Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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".

Oh bullshit. As I said, there are good ways to teach and there are bad ways
to teach, and IMO you are spectacularly oriented to the bad end of the
spectrum. But as predicted, you have now quadrupled-down on your approach
and dismiss any other approaches as “idiotic” and “brain-dead”, and you are
completely unwilling to engage and LISTEN to the value of other approaches
successfully taken. This unwillingness to LISTEN speaks to your
aforementioned disabilities.

> 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.
>

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

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> 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 value of D is not needed. Both clocks must be able to identify
>> individual light pulses, but that is easy to arrange by making the
>> interval between pulses large enough, or by including identification in
>> the pulse.
>
> Similar methods are used for synchronizing computer clocks with a master
> or with each other, where the network delay is unknown. Including NTP.

idiot, it has nothing to do with the protocols, but in networks with the
Data Link Layer, say ethernet CSMA/CD.

On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 12:22:58 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> [You] dismiss any other approaches as “idiotic” and “brain-dead”, and you are
> completely unwilling to engage and LISTEN to the value of other approaches...

The only "other approach" that you offered was this patent idiocy:

> 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?”

That is simply re-stating the definition. Duh. You are not answering the question that was asked (how do you synchronize distant clocks), you are answering a different question. I did not fail to "listen" to your idiocy, I pointed out that it is idiotic, and then explained precisely why it is idiotic, and, as always, you snipped and ignored the careful and detailed explanation. You see, all you've done is re-stated the definition, which Ricardo and RichD already read in Einstein's paper, and you have not addressed their question. What they are expressly seeking is a constructive method of synchronization. There different people here (ultimately) answered with actual methods (after I provided four).

> Don’t you think that would be more helpful than being pedantic about
> whether the synchronization is a check only or includes a correction?

First, it is not pedantic to correctly, clearly, and succinctly answer the question that was asked. Second, the definition that you've re-quoted is neither a check nor a correction (nor is it an answer to the question that was asked). Again, since you are so scrupulous about listening to approaches, please demonstrate by listening to this, because it explains why the definition you cite is neither a check nor a synchronization method, and it provides an actual synchronization method, which is what Ricardo and RichD requested:

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. 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.

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 12:22:58 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [You] dismiss any other approaches as “idiotic” and “brain-dead”, and you are
>> completely unwilling to engage and LISTEN to the value of other approaches...
>
> The only "other approach" that you offered was this patent idiocy:
>
>> 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?”
>
> That is simply re-stating the definition.

Yes but it will help him figure out the correction step. That you do not
understand how to guide without explicating is your disability. But I knew
that already.

> Duh. You are not answering the question that was asked (how do you
> synchronize distant clocks),

Nor is it necessary to explain if it is obvious, even if RichD missed it.
All that’s necessary is to help him sort out the obvious WITHOUT being
explicit. Since you don’t know how to do this, it looks stupid to you. You
don’t know how to teach effectively.

If someone lost their keys, you would feel compelled to say, “on the end
table, where you last saw them”. You would not think to suggest “where did
you last see them?” because that wouldn’t be explicit enough. As I said,
you cannot teach. That is your disability.

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

On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 5:07:41 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > That is simply re-stating the definition.
>
> Yes...

Right, so your posts were worthless.

> but it will help him...

Nope, what helped both of them was having someone actually answer their question.

> You don’t know how to teach effectively.

Huh? A question was asked, and it was answered. In fact, three different people took the trouble to specifically answer the question (asked by two people) by describing one or more explicit method(s) of synchronization.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 12:22:58 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> [You] dismiss any other approaches as “idiotic” and “brain-dead”, and you are
>>> completely unwilling to engage and LISTEN to the value of other approaches...
>>
>> The only "other approach" that you offered was this patent idiocy:
>>
>>> 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?”
>>
>> That is simply re-stating the definition.
>
> Yes but it will help him figure out the correction step. That you do not
> understand how to guide without explicating is your disability. But I knew
> that already.
>
>> Duh. You are not answering the question that was asked (how do you
>> synchronize distant clocks),
>
> Nor is it necessary to explain if it is obvious, even if RichD missed it.
> All that’s necessary is to help him sort out the obvious WITHOUT being
> explicit. Since you don’t know how to do this, it looks stupid to you. You
> don’t know how to teach effectively.
>
> If someone lost their keys, you would feel compelled to say, “on the end
> table, where you last saw them”. You would not think to suggest “where did
> you last see them?” because that wouldn’t be explicit enough. As I said,
> you cannot teach. That is your disability.
>

Now that I think of it, you’ve been diagnosed as being being on the
Asperger’s-Autism spectrum, haven’t you?

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

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 5:07:41 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> That is simply re-stating the definition.
>>
>> Yes...
>
> Right, so your posts were worthless.
>
>> but it will help him...
>
> Nope, what helped both of them was having someone actually answer their question.

I disagree. As I said, you don’t know how to teach.

>
>> You don’t know how to teach effectively.
>
> Huh? A question was asked, and it was answered.

As I said, you don’t know how to teach.

I hope you’re not in a position with that role.

> In fact, three different people took the trouble to specifically answer
> the question (asked by two people) by describing one or more explicit
> method(s) of synchronization.
>

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

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 5:07:41 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> That is simply re-stating the definition.
>>
>> Yes...
>
> Right, so your posts were worthless.
>
>> but it will help him...
>
> Nope, what helped both of them was having someone actually answer their question.
>
>> You don’t know how to teach effectively.
>
> Huh? A question was asked, and it was answered. In fact, three
> different people took the trouble to specifically answer the question
> (asked by two people) by describing one or more explicit method(s) of synchronization.
>

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

On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 21:22:58 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Oh bullshit. As I said, there are good ways to teach and there are bad ways
> to teach

And the good ways are those announced by Giant Guru, while
those bad ones - are these followed by fucken antisemitists
objecting him. Howgh!

On 10/25/2021 3:02 PM, Townes Olson wrote:

> 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.
>

Projection.

On Tuesday, 26 October 2021 at 03:02:14 UTC+2, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 5:07:41 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > That is simply re-stating the definition.
> >
> > Yes...
>
> Right, so your posts were worthless.
>
> > but it will help him...
>
> Nope, what helped both of them was having someone actually answer their question.
>
> > You don’t know how to teach effectively.
>
> Huh? A question was asked, and it was answered. In fact, three different people took the trouble to specifically answer the question (asked by two people) by describing one or more explicit method(s) of synchronization.

Welcome to sci.physics.relativity: yes, these are all local spammers and agents of the enemy.

Indeed, thanks for your posts and the technical substance, very much appreciated.

Julio

On Tuesday, 26 October 2021 at 09:15:41 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 October 2021 at 03:02:14 UTC+2, Townes Olson wrote:
> > On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 5:07:41 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > That is simply re-stating the definition.
> > >
> > > Yes...
> >
> > Right, so your posts were worthless.
> >
> > > but it will help him...
> >
> > Nope, what helped both of them was having someone actually answer their question.
> >
> > > You don’t know how to teach effectively.
> >
> > Huh? A question was asked, and it was answered. In fact, three different people took the trouble to specifically answer the question (asked by two people) by describing one or more explicit method(s) of synchronization.
> Welcome to sci.physics.relativity: yes, these are all local spammers and agents of the enemy.

Who is the enemy, Julio? As his (or her, I won't tell) agent I
know, of course. I'm just probing how much you know.

On 10/25/2021 5:15 PM, Ben Ast wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> 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 value of D is not needed. Both clocks must be able to identify
>>> individual light pulses, but that is easy to arrange by making the
>>> interval between pulses large enough, or by including identification in
>>> the pulse.
>>
>> Similar methods are used for synchronizing computer clocks with a master
>> or with each other, where the network delay is unknown. Including NTP.
>
> idiot, it has nothing to do with the protocols, but in networks with the
> Data Link Layer, say ethernet CSMA/CD.
>

Go away, nymshifter. If you write that it's clear that you have no clue
about the networking model.

On 10/25/2021 9:20 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
> 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
<snip>

I'm not interested in pedantic nitpicking, to the point where it appears
as if you are reading different posts than I am.

Einstein stated definitions of synchronized clocks.

Tom stated it was a method to synchronize clocks, which it wasn't, but
it's simple to derive a method to synchronize clocks from Einstein's
definition.

> "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.

And that's how to synchronize clocks using a method from one of
Einstein's synchronized clock definitions. So Einstein himself didn't
mention that. Yawn.
>
>> 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.

Minor nit. Point (Einstein didn't define a method to synchronize clocks)
noted.

>> Whether Einstein called his first synchronization definition "A" or not...
>
> Huh? Einstein did not use Tom's labels,

I didn't feel like checking whether the "A" label was from the text or
Einstein simply listed that definition first. Pedantic nit.

>> 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.

Tom described three methods of synchronization, A, B, C. He did not
state at this point that Einstein described them.

>> 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.

If Tom made a minor mistake and wrongly credited Einstein for the method
but later corrected that, why bring it up again.
>
>> 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.

Tom described a method, a series of steps to take, to synchronize clocks.

I'm not interested in a nit picking contest.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>> Similar methods are used for synchronizing computer clocks with a
>>> master or with each other, where the network delay is unknown.
>>> Including NTP.
>>
>> idiot, it has nothing to do with the protocols, but in networks with
>> the Data Link Layer, say ethernet CSMA/CD.
>
> Go away, nymshifter. If you write that it's clear that you have no clue
> about the networking model.

idiot, NTP, network time protocol, is an Application Layer Protocol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Category:Application_layer_protocols#Pages_in_category

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/2021 9:20 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
>> 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
> <snip>
>
> I'm not interested in pedantic nitpicking, to the point where it appears
> as if you are reading different posts than I am.
>
> Einstein stated definitions of synchronized clocks.
>
> Tom stated it was a method to synchronize clocks, which it wasn't, but
> it's simple to derive a method to synchronize clocks from Einstein's
> definition.
>
>> "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.
>
> And that's how to synchronize clocks using a method from one of
> Einstein's synchronized clock definitions. So Einstein himself didn't
> mention that. Yawn.
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Minor nit. Point (Einstein didn't define a method to synchronize clocks)
> noted.
>
>>> Whether Einstein called his first synchronization definition "A" or not...
>>
>> Huh? Einstein did not use Tom's labels,
>
> I didn't feel like checking whether the "A" label was from the text or
> Einstein simply listed that definition first. Pedantic nit.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Tom described three methods of synchronization, A, B, C. He did not
> state at this point that Einstein described them.
>
>>> 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.
>
> If Tom made a minor mistake and wrongly credited Einstein for the method
> but later corrected that, why bring it up again.
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Tom described a method, a series of steps to take, to synchronize clocks.
>
> I'm not interested in a nit picking contest.
>

Indeed. Some people thrive on pedantry, sometimes driven by fabricated
calls to action like “the objective is to have an explicit procedure”. The
original ask by RichD was “how do you synchronize clocks?” There are MANY
ways to allow someone like RichD to understand how to synchronize clocks.
One brute force way is to explicitly lay out a highly technical, detailed,
step-by-step procedure, which may be one of many variants. Another way is
to specify a test that is positive if the clocks are synchronized and
negative if they are not, and to leave an obvious correction step to the
questioner in the negative case. If the questioner cannot see the obvious
correction step, then an example with real numbers rather than variables
can be set forth, which sometimes jostles the mind into seeing now what was
missed before. If that doesn’t work, then a hint about making an adjustment
can be made that gets the test closer to positive, at which point the
questioner might actually LEARN something by figuring out the last bit on
his own.

There are of course many other ways to help someone learn something, and
that is often driven by the HUMAN interchange between the one who is
learning and the one who is teaching.

It takes a special kind of narrowness in the mind to staunchly believe that
there is one and only one way to provide that understanding, and that any
other approach is “idiotic” or “insane”. That kind of narrowness is a good
indicator of compulsive personalities, of people on a spectrum for autism,
or other constraints. It may also be a desire to show how smart the
respondent is, rather than any actual interest in the improved grasp of the
questioner — and that is often a mask for an inferiority complex.

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

On Tuesday, 26 October 2021 at 18:09:03 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Einstein stated definitions of synchronized clocks.
>
> Tom stated it was a method to synchronize clocks, which it wasn't, but
> it's simple to derive a method to synchronize clocks from Einstein's
> definition.

Even your idiot guru, however, was admitting it s not going to
work for non-inertial or not co-moving clocks. That means, stupid
Mike, that while the methot you mention is easy to derive - it's
also completely worthless.

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 9:09:03 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Tom described three methods of synchronization, A, B, C. He did not
> state at this point that Einstein described them.

Not true. To refresh your memory, here is what he wrote:

Tom wrote:
> Note that Einstein described several different techniques for
> synchronizing two clocks, in different papers over many years.
> Here are three techniques he described to synchronize clock C2 to
> clock C1. In all cases both clocks must be at rest in a single inertial
> frame F, and all light pulses are in vacuum.
>
> 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.

followed by B) and C). Again, Tom's A) is just Einstein's definition of inertial simultaneity, which Tom himself later acknowledged (when challenged by RichD) is not actually a synchronization procedure, at which point he typed in an actual synchronization procedure (the same one that had been discussed previously in the thread) that satisfies that definition. And please note that he *did* state that Einstein "described these three methods of synchronization".

> If Tom made a minor mistake and wrongly credited Einstein for the method
> but later corrected that, why bring it up again.

He didn't correct it, others here corrected it. The whole point of the thread (Subject: Clock Sunchronization) was that the OP was confused because everyone says Einstein gave a synchronization procedure but he couldn't see how Einstein's words describe a synchronization procedure... which they don't. In any case, once Tom's mistake was corrected, there was no reason to bring it up again... but you brought it up again, and are still bringing it up.

> Tom described a method, a series of steps to take, to synchronize clocks.

Well, he parroted the method that had been presented weeks earlier in this thread, and he belatedly acknowledged and adopted it. And this is all pointless. What difference does it make to you?

> I'm not interested in a nit picking contest.

You're not? Everything you are saying is just trying (unsuccessfully) to pick nits. Your only interest seems to be making inaccurate statements about who said what when. Now, that's not a particularly relevant topic, but if you are going to focus on this trivia, you should at least get your facts straight. An easy way to do that is to ready my posts.

On October 24, Michael Moroney 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.
>
>>> [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.

In the lab, one can finely control the optical path lengths, refractive indexes,
and pulse detectors. Then the clocks are closely synchronized.

In wide networks, no such controls are available, for a transmit/reflection
scheme. What are the error specs, for NTP?

--
Rich