Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 8:43:53 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> A) Repeatedly send a light pulse from C1 to C2, where it is reflected
>>>> back to C1. Set C2 so at the reflection it displays a value that is midway
>>>> between the values on C1 when it was emitted and received.
>>>
>>> Method (A) really isn't a direct method, [...].
>>
>> Method A is every bit as valid and direct as method B [#].
>
> No, method A is not a method at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks
> are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship,
> but this is not an explicit method of setting the clocks so that they
> have that relationship.

Yes that’s where he stops. But it should be obvious how to correct EITHER
clock if they are not synchronized. The fact that Einstein did not mention
the correction step does not mean that it isn’t obvious.

> Witness the fact that, in your follow-up post today, you parroted the
> actual method (that was already posted in this thread on Oct 12) based on
> this implicit condition.
>
>>>> B) Place a pulsed light source at rest in F at the midpoint between C1 and
>>>> C2, able to send light pulses to both clocks. Set C2 so it displays
>>>> the same value as C1 when they receive a given pulse.
>
> Right, this is parroting the direct and canonical method, which is
> essentially just implementing the definition of inertial simultaneity --
> as also described in the Oct 12 post, where it was noted that it's not
> restricted to light pulses, and can be applied to, e.g., identical
> bullets from identical guns at rest at the midpoint, or sound waves from
> the midpoint of a rod, etc.
>
>>>> C) Measure the distance in F between C1 and C2, call it D. Let C1 emit light
>>>> pulses to C2, and set C2 so when it receives a pulse it displays a
>>>> value that is the emission value on C1 plus D/c.
>>>
>>> Method (C) is brain-dead for a discussion of fundamentals, because it
>>> relies on the proposition that light invariably propagates at the
>>> speed c in terms of inertial coordinates, which we could know only by
>>> measuring the speed, which already requires inertially synchronized
>>> clocks.
>>
>> Sure. As I said, I was describing the three methods Einstein described.
>
> Einstein didn't give that as a fundamental method of synchronization, for
> the reason explained above.
>
> Dono wrote [responding to Tom's parroting of an actual method based on A]:
>> This is way too complicated. Here is a much simpler and more robust way:
>> C1 starts its clock from 0 and sends a signal to C2. When C2 receives the
>> signal from C1 it resets itself (to zero). When the reflected signal comes back
>> to C1, C1 simply halves his elapsed time. C1 and C2 are now synchronized.
>
> This is conceptually identical to the method described on Oct 12 and
> repeated by Tom, as far as synchronization goes, setting to half the
> interval, etc., but your process doesn't transfer any actual time, it
> focuses on equality with the arbitrary agreed reset value of zero. Of
> course, with further communication, the two clocks could then agree to
> each offset by any fixed amount, and that extra step is how the more
> elaborate process differs from the simple process. In other words, if C1
> is regarded as the standard clock, whose value we don't want to change,
> and we want to synchronize C2 with it, we can't use the generic "t=0"
> reset, we need to communicate the actual time, which is what the more
> elaborate process does. As far as simply equalizing the readings, the
> two methods are identical.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, 24 October 2021 at 18:59:11 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Yes that’s where he stops. But it should be obvious how to correct EITHER
> clock if they are not synchronized. The fact that Einstein did not mention
> the correction step does not mean that it isn’t obvious.

It should only be obvious when using common sense,
this collection of prejudices. For your idiot gurus such
corrections are evil.

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 9:23:07 AM UTC-7, Townes Olson wrote:
> Dono wrote [responding to Tom's parroting of an actual method based on A]:
> > This is way too complicated. Here is a much simpler and more robust way:
> > C1 starts its clock from 0 and sends a signal to C2. When C2 receives the
> > signal from C1 it resets itself (to zero). When the reflected signal comes back
> > to C1, C1 simply halves his elapsed time. C1 and C2 are now synchronized.
>
> This is conceptually identical to the method described on Oct 12 and repeated by Tom, as far as synchronization goes, setting to half the interval, etc., but your process doesn't transfer any actual time, it focuses on equality with the arbitrary agreed reset value of zero.

Yes, this is what synchronization means

>Of course, with further communication, the two clocks could then agree to each offset by any fixed amount, and that extra step is how the more elaborate process differs from the simple process. In other words, if C1 is regarded as the standard clock, whose value we don't want to change, and we want to synchronize C2 with it, we can't use the generic "t=0" reset, we need to communicate the actual time, which is what the more elaborate process does. As far as simply equalizing the readings, the two methods are identical.

Sure, we could store the offset (the time shown by C1 prior to when it was reset to 0) and transmit it to all the other clocks in the system AFTER they have been synchronized as described with C1. Since the offset is common to all clocks, it will not affect any type of calculations since the calculations are based on differential time.(time differences). The only thing this step will achieve is to shift the origin of time at some earlier point. Not very useful but it certainly can be done.

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 9:59:11 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > No, method A is not a method at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks
> > are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship,
> > but this is not an explicit method of setting the clocks so that they
> > have that relationship.
>
> Yes that’s where he stops. But it should be obvious how to correct EITHER
> clock if they are not synchronized.

The obviousness of procedures isn't at issue. Ricardo was confused because he assumed Einstein was describing a synchronization procedure, whereas Einstein was actually just defining what inertial synchronization means. A procedure to accomplish this synchronization is different. To explain this, an actual procedure (consistent with the defining property) was described.

Subsequently, after Tom repeated Einstein's defining condition and called it a method, RichD expressed the same confusion, noting that it wasn't really a method of synchronization (despite the obviousness of how to turn it into a method). In response, Tom parroted the previously-described procedure.. Likewise Dono described essentially the same procedure, but using an arbitrary reset value of t=0, rather than transferring an actual time from a reference clock.

Again, the obviousness is not the point. The point is that two individuals did not see how the definition of simultaneity yields an actual method of synchronization, and to explain this, it is perfectly reasonable to describe an actual method.

> The fact that Einstein did not mention the correction step does not
> mean that it isn’t obvious.

It isn't enough to talk blithely about "the correction step". For example, it was obvious to RichD that a correction would generally be needed, and he said "He then sets his clock to.... ?" You see, the procedure needs to explicitly explain what correction is applied, in operational terms. That's what prompted Tom and Dono to re-quote the actual explicit procedure. You could have recognized all this had you read the next sentence in the post.

On 10/24/21 11:23 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 8:43:53 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> A) Repeatedly send a light pulse from C1 to C2, where it is
>>>> reflected back to C1. Set C2 so at the reflection it displays
>>>> a value that is midway between the values on C1 when it was
>>>> emitted and received.
>>>
>>> Method (A) really isn't a direct method, [...].
>>
>> Method A is every bit as valid and direct as method B [#].
>
> No, method A is not a method at all. [...]

And yet it is used throughout the world to synchronize millions of
clocks to various time standards.

Hint: the Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a
generalization of method A to handle multiple
time sources in networks with variable delays.

Tom Roberts

On 10/24/21 10:29 AM, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 8:21:59 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> [... description of synchronizing C2 to C1[
>
> This is way too complicated. Here is a much simpler and more robust
> way: C1 starts its clock from 0 and sends a signal to C2. When C2
> receives the signal from C1 it resets itself (to zero) When the
> reflected signal comes back to C1, C1 simply halves his elapsed time.
> C1 and C2 are now synchronized

Your "simplification" essentially exchanges the roles of C1 and C2.
Moreover, your method works for only two clocks -- it does not
generalize to synchronizing N clocks to C1, with N>1. The method I
described does generalize to arbitrary N.

Otherwise, your method is the same as what I described, by using zero
instead of whatever clock values were present.

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:27:19 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > No, method A is not a method at all. [...]
>
> And yet it is used throughout the world to synchronize millions of
> clocks to various time standards.

No, method A is not a method at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship, i.e., he is defining inertial synchronization, not giving an explicit method of setting the clocks so that they have that relationship. Witness the fact that, in your follow-up post today, you parroted the actual method (that was already posted in this thread on Oct 12) based on this implicit condition.

> Hint...

You're so funny.

On 10/24/2021 2:35 PM, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:27:19 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> No, method A is not a method at all. [...]
>>
>> And yet it is used throughout the world to synchronize millions of
>> clocks to various time standards.
>
> No, method A is not a method at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship, i.e., he is defining inertial synchronization, not giving an explicit method of setting the clocks so that they have that relationship. Witness the fact that, in your follow-up post today, you parroted the actual method (that was already posted in this thread on Oct 12) based on this implicit condition.
>
>> Hint... [the Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a
>> generalization of method A to handle multiple
>> time sources in networks with variable delays.]

I've worked on NTP. It is similar to Method A.
>
> You're so funny.
>

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:53:32 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I've worked on NTP. It is similar to Method A.

"Method A" is not a method of synchronization at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship, i.e., he is defining inertial synchronization, not giving an explicit method of setting the clocks so that they have that relationship. Actual explicit methods by which this condition can be achieved have been described in this thread.

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:29:10 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:

> Moreover, your method works for only two clocks -- it does not
> generalize to synchronizing N clocks to C1, with N>1. The method I
> described does generalize to arbitrary N.

You have a good point. This observation made me look into a very simple generalization of the method I presented such that it works with an arbitrary number of clocks:

C1 sends a signal to C2.
When C2 receives the signal from C1 it resets itself (to zero)
When the reflected signal comes back to C1, C1 sends to C2 its total elapsed time.
When C2 receives the second signal from C1, it adds to its time the total elapsed time sent from C1
C1 and C2 now both show the same time. The scheme has the advantage that C1 never modifies his time, only the "slave clocks" ("C2") do that.

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 3:07:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:29:10 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> > Moreover, your method works for only two clocks -- it does not
> > generalize to synchronizing N clocks to C1, with N>1. The method I
> > described does generalize to arbitrary N.
> You have a good point. This observation made me look into a very simple generalization of the method I presented such that it works with an arbitrary number of clocks:
>
> C1 sends a signal to C2.
> When C2 receives the signal from C1 it resets itself (to zero)
> When the reflected signal comes back to C1, C1 sends to C2 its total elapsed time.
> When C2 receives the second signal from C1, it adds to its time the total elapsed time sent from C1
> C1 and C2 now both show the same time. The scheme has the advantage that C1 never modifies his time, only the "slave clocks" ("C2") do that.

I forgot to say that prior to adding the time received from C1, C2 must half his time. This way both clocks show the total elapsed time to be "t+3T", where "T" is the signal transit time.

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 9:59:11 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> No, method A is not a method at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks
>>> are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship,
>>> but this is not an explicit method of setting the clocks so that they
>>> have that relationship.
>>
>> Yes that’s where he stops. But it should be obvious how to correct EITHER
>> clock if they are not synchronized.
>
> The obviousness of procedures isn't at issue. Ricardo was confused
> because he assumed Einstein was describing a synchronization procedure,
> whereas Einstein was actually just defining what inertial synchronization
> means. A procedure to accomplish this synchronization is different. To
> explain this, an actual procedure (consistent with the defining property) was described.
>
> Subsequently, after Tom repeated Einstein's defining condition and called
> it a method, RichD expressed the same confusion, noting that it wasn't
> really a method of synchronization (despite the obviousness of how to
> turn it into a method). In response, Tom parroted the
> previously-described procedure. Likewise Dono described essentially the
> same procedure, but using an arbitrary reset value of t=0, rather than
> transferring an actual time from a reference clock.
>
> Again, the obviousness is not the point.

Given the obviousness, then the point is pedantic and served no real
explanatory value.

> The point is that two individuals did not see how the definition of
> simultaneity yields an actual method of synchronization, and to explain
> this, it is perfectly reasonable to describe an actual method.
>
>> The fact that Einstein did not mention the correction step does not
>> mean that it isn’t obvious.
>
> It isn't enough to talk blithely about "the correction step". For
> example, it was obvious to RichD that a correction would generally be
> needed, and he said "He then sets his clock to.... ?"

In the case of method A, it might be sufficient to say to RichD, “suppose
the time on the original emitting clock at time of receipt of light pulse
was 2.000 ms, and the time on the reflecting clock was 1.036 ms, what do
YOU think the correction step would be to make the clocks synchronized?”
Don’t you think that would be more helpful than being pedantic about
whether the synchronization is a check only or includes a correction?

> You see, the procedure needs to explicitly explain what correction is
> applied, in operational terms. That's what prompted Tom and Dono to
> re-quote the actual explicit procedure. You could have recognized all
> this had you read the next sentence in the post.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 5:06:03 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 9:59:11 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> No, method A is not a method at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks
> >>> are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship,
> >>> but this is not an explicit method of setting the clocks so that they
> >>> have that relationship.
> >>
> >> Yes that’s where he stops. But it should be obvious how to correct EITHER
> >> clock if they are not synchronized.
> >
> > The obviousness of procedures isn't at issue. Ricardo was confused
> > because he assumed Einstein was describing a synchronization procedure,
> > whereas Einstein was actually just defining what inertial synchronization
> > means. A procedure to accomplish this synchronization is different. To
> > explain this, an actual procedure (consistent with the defining property) was described.
> >
> > Subsequently, after Tom repeated Einstein's defining condition and called
> > it a method, RichD expressed the same confusion, noting that it wasn't
> > really a method of synchronization (despite the obviousness of how to
> > turn it into a method). In response, Tom parroted the
> > previously-described procedure. Likewise Dono described essentially the
> > same procedure, but using an arbitrary reset value of t=0, rather than
> > transferring an actual time from a reference clock.
> >
> > Again, the obviousness is not the point. [disgraceful snip]
>
> Given the obviousness, then the point is pedantic and served no real
> explanatory value.

The very next sentence explained your error:

> > The point is that two individuals did not see how the definition of
> > simultaneity yields an actual method of synchronization, and to explain
> > this, it is perfectly reasonable to describe an actual method.

> >> The fact that Einstein did not mention the correction step does not
> >> mean that it isn’t obvious.
> >
> > It isn't enough to talk blithely about "the correction step". For
> > example, it was obvious to RichD that a correction would generally be
> > needed, and he said "He then sets his clock to.... ?"
> > You see, the procedure needs to explicitly explain what correction is
> > applied, in operational terms. That's what prompted Tom and Dono to
> > re-quote the actual explicit procedure. You could have recognized all
> > this had you read the next sentence in the post.

> In the case of method A, it might be sufficient to say to RichD, “suppose
> the time on the original emitting clock at time of receipt of light pulse
> was 2.000 ms, and the time on the reflecting clock was 1.036 ms, what do
> YOU think the correction step would be to make the clocks synchronized?”
> Don’t you think that would be more helpful than being pedantic about
> whether the synchronization is a check only or includes a correction?

No, your suggestion is idiotic. Try to concentrate: You are sitting next to clock B and a pulse of light arrives from Clock A. It reflects off you and heads back toward A. How do you set your clock? Obviously you do not have sufficient information. That's what led Ricardo and RichD to ask their questions. To get more information, suppose the signal from A carried the reading of A at the time of emission. Let's call that tA. When you receive that signal, can you set your clock at B? Nope, still not enough information. Now suppose the pulse bounces off you and arrives back at A when A reads tA'. Do you now have enough information at B to set clock B? Still nope, because you do not have the value of tA'. Suppose A then transmits the value of tA' to you. When you receive that, can you now correct clock B? Well, if you recorded the reading of clock B at the moment of reflection (let's call that tBtrial), then the answer is yes, because you know Clock B read tBtrial but it should have read (tA+tA')/2, so the needed correction is tcor = (tA-tA')/2 - tBtrial, which you can add to Clock B's current reading, and then it will be inertially synchronized with clock A in their mutual frame.

Now, this should look familiar to you, because it is the method described by three different people here in this thread. Now do you understand?

On 10/24/2021 4:39 PM, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:53:32 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> I've worked on NTP. It is similar to Method A.
>
> "Method A" is not a method of synchronization at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship, i.e., he is defining inertial synchronization, not giving an explicit method of setting the clocks so that they have that relationship. Actual explicit methods by which this condition can be achieved have been described in this thread.
>

I was referring to Tom's Method A to synchronize the clocks (easily
derived from Einstein's Method A to test if they are synchronized), and
its similarity to NTP:

> That's just a stupid way of doing it. It's easy to design method A so D
> is not needed:
>
> For one specific light pulse, C1 records the time on C1 the pulse is
> sent, call it X. When C2 reflects the pulse it records the time on
> C2, call it Y. When C1 receives the reflection it records the time on
> C1, call it Z, C1 then sends the value (X+Z)/2 to C2 by any convenient
> means -- that is the value C2 should have had at the reflection in order
> to be synchronized with C1. When C2 receives this message, C2 adds
> (X+Z)/2-Y as an offset to C2. C2, of course, is running throughout, and
> after this addition is synchronized with C1.

> As C1 is repeatedly sending light pulses, this can be checked using
> successive pulses, and/or the offsets from multiple pulses can be
> averaged to reduce errors.

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 8:51:06 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "Method A" is not a method of synchronization at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks
> > are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship, i.e., he is
> > defining inertial synchronization, not giving an explicit method of setting the clocks
> > so that they have that relationship. Actual explicit methods by which this condition
> > can be achieved have been described in this thread.
> >
> I was referring to Tom's Method A to synchronize the clocks (easily derived from
> Einstein's Method A to test if they are synchronized)

That's totally garbled. First, what Tom labeled as Einstein's "Method A" was not a method of synchronizing, nor even a method of testing for synchronization, it was merely Einstein's definition of (inertial) synchronization. Second, after this was pointed out, Tom parroted an actual method that had already been given in a post back on Oct 12, which you now weirdly refer to as "Tom's Method A", even though it isn't "Tom's" and it isn't "Method A".

The whole point is the distinction between (1) what Tom erroneously claimed was a method that he called "A", and (2) what he then acknowledged and parroted as an actual method, as had already been explained weeks earlier. But then he backslid, and then you garbled things by referring to the Oct 12 method as "Method A", which (again) is not a method at all, and is to be distinguished from the actual method as described on Oct 12... which you admit is "similar to NTP". Imagine that.

On Sunday, 24 October 2021 at 20:27:19 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/24/21 11:23 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 8:43:53 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>> A) Repeatedly send a light pulse from C1 to C2, where it is
> >>>> reflected back to C1. Set C2 so at the reflection it displays
> >>>> a value that is midway between the values on C1 when it was
> >>>> emitted and received.
> >>>
> >>> Method (A) really isn't a direct method, [...].
> >>
> >> Method A is every bit as valid and direct as method B [#].
> >
> > No, method A is not a method at all. [...]
>
> And yet it is used throughout the world to synchronize millions of
> clocks to various time standards.
>
> Hint: the Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a

A lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot. NTP is
not using light pulses, NTP is far more advanced
and - according to your Shit - your method
shouldn't be used at all on non-inertial Earth.

On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 05:51:06 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/24/2021 4:39 PM, Townes Olson wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:53:32 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> I've worked on NTP. It is similar to Method A.
> >
> > "Method A" is not a method of synchronization at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship, i.e., he is defining inertial synchronization, not giving an explicit method of setting the clocks so that they have that relationship. Actual explicit methods by which this condition can be achieved have been described in this thread.
> >
> I was referring to Tom's Method A to synchronize the clocks (easily
> derived from Einstein's Method A to test if they are synchronized), and
> its similarity to NTP:

It is a bit similiar. And not especially precise; just good
enough for most LANs.

On 10/25/2021 1:05 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 8:51:06 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> "Method A" is not a method of synchronization at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks
>>> are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship, i.e., he is
>>> defining inertial synchronization, not giving an explicit method of setting the clocks
>>> so that they have that relationship. Actual explicit methods by which this condition
>>> can be achieved have been described in this thread.
>>>
>> I was referring to Tom's Method A to synchronize the clocks (easily derived from
>> Einstein's Method A to test if they are synchronized)
>
> That's totally garbled. First, what Tom labeled as Einstein's "Method A" was not a method of synchronizing, nor even a method of testing for synchronization, it was merely Einstein's definition of (inertial) synchronization. Second, after this was pointed out, Tom parroted an actual method that had already been given in a post back on Oct 12, which you now weirdly refer to as "Tom's Method A", even though it isn't "Tom's" and it isn't "Method A".

You are rather confused.
Tom called it "Method A" in the message of his I quoted (which you
snipped). Here it is again:

>> That's just a stupid way of doing it. It's easy to design method A so D
>> is not needed:
>>
>> For one specific light pulse, C1 records the time on C1 the pulse is
>> sent, call it X. When C2 reflects the pulse it records the time on
>> C2, call it Y. When C1 receives the reflection it records the time on
>> C1, call it Z, C1 then sends the value (X+Z)/2 to C2 by any convenient
>> means -- that is the value C2 should have had at the reflection in order
>> to be synchronized with C1. When C2 receives this message, C2 adds
>> (X+Z)/2-Y as an offset to C2. C2, of course, is running throughout, and
>> after this addition is synchronized with C1.
>>
>> As C1 is repeatedly sending light pulses, this can be checked using
>> successive pulses, and/or the offsets from multiple pulses can be
>> averaged to reduce errors.

> The whole point is the distinction between (1) what Tom erroneously claimed was a method that he called "A", and (2) what he then acknowledged and parroted as an actual method, as had already been explained weeks earlier. But then he backslid, and then you garbled things by referring to the Oct 12 method as "Method A", which (again) is not a method at all, and is to be distinguished from the actual method as described on Oct 12... which you admit is "similar to NTP". Imagine that.
>
You definitely are confused. Einstein gave methods of telling that
clocks are synchronized but not for synchronizing them. It is rather
trivial, however, to derive synchronization methods from Einstein's
definitions. I don't know what is this "October 12 method" you speak of
is. Whether Einstein called his first synchronization definition "A" or
not, Tom briefly described three synchronization methods, calling them
A, B and C. Tom just took Einstein's definitions and made them into
methods of synchronizing clocks. The one Tom called Method A he
described in more detail, and Tom's Method A, which I'm sure goes by a
better name, is pretty much what NTP does at its core.

On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 10:20:42 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/25/2021 1:05 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 8:51:06 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>> "Method A" is not a method of synchronization at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks
> >>> are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship, i.e., he is
> >>> defining inertial synchronization, not giving an explicit method of setting the clocks
> >>> so that they have that relationship. Actual explicit methods by which this condition
> >>> can be achieved have been described in this thread.
> >>>
> >> I was referring to Tom's Method A to synchronize the clocks (easily derived from
> >> Einstein's Method A to test if they are synchronized)
> >
> > That's totally garbled. First, what Tom labeled as Einstein's "Method A" was not a method of synchronizing, nor even a method of testing for synchronization, it was merely Einstein's definition of (inertial) synchronization. Second, after this was pointed out, Tom parroted an actual method that had already been given in a post back on Oct 12, which you now weirdly refer to as "Tom's Method A", even though it isn't "Tom's" and it isn't "Method A".
> You are rather confused.
> Tom called it "Method A" in the message of his I quoted (which you
> snipped). Here it is again:
> >> That's just a stupid way of doing it. It's easy to design method A so D
> >> is not needed:
> >>
> >> For one specific light pulse, C1 records the time on C1 the pulse is
> >> sent, call it X. When C2 reflects the pulse it records the time on
> >> C2, call it Y. When C1 receives the reflection it records the time on
> >> C1, call it Z, C1 then sends the value (X+Z)/2 to C2 by any convenient
> >> means -- that is the value C2 should have had at the reflection in order
> >> to be synchronized with C1. When C2 receives this message, C2 adds
> >> (X+Z)/2-Y as an offset to C2. C2, of course, is running throughout, and
> >> after this addition is synchronized with C1.
> >>
> >> As C1 is repeatedly sending light pulses, this can be checked using
> >> successive pulses, and/or the offsets from multiple pulses can be
> >> averaged to reduce errors.
> > The whole point is the distinction between (1) what Tom erroneously claimed was a method that he called "A", and (2) what he then acknowledged and parroted as an actual method, as had already been explained weeks earlier. But then he backslid, and then you garbled things by referring to the Oct 12 method as "Method A", which (again) is not a method at all, and is to be distinguished from the actual method as described on Oct 12... which you admit is "similar to NTP". Imagine that.
> >
> You definitely are confused. Einstein gave methods of telling that
> clocks are synchronized but not for synchronizing them. It is rather
> trivial, however, to derive synchronization methods from Einstein's
> definitions. I don't know what is this "October 12 method" you speak of
> is. Whether Einstein called his first synchronization definition "A" or
> not, Tom briefly described three synchronization methods, calling them
> A, B and C. Tom just took Einstein's definitions and made them into
> methods of synchronizing clocks.

Even your idiot guru was admitting it's worthless for non-inertial
or not co-moving clocks. I.e. always.

On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 1:20:42 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Tom called it "Method A" in the message of his I quoted...

Right, that was his incoherent disembling, trying to conflate what he initially presented as "A", which was just Einstein's definition of inertial simultaneity (neither a method nor a test), with a method of synchronization. This distinction, and the actual method was explained to Ricardo in this thread back on Oct 12 as follows, referring to clocks A and B (not to be confused with Tom's "method" designations):

"If you want an explicit recipe for how they would go about achieving this synchronization, you could have A send his current reading tA by radio to B, and when B receives that signal he could immediately send his current reading "trialB" back to A, which A receives at time tA'. Now, A knows that B's clock should have been reading tB = (tA+tA')/2 at the reflection event, but it was actually reading "trialB", so A can now send a message to B telling him that his clock is off by delt = tB - trialB. So B can set his clock forward by delt and he will then be inertially synchronized with A."

You see? Two weeks after this was explained, Tom first slid back to claiming the Einstein's definition was a synchronization method, and then when RichD pointed out that it isn't, Tom just parroted the above method.

> It is rather trivial, however, to derive synchronization methods from Einstein's
> definitions.

Indeed, and yet the OP of this thread (Ricardo) thinking that Einstein's definition was a method, and RichD also didn't see it, and the clarification of the distinction between the definition and an actual method was provided to Ricardo back on Oct 12, which Tom then copied in response to RichD. Several other posters also failed to grasp the distinction.

> I don't know what is this "October 12 method" you speak of is.

See above.

> Whether Einstein called his first synchronization definition "A" or not....

Huh? Einstein did not use Tom's labels, nor did he claim that the definition of synchronization described an actual method of synchronizing clocks. Einstein was not an idiot.

> Tom briefly described three synchronization methods, calling them
> A, B and C.

No, what Tom called Method A was just Einstein's definition of synchronization, not a method. Then when his mistake was pointed out he typed the actual method that had been already described in the Oct 12 post and started conflating that with what he had originally called Method A. That's what confused you.

> Tom just took Einstein's definitions and made them into methods of synchronizing clocks.

Well, he first claimed the definition was a method, even though weeks earlier in this discussion the distinction between the definition and an actual method had been explained, and an actual method had been exhibited. Then when RichD pointed out to Tom (yet again) that the definition was not a method, Tom posted the method that had been posted weeks earlier, ​and began conflating the two. That's what confused you.

> which is pretty much what NTP does at its core.

Right, NTP uses essentially the method described in this thread on Oct 12, which Tom adopted after it was noted that what he called Method A was really just a definition, not a method, all of which had been explained in this discussed weeks ago.

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 5:06:03 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 9:59:11 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> No, method A is not a method at all. Einstein merely says "Two clocks
>>>>> are synchronized if" the readings at those events have that relationship,
>>>>> but this is not an explicit method of setting the clocks so that they
>>>>> have that relationship.
>>>>
>>>> Yes that’s where he stops. But it should be obvious how to correct EITHER
>>>> clock if they are not synchronized.
>>>
>>> The obviousness of procedures isn't at issue. Ricardo was confused
>>> because he assumed Einstein was describing a synchronization procedure,
>>> whereas Einstein was actually just defining what inertial synchronization
>>> means. A procedure to accomplish this synchronization is different. To
>>> explain this, an actual procedure (consistent with the defining property) was described.
>>>
>>> Subsequently, after Tom repeated Einstein's defining condition and called
>>> it a method, RichD expressed the same confusion, noting that it wasn't
>>> really a method of synchronization (despite the obviousness of how to
>>> turn it into a method). In response, Tom parroted the
>>> previously-described procedure. Likewise Dono described essentially the
>>> same procedure, but using an arbitrary reset value of t=0, rather than
>>> transferring an actual time from a reference clock.
>>>
>>> Again, the obviousness is not the point. [disgraceful snip]
>>
>> Given the obviousness, then the point is pedantic and served no real
>> explanatory value.
>
> The very next sentence explained your error:
>
>>> The point is that two individuals did not see how the definition of
>>> simultaneity yields an actual method of synchronization, and to explain
>>> this, it is perfectly reasonable to describe an actual method.

Oh there are of course people who miss the obvious. There are good ways to
teach and bad ways to teach in those cases. You have elected to take a bad
direction IMO.

>
>>>> The fact that Einstein did not mention the correction step does not
>>>> mean that it isn’t obvious.
>>>
>>> It isn't enough to talk blithely about "the correction step". For
>>> example, it was obvious to RichD that a correction would generally be
>>> needed, and he said "He then sets his clock to.... ?"
>>> You see, the procedure needs to explicitly explain what correction is
>>> applied, in operational terms. That's what prompted Tom and Dono to
>>> re-quote the actual explicit procedure. You could have recognized all
>>> this had you read the next sentence in the post.
>
>> In the case of method A, it might be sufficient to say to RichD, “suppose
>> the time on the original emitting clock at time of receipt of light pulse
>> was 2.000 ms, and the time on the reflecting clock was 1.036 ms, what do
>> YOU think the correction step would be to make the clocks synchronized?”
>> Don’t you think that would be more helpful than being pedantic about
>> whether the synchronization is a check only or includes a correction?
>
> No, your suggestion is idiotic. Try to concentrate: You are sitting
> next to clock B and a pulse of light arrives from Clock A. It reflects
> off you and heads back toward A. How do you set your clock? Obviously
> you do not have sufficient information.

Well, apparently the obviousness you acknowledged earlier is now lost to
you.

It might help to recall that there are three clock readings available as
additional information. Two of them are explicitly mentioned in the example
and the third is implied. Is this helpful for you to recover the
obviousness?

Apparently the availability of the clock readings is the part you found
obvious before and then decided was not obvious at all. This speaks to the
pedantry mentioned earlier, which seems IMO to be the ruling pattern with
your interaction with others.

I am hopeful that you are not in a position to teach students or even to
apprentice others.

> That's what led Ricardo and RichD to ask their questions. To get more
> information, suppose the signal from A carried the reading of A at the
> time of emission. Let's call that tA. When you receive that signal, can
> you set your clock at B? Nope, still not enough information. Now
> suppose the pulse bounces off you and arrives back at A when A reads tA'.
> Do you now have enough information at B to set clock B? Still nope,
> because you do not have the value of tA'. Suppose A then transmits the
> value of tA' to you. When you receive that, can you now correct clock B?
> Well, if you recorded the reading of clock B at the moment of reflection
> (let's call that tBtrial), then the answer is yes, because you know Clock
> B read tBtrial but it should have read (tA+tA')/2, so the needed
> correction is tcor = (tA-tA')/2 - tBtrial, which you can add to Clock B's
> current reading, and then it will be inertially synchronized with clock A
> in their mutual frame.
>
> Now, this should look familiar to you, because it is the method described
> by three different people here in this thread. Now do you understand?
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 6:28:26 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> The point is that two individuals did not see how the definition of
> >>> simultaneity yields an actual method of synchronization, and to explain
> >>> this, it is perfectly reasonable to describe an actual method.
>
> Oh there are of course people who miss the obvious. There are good ways to
> teach and bad ways to teach in those cases.

Right. For example, it was a simple matter to provide Ricardo with an actual synchronization method, and this resolved his confusion about how the synchronization is actually achieved. On the other hand, for individuals such as yourself, it takes more elaborate explanation, since your lack of aptitude is combined with a personality that make you resistant to learning.

> > No, your suggestion is idiotic. Try to concentrate: You are sitting
> > next to clock B and a pulse of light arrives from Clock A. It reflects
> > off you and heads back toward A. How do you set your clock? Obviously
> > you do not have sufficient information.
>
> It might help to recall that there are three clock readings available as
> additional information.

But available to whom? And by what means? Remember, the objective is to actually have an explicit method. You are stupidly neglecting the necessity to transport the needed information, and the transport is essential when discussing an actual method of synchronizing spatially separate clocks.

And this is where your resistance to learning asserts itself, because, as always, you disregard the actual content of each message. Again:

> > That's what led Ricardo and RichD to ask their questions. To get more
> > information, suppose the signal from A carried the reading of A at the
> > time of emission. Let's call that tA. When you receive that signal, can
> > you set your clock at B? Nope, still not enough information. Now
> > suppose the pulse bounces off you and arrives back at A when A reads tA'.
> > Do you now have enough information at B to set clock B? Still nope,
> > because you do not have the value of tA'. Suppose A then transmits the
> > value of tA' to you. When you receive that, can you now correct clock B?
> > Well, if you recorded the reading of clock B at the moment of reflection
> > (let's call that tBtrial), then the answer is yes, because you know Clock
> > B read tBtrial but it should have read (tA+tA')/2, so the needed
> > correction is tcor = (tA-tA')/2 - tBtrial, which you can add to Clock B's
> > current reading, and then it will be inertially synchronized with clock A
> > in their mutual frame.

This should look familiar to you, because it is the method described by three different people here in this thread. Now do you understand?

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 6:28:26 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> The point is that two individuals did not see how the definition of
>>>>> simultaneity yields an actual method of synchronization, and to explain
>>>>> this, it is perfectly reasonable to describe an actual method.
>>
>> Oh there are of course people who miss the obvious. There are good ways to
>> teach and bad ways to teach in those cases.
>
> Right. For example, it was a simple matter to provide Ricardo with an
> actual synchronization method, and this resolved his confusion about how
> the synchronization is actually achieved. On the other hand, for
> individuals such as yourself, it takes more elaborate explanation, since
> your lack of aptitude is combined with a personality that make you resistant to learning.

Sorry to dispel your right-fighting stance, but I have no problem with the
synchronization method. Some things were obvious to me, which you
acknowledged, then said it wasn’t the point, then said it wasn’t obvious at
all.

>
>>> No, your suggestion is idiotic. Try to concentrate: You are sitting
>>> next to clock B and a pulse of light arrives from Clock A. It reflects
>>> off you and heads back toward A. How do you set your clock? Obviously
>>> you do not have sufficient information.
>>
>> It might help to recall that there are three clock readings available as
>> additional information.
>
> But available to whom? And by what means?

To both, by a number of means, the details of which are both immaterial and
pedantic to the point of being obstructive to explanatory power, something
you are oblivious to.

> Remember, the objective is to actually have an explicit method.

Perhaps it will eventually become important to you to specify the color of
ink with which the times were recorded, for the sake of explicitness. Or
perhaps it has eluded you that if something is obvious but not mentioned,
then explicitness is neither needed nor called for, and so is not the
objective at all. Perhaps the objective is to explain without the need for
explicitness, especially if something obvious (and whose obviousness you
acknowledged) can be arrived at without being explicit.

> You are stupidly neglecting the necessity to transport the needed
> information, and the transport is essential when discussing an actual
> method of synchronizing spatially separate clocks.

And perhaps you are stupidly neglecting that there are good ways to explain
and bad ways to explain, and that it is entirely possible that your
approach to explaining is not the best one conceivable. But I am also
equally entertaining that the prospect of you being less than optimal is
anathema to you, and you are willing to double down, triple down, quadruple
down as needed to not only illustrate your pedantry, but to filigree it
with gold leaf if necessary. As you wish — it seems to be the only approach
you know.

>
> And this is where your resistance to learning asserts itself, because, as
> always, you disregard the actual content of each message. Again:
>
>>> That's what led Ricardo and RichD to ask their questions. To get more
>>> information, suppose the signal from A carried the reading of A at the
>>> time of emission. Let's call that tA. When you receive that signal, can
>>> you set your clock at B? Nope, still not enough information. Now
>>> suppose the pulse bounces off you and arrives back at A when A reads tA'.
>>> Do you now have enough information at B to set clock B? Still nope,
>>> because you do not have the value of tA'. Suppose A then transmits the
>>> value of tA' to you. When you receive that, can you now correct clock B?
>>> Well, if you recorded the reading of clock B at the moment of reflection
>>> (let's call that tBtrial), then the answer is yes, because you know Clock
>>> B read tBtrial but it should have read (tA+tA')/2, so the needed
>>> correction is tcor = (tA-tA')/2 - tBtrial, which you can add to Clock B's
>>> current reading, and then it will be inertially synchronized with clock A
>>> in their mutual frame.
>
> This should look familiar to you, because it is the method described by
> three different people here in this thread. Now do you understand?
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>
>> And this is where your resistance to learning asserts itself, because, as
>> always, you disregard the actual content of each message. Again:
>>
>>>> That's what led Ricardo and RichD to ask their questions. To get more
>>>> information, suppose the signal from A carried the reading of A at the
>>>> time of emission. Let's call that tA. When you receive that signal, can
>>>> you set your clock at B? Nope, still not enough information. Now
>>>> suppose the pulse bounces off you and arrives back at A when A reads tA'.
>>>> Do you now have enough information at B to set clock B? Still nope,
>>>> because you do not have the value of tA'. Suppose A then transmits the
>>>> value of tA' to you. When you receive that, can you now correct clock B?
>>>> Well, if you recorded the reading of clock B at the moment of reflection
>>>> (let's call that tBtrial), then the answer is yes, because you know Clock
>>>> B read tBtrial but it should have read (tA+tA')/2, so the needed
>>>> correction is tcor = (tA-tA')/2 - tBtrial, which you can add to Clock B's
>>>> current reading, and then it will be inertially synchronized with clock A
>>>> in their mutual frame.
>>
>> This should look familiar to you, because it is the method described by
>> three different people here in this thread. Now do you understand?
>>

As a follow-up, please notice that preceding your “now do you understand”
habitual question, you have the pronounced pattern of simply repeating
something you said earlier. This conveys that you have one and only one way
to express something, which you consider perfect from the outset, and that
you are mystified why any properly thinking person might not respond to it
with acknowledgement of its perfection.

A good explainer/teacher/elucidator, in contrast, will notice that his
earlier way of explaining something did not have the outcome hoped for, and
will then shift gears and explain it a completely different way, using
different terminology if needed, using analogy as appropriate, actively
intuiting what the other needs to get through. It is a MUCH different style
of exchange than simply repeating the same paragraph over and over and over
again and asking “Now do you understand?”

Since you engage in none of these good practices of
explaining/teaching/elucidating, this is why I made the comment about being
hopeful you are not in a position to teach or apprentice.

But I also acknowledge that you are unlikely to get over yourself and
change any of your conversational habits.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 7:44:48 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have no problem with the synchronization method.

But that's not true. You are manifestly having a lot of trouble with this very simple thing, i.e., with distinguishing the synchronization method from the definition of simultaneity. This was the question that the OP (and others) asked, and it's been answered (by three different people now), by presenting explicit synchronization methods, but for some reason you are still having difficulty with it.

> Some things were obvious to me, which you acknowledged...

Careful. Obviousness is subjective. This topic is obvious and trivial to anyone of average or above intelligence, but it is clearly not obvious to you, as evidenced by all the trouble you are having understanding it.

> To both, by a number of means, the details of which are both immaterial and
> pedantic to the point of being obstructive to explanatory power, something
> you are oblivious to.

Hold on. The OP says he is confused because he doesn't see how what Einstein described in his paper actually amounts to a synchronization, and he starts talking about sending values of the clock times back and forth and asks for help understanding how to actually accomplish the synchronization. You can tell him "That's so obvious I'm not going to tell you", or you can just type an actual explicit method so that he can see how it works. Your position is that the former is the right approach and the latter is "being obstructive". Sorry, but your position is flatly insane.

> there are good ways to explain and bad ways to explain, and that it is entirely
> possible that your approach to explaining is not the best one conceivable.

But two (or more) people in this thread expressed the same confusion over the distinction between the definition of simultaneity versus an actual explicit method of synchronization, and three separate people (eventually) realized that the only way to respond was by explicitly stating a simple synchronization method. And this answered the questions. Now you shout that this is not the right way to answer, and you prefer your totally brain-dead non-answer, which is basically telling the OP and others that "I'm not going to answer you question". From this they justifiably conclude that you aren't answering because you can't answer, and they take encouragement.

> > And this is where your resistance to learning asserts itself, because, as
> > always, you disregard the actual content of each message. Again:
> >
> >>> That's what led Ricardo and RichD to ask their questions. To get more
> >>> information, suppose the signal from A carried the reading of A at the
> >>> time of emission. Let's call that tA. When you receive that signal, can
> >>> you set your clock at B? Nope, still not enough information. Now
> >>> suppose the pulse bounces off you and arrives back at A when A reads tA'.
> >>> Do you now have enough information at B to set clock B? Still nope,
> >>> because you do not have the value of tA'. Suppose A then transmits the
> >>> value of tA' to you. When you receive that, can you now correct clock B?
> >>> Well, if you recorded the reading of clock B at the moment of reflection
> >>> (let's call that tBtrial), then the answer is yes, because you know Clock
> >>> B read tBtrial but it should have read (tA+tA')/2, so the needed
> >>> correction is tcor = (tA-tA')/2 - tBtrial, which you can add to Clock B's
> >>> current reading, and then it will be inertially synchronized with clock A
> >>> in their mutual frame.
> >
> > This should look familiar to you, because it is the method described by
> > three different people here in this thread. Now do you understand?

You see, a persistent characteristic of yours is that, in any discussion, you immediately abandon any of the actual content of the subject, and devolve into your armchair sociology, which is really all that interests you. And then you imagine yourself to be clearly answering people's questions. Amazing.