Ricardo Jimenez wrote:

> […] What "good" book on relativity
> assumes there is only one set of rulers and clocks shared by two
> observers in uniform relative motion? The synchronization axiom
> justifies, I think, the claim that the same relationship deduced
> between certain special clocks (rulers) of the two coordinate systems
> is shared between any other pair from each system. If it is wrong,
> than that claim universally made in relativity is wrong.

Educate yourself:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB1QFUCga0I&list=PLCfRa7MXBEspw_7ZSTVGCXpSswdpegQHX&index=7>

There is much more, of course, including publicly available recordings of
Physics lectures.

PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 05:25:42 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 21:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Townes Olson
> > <townes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>In contrast, if you don't subject a ruler to any acceleration but merely
> >>describe it in terms of a different system of inertial coordinates, the
> >>intrinsic phase relations of the ruler are obviously unaffected as is
> >>everything else about the ruler, and the act that this gives the congruent
> >>description in terms of the new system is not merely a coincidence,
> >>because we choose our coordinate systems (related by Lorentz
> >>transformations) to match the dynamical results of active changes in
> >>states of motion. You can read about this in any good book on the
> >>foundations of special
> >
> > All I am trying to do, for now, is to list the various assumptions
> > (perhaps mistaken as you point out) about the results of gedanken
> > experiments that justify the time dilation/length contraction claims
> The "claims" are based on observations. The thought experiments do not
> justify, they illustrate.
> > that are used to justify the Lorentz transformation
> The Lorentz transformation came first (at least conceptually), with Lorentz’
> ether theory. Einstein "only" found a simpler (better) way to derive it
> (without assuming an ether), and worked out its consequences.
> > which is supposed to connect what is observed about the time and space
> > differences between pairs of events in two 4D coordinate systems in
> > uniform relative motion with each other.
> Observed as predicted.
> > What "good" book on relativity assumes there is only one set of rulers and
> > clocks shared by two observers in uniform relative motion?
> The theories of relativity are not defined based on any (one) (text)book,
> but by thousands of papers and gazillions of experiments (also counting
> those in particle accelerators) in the past 115 years. The problem is
> rather that you do not know about them even though you could (the
> information is freely available).
>
> > Thsynchronization axiom justifies, I think, the claim that the same
> > relationship deduced between certain special clocks (rulers) of the two
> > coordinate systems is shared between any other pair from each system.
> > If it is wrong, than that claim universally made in relativity is wrong..
> Once again, the constancy of the speed of light (in vacuum) is an
> experimental fact.

Considering the definitions valid in 1905 - it was just an obvious
logical absurd; but fanatic idiots can deeply believe far stranger
"facts".
In the meantime in the real world, of course, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 05:35:15 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>
> > […] What "good" book on relativity
> > assumes there is only one set of rulers and clocks shared by two
> > observers in uniform relative motion? The synchronization axiom
> > justifies, I think, the claim that the same relationship deduced
> > between certain special clocks (rulers) of the two coordinate systems
> > is shared between any other pair from each system. If it is wrong,
> > than that claim universally made in relativity is wrong.
> Educate yourself:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB1QFUCga0I&list=PLCfRa7MXBEspw_7ZSTVGCXpSswdpegQHX&index=7>
>
> There is much more, of course, including publicly available recordings of
> Physics lectures.

And in the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On September 30, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> 1. If two observers, at rest with respect to each other, synchronize
> all their clocks and rulers with each other, the two individual sets
> of clocks and rulers will remain synchronized among themselves even
> after the two observers are in uniform motion with respect to each
> other.

It isn't clear what exactly you are claiming, as a new axiom; i.e.
"two individual sets of clocks and rulers will remain synchronized among themselves "
??

You need to be more precise in your writing.

--
Rich

Again if the transformation is valid then what are you going to do with it, JOY?

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:25:40 -0700 (PDT), RichD
<r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On September 30, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>> 1. If two observers, at rest with respect to each other, synchronize
>> all their clocks and rulers with each other, the two individual sets
>> of clocks and rulers will remain synchronized among themselves even
>> after the two observers are in uniform motion with respect to each
>> other.
>
>It isn't clear what exactly you are claiming, as a new axiom; i.e.
>"two individual sets of clocks and rulers will remain synchronized among themselves "
>??
>
>You need to be more precise in your writing.

OK, I take back 1. It is necessary that each inertial frame has the
all its own clocks synchronized with each other. However, when
comparing the time difference between two events, as viewed in 2
frames in relative constant motion, it is not necessary to assume
anything more.

Does Einstein uses the transformation to justify the reversal of the negative result of MMX?