In another conservation (i've reached my limit of replies) Townes has claimed that its Logically possible to prove that the times shown on two rows of clocks, each moving relative to the other, can at least mathematically be shown to lose synchronicity.

This is a debate between him and I.
So I wont repeat this claims, but here is my reply. to his last message.

I'm struggling to explain to YOU, why you are mixing up two totally different things and thus coming up with the wrong conclusion.
Normal people can understand, just not you.

The values you call 0, a, 2a and 0 , -a, -2a are LOCATIONS on a plotted chart.
They do not represent TIMES showing on clocks that may be located at those locations, a, 2a etc.
You conflate TIMES on clocks faces, with LOCATIONS on an axis on a graph.

Is this too much for you to grasp?

At any point on that plot, whether is at location 0, or a, or 2a, or -2a or -2a+b,,, any clock measuring Time could care less about that location on your plot.

Time will continue to show the same on all those clocks, regardless of where you move them.
A graph, a plot as you describe could just be showing number sequences, but you have already set it to indicate LOCATIONS, so 2a is a LOCATION, not a TIME increment.
Time periods do not depend on where you move your watch to.
So no, you have not ever once proven that "their times exhibit the relation that you thought was logically impossible".

I stand by my original statement, that its logically and rationally impossible that time on clocks could change with relative motion, or even that this idea could be shown with maths alone as a matter of logic.

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 5:42:27 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> Townes has claimed that its Logically possible to prove that the times shown on
> two rows of clocks, each moving relative to the other, can at least mathematically
> be shown to lose synchronicity.

No, that is totally garbled. Sheesh. Once again (please try to concentrate), you claimed that it is logically impossible to have two rows of standard clocks, moving past each other, and synchronized such that the elapsed time on each clock between passing two consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference between the times on those two clocks as it passes them. To disprove your claim, I exhibited the readings on two rows of clocks that show the stated relations. This is a concrete realization of the reciprocal time dilation of special relativity, and your denial of special relativity was based on your (now disproven) belief that it was logically impossible. So that's settled.

Now, your brain keeps trying to inject into the discussion the idea of "losing synchronicity", as if you imagine that separate clocks somehow magically become inertially synchronized, all on their own. That is crazy. I explained how we inertially synchronize mutually resting clocks, remember? Start with a bunch of identically-constructed clocks and arrange them in a row and set them in motion, and then synchronize them. How do we synchronize them? Well, there are infinitely many possible ways, but we want to inertially synchronize them, so the clocks match an inertia-based coordinate system in which Newton's equations hold good in the low speed limit. One way is to shoot identical bullets from identical guns resting at the midpoint between two clocks. By repeating this process, we can synchronize the whole row of clocks. We can use the same method to synchronize the other row.

The result is the skewed synchronization that I described with that diagram, showing that inertial simultaneity is relative. I've already explained to you (several times) why this happens: We're using inertia to synchronize the clocks, but inertia is relative, because energy has inertia, so simultaneity is necessarily also relative. These are just words, because you are not good at math, but purely from knowing that energy E has inertia E/c^2 an intelligent person can predict precisely how much the simultaneity will be skewed for any given relative speed, and sure enough, it is confirmed.

> The values you call 0, a, 2a and 0 , -a, -2a are LOCATIONS on a plotted chart.

No, those denote the times shown on the clocks at those passing events. Until you understand that, you'll have no comprehension at all of what is being described.

> So no, you have not ever once proven that "their times exhibit the relation
> that you thought was logically impossible".

Of course I have... Just look at the diagram. Those quantities denote the times showing on the clocks at those events. If you concentrate you can understand this.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 2:59:39 PM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 5:42:27 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Townes has claimed that its Logically possible to prove that the times shown on
> > two rows of clocks, each moving relative to the other, can at least mathematically
> > be shown to lose synchronicity.
> No, that is totally garbled. Sheesh. Once again (please try to concentrate), you claimed that it is logically impossible to have two rows of standard clocks, moving past each other, and synchronized such that the elapsed time on each clock between passing two consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the difference between the times on those two clocks as it passes them. To disprove your claim, I exhibited the readings on two rows of clocks that show the stated relations. This is a concrete realization of the reciprocal time dilation of special relativity, and your denial of special relativity was based on your (now disproven) belief that it was logically impossible. So that's settled.
>
> Now, your brain keeps trying to inject into the discussion the idea of "losing synchronicity", as if you imagine that separate clocks somehow magically become inertially synchronized, all on their own. That is crazy. I explained how we inertially synchronize mutually resting clocks, remember? Start with a bunch of identically-constructed clocks and arrange them in a row and set them in motion, and then synchronize them. How do we synchronize them? Well, there are infinitely many possible ways, but we want to inertially synchronize them, so the clocks match an inertia-based coordinate system in which Newton's equations hold good in the low speed limit. One way is to shoot identical bullets from identical guns resting at the midpoint between two clocks. By repeating this process, we can synchronize the whole row of clocks. We can use the same method to synchronize the other row.
>
> The result is the skewed synchronization that I described with that diagram, showing that inertial simultaneity is relative. I've already explained to you (several times) why this happens: We're using inertia to synchronize the clocks, but inertia is relative, because energy has inertia, so simultaneity is necessarily also relative. These are just words, because you are not good at math, but purely from knowing that energy E has inertia E/c^2 an intelligent person can predict precisely how much the simultaneity will be skewed for any given relative speed, and sure enough, it is confirmed.
> > The values you call 0, a, 2a and 0 , -a, -2a are LOCATIONS on a plotted chart.
> No, those denote the times shown on the clocks at those passing events. Until you understand that, you'll have no comprehension at all of what is being described.
> > So no, you have not ever once proven that "their times exhibit the relation
> > that you thought was logically impossible".
> Of course I have... Just look at the diagram. Those quantities denote the times showing on the clocks at those events. If you concentrate you can understand this.

No you are hopelessly incorrect.
The video shows exactly what will happen, and you can try it with a bunch of clocks, you will find that no change occurs other than the universal increments of all clocks is synchronised still.
..You number sequence has zero relationship with clocks, or timekeeping, despite how loudly you claim it is.

The two rows of clock, lets give them actual real time values, and as the are stopwatches, we start them all that the same moment.
We don't need endless number of clocks in each row, 3 is fine. Synchronisation is not an issue.
So in both rows of 3 clocks all clocks show zero, then we start the motion of both rows, one in one direction the other in the opposite direction.
So in the first instant the clocks look like this:
000
000
Then in say one time unit, they are again coincident with the next clock.
so we then have:
111
111
then after another increment of time we get:
222
222

then:
333
333
and so on.

No matter how fast or how far, the clocks are still synchronised.
Your stupid math is not in any way representative of the experiment you describe. It's math but nothing to do with this experiment as you describe it..

Plus I have the trump card, because its very easy to do this experiment in your kitchen with 6 cheap stopwatches.
You will find that the experiment agrees with my version of Physics not yours.
And you know the old saying, "If it doesn't agree with experiment, then its wrong".
YOU ARE WRONG.

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 9:36:51 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> Your number sequence has zero relationship with clocks, or timekeeping,
> despite how loudly you claim it is.

Not true, I've explicit described the readings on two rows of clocks as they pass each other, exhibiting the skew of inertial simultaneity and the reciprocal time dilation of special relativity.

> The two rows of clock, lets give them actual real time values, and as the are
> stopwatches, we start them all that the same moment.

But you've agreed that "at the same moment" means when the identical bullets from identical guns arrive from the mid point. The yields the skewed simultaneity, because of the inertia of energy, as explained previously.

> Synchronisation is not an issue.

That could not be further from the truth. Synchronization is *the* entire issue, it's the thing you are missing, the relativity of simultaneity due to the inertia of energy that distinguishes special relativity from Galilean relativity. Until/unless you understand the relativity of simultaneity, you can never understand special (let alone general) relativity.

> So in the first instant the clocks look like this:
> 000
> 000

Nope, they look like this:

....12345678... <-
....87654321... ->

Notice that a rightward clock reading 8 is passing the leftward clock reading 1. Then on the next alignment they look like this:

....23456789*........ <-
....*98765432....... ->

You see, the rightward clock that was reading 8 before has moved one step to the right and is reading 9, and the leftward clock that had been reading 2 has moved one step to the left and is reading 3. So, the rightward clock reading increased from 8 to 9 (one unit of time) and the difference between the readings of the clocks that it passes in the leftward row is 3-1 = 2 units of time. So that clock is running at half the rate of the time kept by the other row. And this is reciprocal for all the clocks in both rows..

> Its very easy to do this experiment in your kitchen with 6 cheap stopwatches.

Nope, if you figure out the skew of simultaneity due to moving your stop watches at, say, 300 meters/sec (660 mph) in your kitchen, you will find that it is 0.000000000000003 seconds per meter. When you claim to be able to measure this easily in your kitchen, you are, of course, lying. Fortunately experiments to test for this have actually been performed, and invariably they find results consistent with the relativistic predictions. But at least we've made progress, because you had been claiming that it was logically impossible, and now that's been exploded, so you are reduced to just lying about experiments that you have not performed, and denying experiments that have been performed.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:19:49 PM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 9:36:51 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Your number sequence has zero relationship with clocks, or timekeeping,
> > despite how loudly you claim it is.
> Not true, I've explicit described the readings on two rows of clocks as they pass each other, exhibiting the skew of inertial simultaneity and the reciprocal time dilation of special relativity.
> > The two rows of clock, lets give them actual real time values, and as the are
> > stopwatches, we start them all that the same moment.
> But you've agreed that "at the same moment" means when the identical bullets from identical guns arrive from the mid point. The yields the skewed simultaneity, because of the inertia of energy, as explained previously.
> > Synchronisation is not an issue.
> That could not be further from the truth. Synchronization is *the* entire issue, it's the thing you are missing, the relativity of simultaneity due to the inertia of energy that distinguishes special relativity from Galilean relativity. Until/unless you understand the relativity of simultaneity, you can never understand special (let alone general) relativity.
> > So in the first instant the clocks look like this:
> > 000
> > 000
> Nope, they look like this:
>
> ...12345678... <-
> ...87654321... ->
>
> Notice that a rightward clock reading 8 is passing the leftward clock reading 1. Then on the next alignment they look like this:
>
> ...23456789*........ <-
> ...*98765432....... ->
>
> You see, the rightward clock that was reading 8 before has moved one step to the right and is reading 9, and the leftward clock that had been reading 2 has moved one step to the left and is reading 3. So, the rightward clock reading increased from 8 to 9 (one unit of time) and the difference between the readings of the clocks that it passes in the leftward row is 3-1 = 2 units of time. So that clock is running at half the rate of the time kept by the other row. And this is reciprocal for all the clocks in both rows.
>
> > Its very easy to do this experiment in your kitchen with 6 cheap stopwatches.
>
> Nope, if you figure out the skew of simultaneity due to moving your stop watches at, say, 300 meters/sec (660 mph) in your kitchen, you will find that it is 0.000000000000003 seconds per meter. When you claim to be able to measure this easily in your kitchen, you are, of course, lying. Fortunately experiments to test for this have actually been performed, and invariably they find results consistent with the relativistic predictions. But at least we've made progress, because you had been claiming that it was logically impossible, and now that's been exploded, so you are reduced to just lying about experiments that you have not performed, and denying experiments that have been performed.

You are still an idiot, obsessed with this nonsense.
the clocks don't read,
...12345678... <-
>87654321...

The Should read:

12345678
12345678

then
12345678
...12345678

So your "difference in time" claims, gets all stuffed up, proving that you are wrong.

Well, that's what I might see with two rows of clocks, except why are they all not showing the SAME time?
Reality says they will read
111111
111111

The 2222
.........2222
And the time difference between clocks now is matching reality, meaning that the clocks remain synchronised.

Why do you imagine you would need to move the clocks at near light speed?
That was not part of your experiment.
You just said, and your mathematics confirmed that you just simply incremented the clocks at their usual rate of say 1 second, and then there was the time that the clocks also took to move from one location to the next, when two clocks were side by side again. I allowed one second for this too. Remember 2a+b, where b was the time it took to go one unit of distance? There is no mention here in your experiment about specifying any velocity.

So there is no need to move any clocks at near light speed to test your claim in this experiment. You never had any velocity in that math. All you had was steadily incrementing clocks, and some period between when they aligned with the next clock.

So you are full of shit, as far as can be determined.

And STILL those videos I linked to, explain perfectly well what gong to happen, with clocks, even bullets as seen from all possible coordinate systems..
You cant fault those videos, and just saying that they are rubbish, dont watch them, does not work on me. I expect a full rebuttal that I can take a critical look at.

Le 09/02/2022 à 04:59, Townes Olson a écrit :
> No, that is totally garbled. Sheesh. Once again (please try to concentrate),
> you claimed that it is logically impossible to have two rows of standard clocks,
> moving past each other, and synchronized such that the elapsed time on each clock
> between passing two consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the
> difference between the times on those two clocks as it passes them. To disprove
> your claim, I exhibited the readings on two rows of clocks that show the stated
> relations. This is a concrete realization of the reciprocal time dilation of
> special relativity, and your denial of special relativity was based on your (now
> disproven) belief that it was logically impossible. So that's settled.
>
> Now, your brain keeps trying to inject into the discussion the idea of "losing
> synchronicity", as if you imagine that separate clocks somehow magically become
> inertially synchronized, all on their own. That is crazy. I explained how we
> inertially synchronize mutually resting clocks, remember? Start with a bunch of
> identically-constructed clocks and arrange them in a row and set them in motion,
> and then synchronize them. How do we synchronize them? Well, there are
> infinitely many possible ways, but we want to inertially synchronize them, so the
> clocks match an inertia-based coordinate system in which Newton's equations hold
> good in the low speed limit. One way is to shoot identical bullets from identical
> guns resting at the midpoint between two clocks. By repeating this process, we
> can synchronize the whole row of clocks. We can use the same method to
> synchronize the other row.
>
> The result is the skewed synchronization that I described with that diagram,
> showing that inertial simultaneity is relative. I've already explained to you
> (several times) why this happens: We're using inertia to synchronize the clocks,
> but inertia is relative, because energy has inertia, so simultaneity is
> necessarily also relative. These are just words, because you are not good at
> math, but purely from knowing that energy E has inertia E/c^2 an intelligent
> person can predict precisely how much the simultaneity will be skewed for any
> given relative speed, and sure enough, it is confirmed.
>
>> The values you call 0, a, 2a and 0 , -a, -2a are LOCATIONS on a plotted chart.

What must be understood, in terms of relativity, and this is the primum
movens to understand, (otherwise, you must give up immediately, do not try
to understand, and learn all the equations by heart without understanding
them to the day of the exam.
This is what all the students in the world do. Not a single one in the
world understands how a "Langevin" takes place in reality, but everyone is
clever because he has learned the equation by heart); what must be clearly
understood, I was saying, is that the notion of simultaneity, contrary to
an answered idea, does not exist, and even and above all in the same
inertial frame of reference.
A prime example is solar clocks. We can place one in Moscow, another in
Berlin, and a third in Paris.
Then yet another in Los Angeles.
If we set them all to noon, when it is noon in Moscow, all the others will
be desynchronized.
We can say to the inhabitant of Los Angeles that it is noon when it is
noon in Moscow, but it will be funny to him to know that it is noon in the
middle of the night.

That's kind of how you have to see things.

We can, as Jean-Pierre Messager absolutely wants to do, synchronize the
watches since the nice Einstein proposed it.

But we will always have bogus synchronization.

That mug on the table and that ashtray on the mantelpiece will NEVER
absolutely coexist together.

At best of a desired synchronization perfect, but abstract (in the sense
"which is not of our world"), each of the two objects will always advance
on the other and reciprocally by an incomprehensible time of 10
nanoseconds every three meters.

This is called spatial anisochrony.

Another phenomenon will then be added to the first if the watches are
moved very quickly: the chronotropy will mutually appear to beat less
quickly on the other watch.

And to a first degree effect (anisochrony) will be added this time a
second degree effect between the objects (dyschronotropy).

There is no more than a simple loss of the notion of simultaneity, and
time lag, but moreover, a loss of the notion of chronotropy (the hands
turn at different speeds).

R.H.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 12:10:54 AM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> the clocks don't read,
> ..12345678... <-
> 87654321... ->

Yes they do (up to arbitrary constants that don't affect the skew), given that each row is moving at speed c/sqrt(3) in opposite directions in terms of S. This is an empirical fact. Remember, the original basis of your denial was your belief that it was logically impossible, but now that you see it isn't logically impossible, you have no basis for denying the empirical facts.

> The Should read:

"Should"? Your preference for how nature "should" work is irrelevant.

> Why do you imagine you would need to move the clocks at near light speed?

The amount of skew and time dilation depends on the relative speeds. The case depicted above is for v = c/sqrt(3). This is just Relativity 101.

> There is no mention here in your experiment about specifying any velocity..

As stated all along, each clock moving relative to the other at speed u runs slow by the factor sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other is at rest. The purpose of the simple illustration was to give a simple example to show you qualitatively that this reciprocal relation between two rows of clocks is not logically impossible (as you had claimed). Now that you understand qualitatively how it is possible, you can go on to learn precisely how much skew and time dilation there is for any given speeds. That's just Relativity 101.

> I expect a full rebuttal that I can take a critical look at.

I've given a full rebuttal of your erroneous beliefs and claims, and explained how special relativity actually works. (You're welcome.) If you still have questions, go ahead and ask.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 09/02/2022 à 04:59, Townes Olson a écrit :
>> No, that is totally garbled. Sheesh. Once again (please try to concentrate),
>> you claimed that it is logically impossible to have two rows of standard clocks,
>> moving past each other, and synchronized such that the elapsed time on each clock
>> between passing two consecutive clocks of the other row is less than the
>> difference between the times on those two clocks as it passes them. To disprove
>> your claim, I exhibited the readings on two rows of clocks that show the stated
>> relations. This is a concrete realization of the reciprocal time dilation of
>> special relativity, and your denial of special relativity was based on your (now
>> disproven) belief that it was logically impossible. So that's settled.
>>
>> Now, your brain keeps trying to inject into the discussion the idea of "losing
>> synchronicity", as if you imagine that separate clocks somehow magically become
>> inertially synchronized, all on their own. That is crazy. I explained how we
>> inertially synchronize mutually resting clocks, remember? Start with a bunch of
>> identically-constructed clocks and arrange them in a row and set them in motion,
>> and then synchronize them. How do we synchronize them? Well, there are
>> infinitely many possible ways, but we want to inertially synchronize them, so the
>> clocks match an inertia-based coordinate system in which Newton's equations hold
>> good in the low speed limit. One way is to shoot identical bullets from identical
>> guns resting at the midpoint between two clocks. By repeating this process, we
>> can synchronize the whole row of clocks. We can use the same method to
>> synchronize the other row.
>>
>> The result is the skewed synchronization that I described with that diagram,
>> showing that inertial simultaneity is relative. I've already explained to you
>> (several times) why this happens: We're using inertia to synchronize the clocks,
>> but inertia is relative, because energy has inertia, so simultaneity is
>> necessarily also relative. These are just words, because you are not good at
>> math, but purely from knowing that energy E has inertia E/c^2 an intelligent
>> person can predict precisely how much the simultaneity will be skewed for any
>> given relative speed, and sure enough, it is confirmed.
>>
>>> The values you call 0, a, 2a and 0 , -a, -2a are LOCATIONS on a plotted chart.
>
> What must be understood, in terms of relativity, and this is the primum
> movens to understand, (otherwise, you must give up immediately, do not try
> to understand, and learn all the equations by heart without understanding
> them to the day of the exam.
> This is what all the students in the world do. Not a single one in the
> world understands how a "Langevin" takes place in reality, but everyone is
> clever because he has learned the equation by heart);

This is a lie you persist in telling yourself.
“I do not understand the physicists’ presentation of this puzzle, and I am
smarter than most, and so there is no one that can possibly understand it
when I do not. They are all lying and pretending.”

> what must be clearly
> understood, I was saying, is that the notion of simultaneity, contrary to
> an answered idea, does not exist, and even and above all in the same
> inertial frame of reference.
> A prime example is solar clocks. We can place one in Moscow, another in
> Berlin, and a third in Paris.
> Then yet another in Los Angeles.
> If we set them all to noon, when it is noon in Moscow, all the others will
> be desynchronized.
> We can say to the inhabitant of Los Angeles that it is noon when it is
> noon in Moscow, but it will be funny to him to know that it is noon in the
> middle of the night.
>
> That's kind of how you have to see things.
>
> We can, as Jean-Pierre Messager absolutely wants to do, synchronize the
> watches since the nice Einstein proposed it.
>
> But we will always have bogus synchronization.
>
> That mug on the table and that ashtray on the mantelpiece will NEVER
> absolutely coexist together.
>
> At best of a desired synchronization perfect, but abstract (in the sense
> "which is not of our world"), each of the two objects will always advance
> on the other and reciprocally by an incomprehensible time of 10
> nanoseconds every three meters.
>
> This is called spatial anisochrony.
>
> Another phenomenon will then be added to the first if the watches are
> moved very quickly: the chronotropy will mutually appear to beat less
> quickly on the other watch.
>
> And to a first degree effect (anisochrony) will be added this time a
> second degree effect between the objects (dyschronotropy).
>
> There is no more than a simple loss of the notion of simultaneity, and
> time lag, but moreover, a loss of the notion of chronotropy (the hands
> turn at different speeds).
>
>
> R.H.
>

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

On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 15:20:08 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:

The amount of skew and time dilation depends on the relative speeds.

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.

> As stated all along, each clock moving relative to the other at speed u runs slow by the factor sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinates i

A pity that GPS clocks don't know that.

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 8:42:27 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> In another conservation

Here are a few comments are suggestions that might help you understand better.

> .. relative to the other, can at least mathematically be shown to lose synchronicity.

Try to remove the expression " lose synchronicity" from your vocabulary.
It is a useless expression.

Clocks display values. In relativity, all those expressions, all those words just mean the values displayed on the clocks which spacially coincide.

> Time will continue to show the same on all those clocks, regardless of where you move them.

Unnecessary and ambiguous sentence.
Clocks display values. You can select a Clock and note its value.
You can select to moving clocks and as they coincide, note their values.

> Time periods do not depend on where you move your watch to.

Time periods is and unnecessary expression. Try removing it from your vocabulary.
You can select two different values from any clocks you want. You can subtract those two values if it amuses you.

> impossible that time on clocks could change with relative motion,

Clocks indicate values. These values change: if displays/logs noon, it displays/logs 1 p.m...
Two coinciding clocks may display different values. And this is experimentally confirmed.

On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 18:05:05 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 8:42:27 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In another conservation
>
> Here are a few comments are suggestions that might help you understand better.
>
> > .. relative to the other, can at least mathematically be shown to lose synchronicity.
>
> Try to remove the expression " lose synchronicity" from your vocabulary.
> It is a useless expression.
>
> Clocks display values. In relativity, all those expressions, all those words just mean the values displayed on the clocks which spacially coincide.

And in the real world, forbidden by your moronic Shit
TAI keep displaying t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.