everything you (and I) said above was devoid of SR. Its all describing the setup.

> which is in absolute conflict with the remote reading of the DIGITAL DISPLAY located at A, moving at 0.9c.

The fact that clock A goes through the values 0,1,2,3... is not in conflict with anything.
The fact that clock A sends out the corresponding photons is not in conflict with anything.
The fact that clock K [tK] receives these photons (images) is not in conflict with anything.

> How do you assist, psychologically, to the observer at K origin, to avoid that he become crazy?

How does my above 3 sentences make him crazy?

> His PERCEPTION crashes with his observation of the display.

He receives successive photons. How does that boggle his mind & perceptions ?

> Observers, which is synonym to 'logging device'

Where did you get this absurd, poor idiot?
Right from your wishing, I bet.

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:56:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>

> CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict.

No, they are not , dumbestfuck

You botched your calculations, you are unable to do even the simplest exercise.

On 11/9/2023 1:02 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 2:52:15 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/8/2023 6:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 8:12:14 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 11/8/23 3:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> [...] Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.
>>>>
>>>> These clocks are at rest in different inertial frames, and thus cannot
>>>> be synchronized with each other.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>
>>> I clearly wrote that tK and tA are synchronized as Einstein claimed in his 1905 paper:
>>>
>>> When A (at origin of K') passes BY THE ORIGIN of K, tA = tK = 0, exactly BEFORE the photon is emitted from A to B.
>>>
>> That's not Einstein synchronization. Einstein synchronization is for two
>> objects not located at the same point but stationary relative to each
>> other. (so it's impossible to set t=t'=0 since x is never equal to x'
>> (so x=x'=0 never happens).
>
> K' origin is moving from - infinity towards + infinity, at 0.9c.
>
> When A pass by K origin, light signaling is used to set tK = tA = 0.

Fine. But that's not Einstein clock synchronizing. Einstein
synchronizing is getting two stationary but separated clocks to display
the same time. What you are doing is just pressing the "start" buttons
on stopwatches.

[snip crap]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:58:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:56:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
>
> > CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict.
> No, they are not , dumbestfuck
>
> You botched your calculations, you are unable to do even the simplest exercise.

As a matter of fact, the vertical light clock commonly associated with Langevin's
name was actually introduced by Lewis and Tolman
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity,_and_Non-Newtonian_Mechanics

Langevin used a *horizontal* light clock to perform .a novel derivation of the LT
http://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~sano/hssj/pdf/Cuvaj_C-1972-Langevin_Relativity-JSHS-No_10-pp113-142.pdf
His demonstration is rather nice. since it employs a significantly "weaker"
set of starting postulates than Einstein's original set.

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 12:58:46 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:56:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
>
> > CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict.
> No, they are not , dumbestfuck
>
> You botched your calculations, you are unable to do even the simplest exercise.

At the end of my OP, I asked: "WHERE IS THE TRICK EMBEDDED IN THIS PARADOX?"

Nobody answered that important question.

In the length contraction issue, as v nears c and AB shrinks, the observer at rest PERCEIVES that tA ticks faster and faster, due to
the invariance of c. Meanwhile, a co-moving observer register that the count of 1 us ticks in tA are NORMAL.

In the limit of v = c, the observer at rest PERCEIVES an infinite difference between tK and tA. For 1us in tK, he perceives infinite ticks in tA,
but a digital display of tA (digital domain kills analog domain), there IS NOT a difference between tK and tA.

So, the observer at rest CAN'T EXPLAIN the difference between his Lorentz calculations and the TRUE COUNT shown in the remote digital display.

Relativity is a flawed pseudo-science.

Explain that, smart ass.

Den 08.11.2023 22:56, skrev Richard Hertz:
> c = 299792458 m/s = 299.792458 m/μs
>
> Two perfect mirrors (A,B) are placed 149,896229 m apart, being A at the origin of the relatively moving frame K'.
>
> A photon, in the visible light range, is emitted from the mirror A (which also contains a clock) exactly towards mirror B.
>
> The photon bounces back at mirror B, towards mirror A. Its arrival from the roundtrip is marked in tA clock as being exactly 1.0000000 μs.
>
> This process continues forever, without any losses, while A clock is accumulating 1.0000000 μs counts.

OK!

>
> The arrangement in K' moves at v speed wrt the origin at K, where a clock tK is located (it also ticks at 1.0000000 μs.
>
> Both clocks (tK and tA) are reset to zero exactly when A pass by the origin K, and it forces the emission of the photon.

OK!

>
> Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.

No, this has noting to do with Einstein's way of synchronizing
clocks in inertial frames.

Two clocks are set equal (to zero) when they pass each other,
that's all.
We will also assume that both clocks are placed at the origin of
their respective rest frames.

We then have:

K':-tA------B-------->x'->v
K :-tK--------------->x

>
> The speed v = 0.9 c = 269813212 m/s
>
> WHAT SR (LORENTZ) SAYS THAT HAPPENS AFTERWARDS.
> γ = 2.294157339

In the following we will use L as the distance
between the mirrors. We can put in numbers later.

To find what SR says, we use the Lorentz transform.
We have three event of interest.

E0: tA and tK are aligned and the photon is emitted from A.
E1: the photon is reflected from B.
E2: the photon is reflected from A

Let's find the coordinates of these event's in K and K':

γ = 1/√(1 −v²/c²) = 2.294157339 when v = 0.9c

EO:
Coordinates in K': x₀' = 0, t₀' = 0
Coordinates in K: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0

E1: (this event could be skipped)
Coordinates in K': x₁' = L, t₁' = L/c
Coordinates in K:
x₁ = γ(x₁'+ v⋅t₁')=γ(L+ v⋅L/c) = L⋅√((c+v)/(c-v))
t₁ = γ(t₁'+ (v/c²)⋅x₁') = γ(L/c + (v/c²)⋅L) = (L/c)⋅√((c+v)/(c-v))

E2:
Coordinates in K': x₂' = 0, t₂' = 2L/c
Coordinates in K:
x₂ = γ(x₂'+ v⋅t₁') = γ(0 + v⋅2L/c) = (2Lv/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
t₂ = γ(t₂'+ (v/c²)⋅x₂') = γ(L/c + (v/c²)⋅L) = (2L/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)

So while the moving clock tA has advanced the proper time
t₂' = 2L/c = 1 μs ,
the coordinate time in the stationary frame has advanced
t₂ (2L/c)/√(1 −v²/c²) = 2.294157339 μs

t₂'/t₂ = √(1 −v²/c²) = 0.435889894

"Moving clocks run slow"

>
> LENGTH CONTRACTION (Horizontal light clock is perceived to run faster)
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c1
>
> x' = γ (x - vt)
>
> Δx' = AB AND Δx = AB/γ = 0.435889894 AB, as measured in the frame at rest. As both measurements are made simultaneously in the frame at rest, there is A PERCEIVED LENGTH CONTRACTION of AB in the moving frame.
> But the speed of light IS INVARIANT wrt to any frame, so IT'S PERCEIVED that clock tA IS RUNNING FASTER.
>
> The roundtrip of the photon is PERCEIVED to travel 2 x 0.435889894 AB = 0.871779789 x AB, which means that the clock's tick in the moving frame IS PERCEIVED TO TICK every 0.871779789 μs, instead of 1.00000000 μs.
>
> TIME DILATION (Horizontal light clock is perceived to run slower)
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c2
>
> t' = γ (t - vx/c)
>
> Δt' = Δt/γ = 0.435889894 Δt (Time is PERCEIVED as running slower in the moving frame).
>
> For every 1.00000000 μs in the frame at rest, it's PERCEIVED that only 0.435889894 μs passed in the moving frame.
>
> The time measurements are made in the same location, so it doesn't affect the results.
>
> CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict. Clock tA is PERCEIVED to run faster or slower than clock tK, in the two different transforms.
>
>
> QUESTION: WHERE IS THE TRICK EMBEDDED IN THIS PARADOX?

There is no paradox.

The trick is to know how to use the Lorentz transform.

You don't.

It's mathematics which you always screw up.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 5:18:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.11.2023 22:56, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > c = 299792458 m/s = 299.792458 m/μs
> >
> > Two perfect mirrors (A,B) are placed 149,896229 m apart, being A at the origin of the relatively moving frame K'.
> >
> > A photon, in the visible light range, is emitted from the mirror A (which also contains a clock) exactly towards mirror B.
> >
> > The photon bounces back at mirror B, towards mirror A. Its arrival from the roundtrip is marked in tA clock as being exactly 1.0000000 μs.
> >
> > This process continues forever, without any losses, while A clock is accumulating 1.0000000 μs counts.
> OK!
> >
> > The arrangement in K' moves at v speed wrt the origin at K, where a clock tK is located (it also ticks at 1.0000000 μs.
> >
> > Both clocks (tK and tA) are reset to zero exactly when A pass by the origin K, and it forces the emission of the photon.
> OK!
> >
> > Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.
> No, this has noting to do with Einstein's way of synchronizing
> clocks in inertial frames.
>
> Two clocks are set equal (to zero) when they pass each other,
> that's all.
> We will also assume that both clocks are placed at the origin of
> their respective rest frames.
>
> We then have:
>
> K':-tA------B-------->x'->v
> K :-tK--------------->x
> >
> > The speed v = 0.9 c = 269813212 m/s
> >
> > WHAT SR (LORENTZ) SAYS THAT HAPPENS AFTERWARDS.
> > γ = 2.294157339
> In the following we will use L as the distance
> between the mirrors. We can put in numbers later.
>
> To find what SR says, we use the Lorentz transform.
> We have three event of interest.
>
> E0: tA and tK are aligned and the photon is emitted from A.
> E1: the photon is reflected from B.
> E2: the photon is reflected from A
>
> Let's find the coordinates of these event's in K and K':
>
> γ = 1/√(1 −v²/c²) = 2.294157339 when v = 0.9c
>
> EO:
> Coordinates in K': x₀' = 0, t₀' = 0
> Coordinates in K: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0
>
> E1: (this event could be skipped)
> Coordinates in K': x₁' = L, t₁' = L/c
> Coordinates in K:
> x₁ = γ(x₁'+ v⋅t₁')=γ(L+ v⋅L/c) = L⋅√((c+v)/(c-v))
> t₁ = γ(t₁'+ (v/c²)⋅x₁') = γ(L/c + (v/c²)⋅L) = (L/c)⋅√((c+v)/(c-v))
>
> E2:
> Coordinates in K': x₂' = 0, t₂' = 2L/c
> Coordinates in K:
> x₂ = γ(x₂'+ v⋅t₁') = γ(0 + v⋅2L/c) = (2Lv/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
> t₂ = γ(t₂'+ (v/c²)⋅x₂') = γ(L/c + (v/c²)⋅L) = (2L/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
>
> So while the moving clock tA has advanced the proper time
> t₂' = 2L/c = 1 μs ,
> the coordinate time in the stationary frame has advanced
> t₂ (2L/c)/√(1 −v²/c²) = 2.294157339 μs
>
> t₂'/t₂ = √(1 −v²/c²) = 0.435889894
>
> "Moving clocks run slow"
> >
> > LENGTH CONTRACTION (Horizontal light clock is perceived to run faster)
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c1
> >
> > x' = γ (x - vt)
> >
> > Δx' = AB AND Δx = AB/γ = 0.435889894 AB, as measured in the frame at rest. As both measurements are made simultaneously in the frame at rest, there is A PERCEIVED LENGTH CONTRACTION of AB in the moving frame.
> > But the speed of light IS INVARIANT wrt to any frame, so IT'S PERCEIVED that clock tA IS RUNNING FASTER.
> >
> > The roundtrip of the photon is PERCEIVED to travel 2 x 0.435889894 AB = 0.871779789 x AB, which means that the clock's tick in the moving frame IS PERCEIVED TO TICK every 0.871779789 μs, instead of 1.00000000 μs.
> >
> > TIME DILATION (Horizontal light clock is perceived to run slower)
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c2
> >
> > t' = γ (t - vx/c)
> >
> > Δt' = Δt/γ = 0.435889894 Δt (Time is PERCEIVED as running slower in the moving frame).
> >
> > For every 1.00000000 μs in the frame at rest, it's PERCEIVED that only 0.435889894 μs passed in the moving frame.
> >
> > The time measurements are made in the same location, so it doesn't affect the results.
> >
> > CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict. Clock tA is PERCEIVED to run faster or slower than clock tK, in the two different transforms.
> >
> >
> > QUESTION: WHERE IS THE TRICK EMBEDDED IN THIS PARADOX?
> There is no paradox.
>
> The trick is to know how to use the Lorentz transform.
>
> You don't.
>
> It's mathematics which you always screw up.
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

"Length contraction is the PHENOMENON that a moving object's length is MEASURED TO BE SHORTER than its proper length, which is the length as measured in the object's own rest frame.[1] It is also known as Lorentz contraction or Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction (after Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald) and is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light."

NOTES: 1) Phenomenon? ; 2) Measured = CALCULATED using the first Lorentz formula.

Paul, you should stop scrambling concepts and using Lorentz mathemagics, and stick to what I posted, without changes.

This is very simple, and is clearly explained in the Wiki article:

L = L₀/γ(v)

where

L is the length OBSERVED by an observer in motion relative to the object.
L₀ is the proper length (the length of the object in its rest frame).
γ(v) is the Lorentz factor, defined as γ(v) = 1/√(1 - v²/c²).

In my own terms,
Δx(v) = AB/γ(v) ; roundtrip time "OBSERVED/PERCEIVED" in K' from K: Δt' = 2AB/(c.γ)
Δx(0) = AB ; Δt' = 1.000000 μs
Δx(0.9c) = 0.43589 AB ; Δt' = 0.87178 μs , because c is invariant.
Δx(0.999c) = 0.04471 AB ; Δt' = 0.089420 μs , because c is invariant.
Δx(0.999999c) = 0.001414 AB ; Δt' = 0.002828 μs , because c is invariant.
Δx(0.999999999c) = 0.000045 AB ; Δt' = 0.000089 μs , because c is invariant.

Use two arrays AB, with a digital counter tA located at the A side of the assembly AB. Put one of them at the origin
of the K frame, with A located in the origin and put the other on the moving K' frame, with A at its origin.

These twin systems are COUNTING 1.000000 μs ticks of the horizontal light clock AB.

The observer at the origin of K frame monitor the counts of the two counters (moving and being at rest). He CAN CERTIFY that
the local and remote digital displays show THE SAME ACCOUNT OF 1.000000 μs ticks.

Yet, for his dismay and confusion, when use the Lorentz formula, it DECEIVES HIM telling that 1.000000 μs tick in his local clock/counter
is happening at an increasingly lower value in the remote system (mathemagics), BUT it's in conflict with the value of the remote digital
display, which IS EQUAL TO HIS LOCAL DISPLAY.

Here, 60 years after the 1905 paper, digital electronics DESTROY THE ANALOG LORENTZ FORMULA, proving that it's a FICTION, a fairy tale.

Now, what could happen in the head of the poor observer? He might arrive to the conclusion that SR is a flawed pseudo-science, and that all
that he believed since his conversion to relativity IS A LIE.

Blame the second postulate and the horizontal light clock, if you want.

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 5:50:00 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> "Length contraction is the PHENOMENON that a moving

<snip>. Irrelevant to the discussion.

> 2) Measured = CALCULATED using the first Lorentz formula.

That is not what 'measured' means.
You have been systematically showing that you do not understand the meaning of the words you use.
I explain to you the meanings, and you just 'disappear' or change the subject. That is crank behavior.

> This is very simple, and is clearly explained in the Wiki article:

As I told you, forget what others say. Do what SR says, since that is what you want to analyze.

<rest of confusions snipped>.

I have explained to you what SR says and doesnt say. You have not given one rebuttal to my claims and calcs.
But you did divert and changed the topic(s). You are looking more and more like a crank...More and more...

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 8:15:13 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 5:50:00 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>
> > "Length contraction is the PHENOMENON that a moving
> <snip>. Irrelevant to the discussion.
> > 2) Measured = CALCULATED using the first Lorentz formula.
> That is not what 'measured' means.
> You have been systematically showing that you do not understand the meaning of the words you use.
> I explain to you the meanings, and you just 'disappear' or change the subject. That is crank behavior.
> > This is very simple, and is clearly explained in the Wiki article:
> As I told you, forget what others say. Do what SR says, since that is what you want to analyze.
>
> <rest of confusions snipped>.
>
> I have explained to you what SR says and doesnt say. You have not given one rebuttal to my claims and calcs.
> But you did divert and changed the topic(s). You are looking more and more like a crank...More and more...

I didn't reply to your post because, besides the criticism on my use of words, you changed the meaning of my post by "counting photon clicks, not time".

If 1.00000000 μs is too discrete for you, change the clock tick to 1.0000000 ps by reducing AB length to 149.896229 μm. And if this not enough for you,
reduce the length another 100 times, so the photon travels about one wavelength.

The passage from the analog domain, in which Lorentz transforms are developed, to the digital domain, is based on discretization of time, which has
a logical limit that applies also to the analog domain. You can't work with a fraction of a wavelength as it has no meaning.

One example of lower limit in the digital domain is to use 550 nm green photons and use AB = 1,1 μm, if you prefer to go to the end of this ensemble.

The time measured is, in the digital domain, a multiple of the roundtrip time. Lorentz transforms work with infinitesimal fractions of time, but LOOSE
ANY MEANING below the lowest possible visible wavelength, so your range for choices of wavelengths is narrowed between 440 nm and 750 nm.

Said that, for me there is a functional light clock, at which you can modify the resolution of duration of ticks but until the limits written above.

So, this thought experiment is about to accumulate counts of discretized time. In this case, digital math kills Lorentz math.

Something equivalent to Planck's E = hf, which made the classic conception of infinitesimally low energy per resonator OBSOLETE.

SR, with development based on visible light, has a similar low-end limit. I mentioned here this fact many times, and suggested that not only a lower
limit of time and lengths, but also an upper limit for them should be applied.

It's ridiculous to apply SR even for 1 second, if v is ALMOST c. The distance involved of 300,000 Km is RIDICULOUS. And better not to talk about 10 sec.

On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 00:15:13 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 5:50:00 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>
> > "Length contraction is the PHENOMENON that a moving
> <snip>. Irrelevant to the discussion.
> > 2) Measured = CALCULATED using the first Lorentz formula.
> That is not what 'measured' means.

That's not what it means, but that's what you
and your fellow idiots mean when spelling
it.