The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by the
set of events which are observed at the same time by a given observer, we
imagine two observers O and O', one terrestrial, the other cosmic, which
intersect in a moment of their evolution. Their watches are then triggered
t '= t = 0.

In the terrestrial frame of reference R, we then observe two simultaneous
cosmic events E1 and E2, the coordinates of which are given according to
the system (x, y, z, To, t).
Let E1 = (12,9,0,-15,0)
and E2 = (18.24.0,-30.0).

In the frame of reference R 'of the rocket which crosses the earth along
the Ox axis, at this moment, what will be the coordinates of the two
events according to the previous notation system?

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by the
> set of events which are observed at the same time by a given observer,

Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity of the
events. The latter has physical meaning.

> we
> imagine two observers O and O', one terrestrial, the other cosmic, which
> intersect in a moment of their evolution. Their watches are then triggered
> t '= t = 0.
>
> In the terrestrial frame of reference R, we then observe two simultaneous
> cosmic events E1 and E2, the coordinates of which are given according to
> the system (x, y, z, To, t).
> Let E1 = (12,9,0,-15,0)
> and E2 = (18.24.0,-30.0).
>
> In the frame of reference R 'of the rocket which crosses the earth along
> the Ox axis, at this moment, what will be the coordinates of the two
> events according to the previous notation system?
>
> R.H.
>
>
>

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

On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 2:46:17 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by the
> set of events which are observed at the same time by a given observer,

But you probably do not understand what that means. So I will state it differently so we may be clear and understand each other.
Given a (inertial) frame, two events are simultaneous if the clocks located at the events indicate the same value.
Note that the word 'Observer' is not needed and should not be used.

> imagine two observers O and O', one terrestrial, the other cosmic,

You mean two inertial frames O & O'.

> which intersect in a moment of their evolution. Their watches are then triggered
> t '= t = 0.

Just say, "in the standard" configuration.
This means that as the Origins coincide, the two clocks coinciding indicate zero.

> In the terrestrial frame of reference R,

OK, frame O. You do not need to also label it "R". One label is enough.

> we then observe two simultaneous cosmic events E1 and E2,

Just say " there are two events". See how much shorter and simpler that is than your sentence?

> the coordinates of which are given according to the system (x, y, z, To, t).
> Let E1 = (12,9,0,-15,0)
> and E2 = (18.24.0,-30.0).

Their coords are E1 = (12,0) , E2 = (18,0).

Meaning that the clock located at x=12 indicates 0 as E1 is produced there, and
that the clock at x=18 indicates 0 as E2 is produced there.

This is what you meant correct?
Because that is what those words/sentences mean in physics. If that is not what you meant, then you are not using the words correctly; you are not using the correct language.

> In the frame of reference R '

You mean frame O'.

> of the rocket which crosses the earth along
> the Ox axis, at this moment, what will be the coordinates of the two
> events according to the previous notation system?

Hint: x' = (x-vt)g, t' = (t-xv/c²)g, where g := gamma factor.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> The notion of simultaneity of observation

Einstein used it in his thought experiment, but simultaneity in special
relativity is actually not based on observation, but geometry.

> being defined physically by the set of events which are observed at the
> same time by a given observer, we imagine two observers O and O', one
> terrestrial, the other cosmic, which intersect in a moment of their
> evolution. Their watches are then triggered t '= t = 0.

Like a chicken with its head chopped off¹, you are still running blindly in
circles. How sad.

PointedEars
___________
¹ I am a vegetarian and usually avoid such metaphors, but couldn’t think
of something more appropriate to the situation. My apologies to all
chickens.
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 2:46:17 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by the
>> set of events which are observed at the same time by a given observer,
>
> But you probably do not understand what that means. So I will state it
> differently so we may be clear and understand each other.
> Given a (inertial) frame, two events are simultaneous if the clocks
> located at the events indicate the same value.

Synchronized and mutually at rest clocks.

> Note that the word 'Observer' is not needed and should not be used.
>
>> imagine two observers O and O', one terrestrial, the other cosmic,
>
> You mean two inertial frames O & O'.
>
>> which intersect in a moment of their evolution. Their watches are then triggered
>> t '= t = 0.
>
> Just say, "in the standard" configuration.
> This means that as the Origins coincide, the two clocks coinciding indicate zero.
>
>> In the terrestrial frame of reference R,
>
> OK, frame O. You do not need to also label it "R". One label is enough.
>
>> we then observe two simultaneous cosmic events E1 and E2,
>
> Just say " there are two events". See how much shorter and simpler that
> is than your sentence?
>
>> the coordinates of which are given according to the system (x, y, z, To, t).
>> Let E1 = (12,9,0,-15,0)
>> and E2 = (18.24.0,-30.0).
>
> Their coords are E1 = (12,0) , E2 = (18,0).
>
> Meaning that the clock located at x=12 indicates 0 as E1 is produced there, and
> that the clock at x=18 indicates 0 as E2 is produced there.
>
> This is what you meant correct?
> Because that is what those words/sentences mean in physics. If that is
> not what you meant, then you are not using the words correctly; you are
> not using the correct language.
>
>> In the frame of reference R '
>
> You mean frame O'.
>
>> of the rocket which crosses the earth along
>> the Ox axis, at this moment, what will be the coordinates of the two
>> events according to the previous notation system?
>
> Hint: x' = (x-vt)g, t' = (t-xv/c²)g, where g := gamma factor.
>

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

On Tuesday, 28 December 2021 at 21:44:33 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > The notion of simultaneity of observation
> Einstein used it in his thought experiment, but simultaneity in special
> relativity is actually not based on observation, but geometry.

Sure, your idiocies have nothing in common with any observations,
they're a consequence of your idiotic axioms.
And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

Le 28/12/2021 à 21:15, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by the
>> set of events which are observed at the same time by a given observer,
>
> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity of the
> events. The latter has physical meaning.

You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball enters
the goal?

R.H.

On Tuesday, 28 December 2021 at 21:56:21 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 2:46:17 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by the
> >> set of events which are observed at the same time by a given observer,
> >
> > But you probably do not understand what that means. So I will state it
> > differently so we may be clear and understand each other.
> > Given a (inertial) frame, two events are simultaneous if the clocks
> > located at the events indicate the same value.
> Synchronized and mutually at rest clocks.

An idiotic demand of a poor insane crazie; no real
timekeeping system has ever treated it seriously.

Le 28/12/2021 à 21:44, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> The notion of simultaneity of observation
>
> Einstein used it in his thought experiment, but simultaneity in special
> relativity is actually not based on observation, but geometry.

Yes it's true.

Physicists base their relativity on their geometry and I on mine.
Everyone does what they want.
With me, for a given observer, the observation is simultaneous with the
emission.
By that I mean, really simultaneous.
It is therefore normal that my rating system is a little different.
Moreover, my system is not at all contradictory or false, with respect to
logic. The first three coordinates are the same, the fourth is the local
time as people use it, and the fifth the time when the observer perceives
the phenomenon.
Nothing very dramatic, nothing very incomprehensible.

Let me use that I want.

R.H.

Le 28/12/2021 à 21:41, rotchm a écrit :
> On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 2:46:17 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by the
>> set of events which are observed at the same time by a given observer,
>
> But you probably do not understand what that means. So I will state it
> differently so we may be clear and understand each other.
> Given a (inertial) frame, two events are simultaneous if the clocks located at
> the events indicate the same value.
> Note that the word 'Observer' is not needed and should not be used.
>
>> imagine two observers O and O', one terrestrial, the other cosmic,
>
> You mean two inertial frames O & O'.
>
>> which intersect in a moment of their evolution. Their watches are then
>> triggered
>> t '= t = 0.
>
> Just say, "in the standard" configuration.
> This means that as the Origins coincide, the two clocks coinciding indicate
> zero.
>
>> In the terrestrial frame of reference R,
>
> OK, frame O. You do not need to also label it "R". One label is enough.
>
>> we then observe two simultaneous cosmic events E1 and E2,
>
> Just say " there are two events". See how much shorter and simpler that is than
> your sentence?
>
>> the coordinates of which are given according to the system (x, y, z, To, t).
>> Let E1 = (12,9,0,-15,0)
>> and E2 = (18.24.0,-30.0).
>
> Their coords are E1 = (12,0) , E2 = (18,0).
>
> Meaning that the clock located at x=12 indicates 0 as E1 is produced there, and
> that the clock at x=18 indicates 0 as E2 is produced there.

I don't do it that way. At home, the y and z coordinates are not
independent.

They are invariable for themselves.

But they are not independent from the others (temporal coordinates).

I'm ABSOLUTELY not following you on this.

>
> This is what you meant correct?
> Because that is what those words/sentences mean in physics. If that is not what
> you meant, then you are not using the words correctly; you are not using the
> correct language.
>
>> In the frame of reference R '
>
> You mean frame O'.
>
>> of the rocket which crosses the earth along
>> the Ox axis, at this moment, what will be the coordinates of the two
>> events according to the previous notation system?
>
> Hint: x' = (x-vt)g, t' = (t-xv/c²)g, where g := gamma factor.

Can you do an numerical application, please?

Let E1 = (12,9,0,-15,0)
and E2 = (18.24.0,-30.0).

For YOU, what is E1' and E2'?

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 28/12/2021 à 21:44, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> The notion of simultaneity of observation
>>
>> Einstein used it in his thought experiment, but simultaneity in
>> special relativity is actually not based on observation, but geometry.
>
> Yes it's true.
> Physicists base their relativity on their geometry and I on mine.
> Everyone does what they want.
> With me, for a given observer, the observation is simultaneous with the
> emission.
> By that I mean, really simultaneous.
> It is therefore normal that my rating system is a little different.
> Moreover, my system is not at all contradictory or false, with respect
> to logic. The first three coordinates are the same, the fourth is the
> local time as people use it, and the fifth the time when the observer
> perceives the phenomenon.
> Nothing very dramatic, nothing very incomprehensible.
>
> Let me use that I want.

Nobody forbid you to use anything you want Richard (not like in
medicine). Thomas is NOT forbidding anything to you. YOU are the
one who express forbidding something to him.

Don't pretend to shut down people who 1) understand what you idea
is and 2) understand and can explain why it's a dead end.

On 12/28/21 1:46 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by
> the set of events which are observed at the same time by a given
> observer,

This is a major part of your confusion.

Simultaneity at different points in space can only be defined relative
to a coordinate system, not a single observer. In SR, we naturally use
the coordinates of the inertial frame in which a given observer is at rest.

> [...] Let E1 = (12,9,0,-15,0)

Your attempt to use five coordinates is hopeless -- in SR spacetime has
four dimensions, so only four coordinates can be used. Your five cannot
possibly be a valid coordinate system on spacetime.

You REALLY need to learn the basics. Essentially everything you write is
nonsense.

[I'll now resume treating your posts with the disdain they deserve, as
it's clear you are not serious.]

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, 28 December 2021 at 22:26:50 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> > Le 28/12/2021 à 21:44, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> >> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>
> >>> The notion of simultaneity of observation
> >>
> >> Einstein used it in his thought experiment, but simultaneity in
> >> special relativity is actually not based on observation, but geometry.
> >
> > Yes it's true.
> > Physicists base their relativity on their geometry and I on mine.
> > Everyone does what they want.
> > With me, for a given observer, the observation is simultaneous with the
> > emission.
> > By that I mean, really simultaneous.
> > It is therefore normal that my rating system is a little different.
> > Moreover, my system is not at all contradictory or false, with respect
> > to logic. The first three coordinates are the same, the fourth is the
> > local time as people use it, and the fifth the time when the observer
> > perceives the phenomenon.
> > Nothing very dramatic, nothing very incomprehensible.
> >
> > Let me use that I want.
> Nobody forbid you to use anything you want Richard

Nonononono, nobody is. It's just that if you won't obey
The Shit and its insane gurus - relativistic stinkers
like Python will hurl tons of insults, lies and slanders on
you. The Shit knows how to train its doggies.

On Tuesday, 28 December 2021 at 22:40:57 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/28/21 1:46 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by
> > the set of events which are observed at the same time by a given
> > observer,
> This is a major part of your confusion.
>
> Simultaneity at different points in space can only be defined relative
> to a coordinate system, not a single observer. In SR, we naturally use
> the coordinates of the inertial frame in which a given observer is at rest.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 December 2021 at 22:26:50 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>> Le 28/12/2021 à 21:44, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The notion of simultaneity of observation
>>>>
>>>> Einstein used it in his thought experiment, but simultaneity in
>>>> special relativity is actually not based on observation, but geometry.
>>>
>>> Yes it's true.
>>> Physicists base their relativity on their geometry and I on mine.
>>> Everyone does what they want.
>>> With me, for a given observer, the observation is simultaneous with the
>>> emission.
>>> By that I mean, really simultaneous.
>>> It is therefore normal that my rating system is a little different.
>>> Moreover, my system is not at all contradictory or false, with respect
>>> to logic. The first three coordinates are the same, the fourth is the
>>> local time as people use it, and the fifth the time when the observer
>>> perceives the phenomenon.
>>> Nothing very dramatic, nothing very incomprehensible.
>>>
>>> Let me use that I want.
>> Nobody forbid you to use anything you want Richard
>
> Nonononono, nobody is. It's just that if you won't obey
> The Shit and its insane gurus - relativistic stinkers
> like Python will hurl tons of insults, lies and slanders on
> you. The Shit knows how to train its doggies.

Dishonest idiots complaining to be called dishonest idiots. You
are in a good company Maciej.

On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 3:56:21 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Synchronized and mutually at rest clocks.

Yes, that was implicit. Then again, I don't expect him to have realize that.

On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 4:20:53 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 28/12/2021 à 21:41, rotchm a écrit :

> > You mean two inertial frames O & O'.

No answer?
So you purposely want to be unclear?

> >> which intersect in a moment of their evolution. Their watches are then
> >> triggered
> >> t '= t = 0.
> >
> > Just say, "in the standard" configuration.
> > This means that as the Origins coincide, the two clocks coinciding indicate
> > zero.

No comment or clarification? So will you agree?

> >> Let E1 = (12,9,0,-15,0)
> >> and E2 = (18.24.0,-30.0).
> >
> > Their coords are E1 = (12,0) , E2 = (18,0).
> >
> > Meaning that the clock located at x=12 indicates 0 as E1 is produced there, and
> > that the clock at x=18 indicates 0 as E2 is produced there.

> I don't do it that way.

But you should since it makes it much clearer and simpler.

> At home, the y and z coordinates are not independent.
> They are invariable for themselves.
> But they are not independent from the others (temporal coordinates).

All irrelevant to the discussion. No y nor z. KEEP IT SIMPLE AND CLEAR.
Do not include any irrelevant components.

> >> In the frame of reference R '
> >
> > You mean frame O'.

No answer?

> > Hint: x' = (x-vt)g, t' = (t-xv/c²)g, where g := gamma factor..
> Can you do an numerical application, please?

Are you saying that you cannot apply the above hint I gave to you?

> Let E1 = (12,9,0,-15,0)
> and E2 = (18.24.0,-30.0).
> For YOU, what is E1' and E2'?

You mean E1 = (12,0) , E2 = (18,0), right?
Because, the other components are irrelevant to the problem.

rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 3:56:21 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Synchronized and mutually at rest clocks.
>
> Yes, that was implicit. Then again, I don't expect him to have realize that.

Have you noticed that quite a few cranks have exactly the same problem
about understanding part I.1 ("Definition of Simultaneity") or staying
unwilling to even read it properly? To name a few down here: Wozniak,
Heger, "Hachel"...

On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 6:16:48 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:

> Have you noticed that quite a few cranks have exactly the same problem
> about understanding part I.1 ("Definition of Simultaneity") or staying
> unwilling to even read it properly? To name a few down here: Wozniak,
> Heger, "Hachel"...

Yes, the cranks refuse to read, recite, adhere to definitions.
They hear a word used by 'smart' people, they then invent a meaning for it and use it
ad nauseum w/o actually knowing its meaning. When we ask them what it means, they
refuse to answer or chicken away.

rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 6:16:48 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>
>> Have you noticed that quite a few cranks have exactly the same problem
>> about understanding part I.1 ("Definition of Simultaneity") or staying
>> unwilling to even read it properly? To name a few down here: Wozniak,
>> Heger, "Hachel"...
>
> Yes, the cranks refuse to read, recite, adhere to definitions.
> They hear a word used by 'smart' people, they then invent a meaning for it and use it
> ad nauseum w/o actually knowing its meaning. When we ask them what it means, they
> refuse to answer or chicken away.
>

It’s a shame. So many of them are hoping to learn things on Usenet and
never bother to read the same materials that informed the others here.

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 28/12/2021 à 21:15, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by the
>>> set of events which are observed at the same time by a given observer,
>>
>> Simultaneity of observation is not at all the same as simultaneity of the
>> events. The latter has physical meaning.
>
> You are not going to want to explain to me that the moment when the
> player hits his penalty is not the same as the moment when the ball enters
> the goal?
>
> R.H.
>

If the penalty is scored the moment the ball passes the line, that is not
the same time the player perceives it or claims his victory. An event is
separate from the perception of it some distance away.

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

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 28/12/2021 à 21:44, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> The notion of simultaneity of observation
>>
>> Einstein used it in his thought experiment, but simultaneity in special
>> relativity is actually not based on observation, but geometry.
>
> Yes it's true.
>
> Physicists base their relativity on their geometry and I on mine.
> Everyone does what they want.
> With me, for a given observer, the observation is simultaneous with the
> emission.
> By that I mean, really simultaneous.
> It is therefore normal that my rating system is a little different.
> Moreover, my system is not at all contradictory or false, with respect to
> logic. The first three coordinates are the same, the fourth is the local
> time as people use it, and the fifth the time when the observer perceives
> the phenomenon.
> Nothing very dramatic, nothing very incomprehensible.
>
> Let me use that I want.

That’s fine. Use what you want. But you’ve been urging others to use yours
too when it adds no value to anyone but you. Other people have read
relativity books that you have not, and they’re fine with relativity as
physicists have explained it. You choose not to use those resources, so
it’s no wonder that you don’t understand why they use what they do.

>
> R.H.
>

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

On 12/28/2021 2:46 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> The notion of simultaneity of observation being defined physically by
> the set of events which are observed at the same time by a given
> observer, we imagine two observers O and O', one terrestrial, the other
> cosmic, which intersect in a moment of their evolution. Their watches
> are then triggered t '= t = 0.
>
> In the terrestrial frame of reference R, we then observe two
> simultaneous cosmic events E1 and E2, the coordinates of which are given
> according to the system (x, y, z, To, t).
> Let E1 = (12,9,0,-15,0)
> and E2 = (18.24.0,-30.0).
>
> In the frame of reference R 'of the rocket which crosses the earth along
> the Ox axis, at this moment, what will be the coordinates of the two
> events according to the previous notation system?
>
So many nonstandard terms used here. Others have comment on weirdnesses
like "terrestrial/cosmic", R/R' vs. O/O' and whatever "simultaneous"
events E1 and E2 is supposed to mean. (Simultaneous to a certain
observer at a certain location? Which?)

Anyway, Richard has his bizarro 5 figure notation. I thought I had that
figured it out, to convert to normal notation, simply discard Richard's
"t"/5th position variable and rename his "To"/4th position to the
standard "t". But he starts with his "t" set to 0 and "To" to negative
numbers pulled from an unknown orifice, not 0 as normally done (when
x=x'=0, set t=t'=0). So not worth trying to decrypt this notation into
standard notation. I'm sure Richard will declare victory from that somehow.

On Tuesday, 28 December 2021 at 22:48:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 28 December 2021 at 22:26:50 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >>> Le 28/12/2021 à 21:44, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> >>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The notion of simultaneity of observation
> >>>>
> >>>> Einstein used it in his thought experiment, but simultaneity in
> >>>> special relativity is actually not based on observation, but geometry.
> >>>
> >>> Yes it's true.
> >>> Physicists base their relativity on their geometry and I on mine.
> >>> Everyone does what they want.
> >>> With me, for a given observer, the observation is simultaneous with the
> >>> emission.
> >>> By that I mean, really simultaneous.
> >>> It is therefore normal that my rating system is a little different.
> >>> Moreover, my system is not at all contradictory or false, with respect
> >>> to logic. The first three coordinates are the same, the fourth is the
> >>> local time as people use it, and the fifth the time when the observer
> >>> perceives the phenomenon.
> >>> Nothing very dramatic, nothing very incomprehensible.
> >>>
> >>> Let me use that I want.
> >> Nobody forbid you to use anything you want Richard
> >
> > Nonononono, nobody is. It's just that if you won't obey
> > The Shit and its insane gurus - relativistic stinkers
> > like Python will hurl tons of insults, lies and slanders on
> > you. The Shit knows how to train its doggies.
> Dishonest idiots complaining to be called dishonest idiots.

Surely you are; that's why you react with lies
and slanders.

On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 00:16:48 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> rotchm wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 3:56:21 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Synchronized and mutually at rest clocks.
> >
> > Yes, that was implicit. Then again, I don't expect him to have realize that.
> Have you noticed that quite a few cranks have exactly the same problem
> about understanding part I.1 ("Definition of Simultaneity") or staying
> unwilling to even read it properly? To name a few down here:

Python,. Moroney, Bodkin , Rotchm, Roberts... Anyway, an idiotic
demand, never treaten seriously by any real timekeeping system.