Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

The Special condition that makes it all as I described is that these two systems S and S' move with respect to each other with a velocity v.

This condition is irrelevant in Einstein's synchronization procedure of § 1:

tB - tA = t'A - tB

The speed of signal exchange does not enter §1. It could be a pedestrian's speed provided A=>B is the same as B=>A.

It is clear now that you ignore Einstein's synchronization procedure so that you cannot obtain the result of Fig. 2 that contradicts the prediction of the LT in Fig. 3.

Without justification you take Voigt's postulated LT ("da ja sein muss") as a description of reality from which Minkowski derived the monster 'spacetime' with the absurd 'worldlines'. The ensuing fantasy ('unrealistic idea') has attained reality in your mind like in the minds of believers in the Relativity-Gospel. Your "proof" that Fig. 2 is incorrect is tautological: You assume that the LT is correct and derive from this conjecture your drawing that is supposed to "prove" that the LT, i.e. Fig. 3, is correct.This line of argument has a precedent in Einstein's paper: He claims to derive the LT from the postulate c=const and "proves" subsequently - using the very same LT - that c=const.

This discussion could have been considerably shortened, if you had clearly said that you ignore the synchronization procedure of §1, but take the postulated LT as a reality without questioning its foundation.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear Paul,

your Minkowski diagram is a consequence of the Lorentz transformation that was based by Voigt on the premise c=const for all observers. It leads to clocks in system S' that are not synchronized as shown in Fig. 3 in my paper "Einstein's Third Postulate" and confirmed by Hugo Alberto Fernández . This figure is at variance with Fig. 2 that shows clocks which were synchronized with the procedure oulined in § 1 of Einstein's 1905 paper.

You can hardly disprove Einstein's § 1 by simply claiming without proof Voigt's 'LT' in § 3 is correct and, therefore, Fig. 2 must be incorrect although it is in agreement with Einstein's definition of simultaneity in $ 1. You must rather conclude that the postulate c=const must be abandoned along with the untenable LT. Your Minkowski diagram is then pointless.

Regards,

Wolfgang

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

WWE>: your Minkowski diagram is a consequence of the Lorentz transformation that was based by Voigt on the premise c=const for all observers.

Incorrect. My drawing is a time space, t, x, representation within one single reference frame S. It describes what is the result if each observer, in S and S', assumes that the time or light from A to B is equal to the time for light from B to A. That is the basis of the Einstein synchronisation. If that is a correct basis or not is unimportant if you chose to use it to make your case against Einstein.

WWE>: It leads to clocks in system S' that are not synchronized as shown in Fig. 3 in my paper "Einstein's Third Postulate" and confirmed by Hugo Alberto Fernández .

If Hugo Alberto Fernández does not see your problem then you both are on the same, wrong, side. The clocks are synchronised within their reference frame. Your problem is that you postulate a clock time display that is based on a different synchronisation procedure than you proclaim they follow.

WWE>: You can hardly disprove Einstein's § 1 by simply claiming without proof Voigt's 'LT' in § 3 is correct and, therefore, Fig. 2 must be incorrect although it is in agreement with Einstein's definition of simultaneity in $ 1. You must rather conclude that the postulate c=const must be abandoned along with the untenable LT. Your Minkowski diagram is then pointless.

When will you realise that I am not defending Einstein but arguing with you that you use the wrong argumentation arguments to prove your case against Einstein. If SRT is completely wrong, then still you can't prove it wrong by first starting with impossible declarations. My digram shows the result of the synchronisation procedure according to Einstein under the assumption that this procedure is used in your example. It does not assume that that procedure is correct. It only assumes that you used the Einstein Synchronisation Procedure independently in S and S' to present your case. Fig. 2. is incorrect because it is in disagreement with Einsteins's definition of simultaneity.

Our discussion is not about if Einstein is correct or wrong but if Fig.2. is in agreement or in disagreement with the definitions of Einstein. So, to solve that discussion we have to agree about what Einstein did write. We do that. We both agree on the text of Einstein. That does not mean we need to think Einstein was correct. Then we have to see if based on this common ground, Einstein's definition of simultaneity, your Fig.2. represents a valid situation within the definitions of Einstein's SRT. You proclaim that your Fig.2. is correct and I show in my drawing that it is incorrect. You then start to argue that you don't need to study that drawing because it is based on some incorrectness of a theory. It is an ineffective response on the procedure because you fail to have a response on the content.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul,

This is a correct procedure to follow I think, provided that it is followed.

I don't think that anybody denies the fact that a correct prediction of SR is indeed the relativity of simultaneity.

That is a Minkowski diagram, as you declared, and that relies on the coordinate transformations from t to t' which are the LT only in that case.

True that Einstein sync proc relies on the constancy of the speed of light in a round-trip (RADAR at rest) hence in a non accelerating platform it is indisputably correct.

That diagram is based on the constancy of the speed of light one-way which is the postulate of SR.

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

Stefano>: That is a Minkowski diagram, as you declared, and that relies on the coordinate transformations from t to t' which are the LT only in that case.

There is not a single need for a coordinate transformation if you make one single version of a Minkowski diagram. Yes the drawing I show is a version of a Minkowski diagram. But the whole discussion about if the LT is relevant is after we first show what happens within one single frame and then try to transpose that to the view from the other frame. Since I remain within one single reference frame there is no need to use the LT to prove the statement. As long as I remain in the single frame we don't even need to ponder if this diagram is a Minkowski diagram. Any time space diagram we get in school is presented there without calling it Minkowski.

The discussion with W.W. Engelhardt is not about if the LT is correct but if it is possible to synchronise 3 clocks in S and 3 clocks in S' and make them all meet simultaneous in S and have all the clocks those in S and those in S' show at the meeting of their counterpart displace the time t=t'=0. He states that is possible and I state that this is not possible with the Einstein Synchronisation method.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul,

what is t'? is the time of a moving clock in IRF0 where t is the proper time of IRF0. t' is the time which an object, to whom a IRF1 is attached, has while going at speed v in IRF0, so it is another frame.

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

What is t'. I adopted in this discussion the notation as W.W. Engelhardt used it in his article. There we have two reference frames S and S'. All proper times of S are t and all proper times of S' are t'. The way to do the notation doesn't change the principle of the disagreement. I do my best to use his notation to simplify the understanding for him. I thus confirm what you thought it would be.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

exactly, so you represent a relation between the times of two IRFs which is a LT in the Minkowski space-time

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

It is a Lorentz Transformation once I set values to the whole and start to make length conversions. Here I only show that the result of the place where the clocks are at their worldlines when they show the time t=t'=0. From there is a little step towards the LT but not yet there. I see your point. Maybe my understanding of what the LT is differs a but from yours. For me the LT can be extracted from this drawing but is not the basis for this drawing.

Regards

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul,

no, as soon as you put in place another frame of reference which is related to the first in the drawing (intersections) you do a transformation.

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

I have one single frame of reference and intersecting worldlines. In that diagram I describe a procedure of radar synchronisation. There is no need to talk about any other reference frame. We have a group of objects at rest and a group of objects moving with a constant speed. Yes, that group of objects moving can state that they are at rest with respect to each other, but I do not show how the same situation appears from their viewpoint but only from the viewpoint of those that are at rest. If I would have two Minkowski diagrams where I show the whole situation once from the viewpoint of the first group, S, and in the other from the viewpoint of the second group S', then I would have a transformation from one Minkowski diagram to the next Minkowski diagram. Only then we can talk about an LT.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul, dear Stefano,

watching your discussion I observe a number of misunderstandings which stem from the inconsistencies in Einstein's paper. In § 1 he proposes to establish simultaneity by the exchange of signals that take the same time to travel from A to B as from B to A. One could use sound signals provided the clocks do not move relative to the medium, i.e. there is no wind blowing between the clocks. One could use a rotating rod which is at rest relative to the clocks. Einstein takes light which is supposed to travel at the same speed from A to B as from B to A. Note that in 1905 he did not yet introduce an ether, i.e. an ether wind could not be defined.

All these methods (including a postman at constant speed) could be used to achieve the result in Figur 36: All clocks in S show the same time t simultaneously. Synchronization may be established in any other system by the same method, e.g. in S'. All clocks show then the same time which we call t'. If it happens that two times (clock readings) in S and S' coincide, the inevitable consequence arises that all clocks in S and S' show simultaneously the same time. Einstein has chosen such a case in Figur 36 where all clocks in both systems show necessarily t=0=t', since the clock reading at the origins is the same (by convention). I have depicted this situation in Fig. 2 where Einstein had left out two clocks "for the sake of simplicity".

I fully agree with Einstein concerning § 1, but Paul seems to disagree since he denies that the clocks in S' could show t'=0, at least the observers in S could not see this for unknown reasons. Paul does not tell us, what the observers actually see, when they look at a clock in S' next to them and why this should differ from that what the observers in S' see when they look at the very same clock at this moment.

My disagreement is not with Einstein, but with Voigt who postulated the 'Lorentz transformation' for irrational reasons ("da ja sein muss"). Unfortunately Einstein reproduced the LT in § 3, but he did not recognize that it is at variance with § 1. The inconsistent unpalatable soup was called SRT and became the Scripture of the Relativity-Gospel.

For me it remains a mystery why Paul drew the line t=0 horizontal, but the line t'=0 at an angle. As long as he does not explain this with a formula expressing the angle as a function of what? I have no mental access to his drawing.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

WWE>: For me it remains a mystery why Paul drew the line t=0 horizontal, but the line t'=0 at an angle. As long as he does not explain this with a formula expressing the angle as a function of what? I have no mental access to his drawing.

To explain you why I have a slanted line for t'=0 I have to be sure that you have the mental capability to see the lines and all the colours.

1) Do you understand why I draw a slanted line for the worldlines of A', B', and C'?

2) Do you understand why I draw a vertical line for the worldlines of A, B, and C?

3) Do you understand why I draw yellow lines under 45° for the travel of the light?

If you are mentally able to understand these 3 points then you should be able to understand that we have represented a radar synchronisation between A and B with the 45° yellow line leaving A at the lowest time line and reaching B at t=0 and returning at A at the upper time line. Since the world lines of A and B are vertical and the light moves at 45° angle the middle time line is half way between start and return and can be called t=0 for A and B.

In the same way, with the same light speed, we do the same synchronisation for A' and B'. Because now the angle between the worldlines and the light is not 45° we get a different triangle. We still have the 90° angle for the light at the bouncing of the light at B' but the angles with the worldlines are not 45°. Thus the triangle between the start, end and bounce event is different. Thus the line connecting the bouncing point with the middle of the hypotenuse is also not under 45° with the direction of the light path.

If you are mentally able to follow the geometric description then you could see that if we define that A' and A are next to each other when both are at the middle of their time between sending and returning of their synchronisation pulse, that then B' can't be next to B ate their reflection moment.

In my drawing I represent what happens in the reference frame of S. That means that the light moves at the same speed in all directions for S. I then also use that light traveling as seen from S' will not overtake or will not be overtaken by light as seen from S.

Let me know if you mentally were able to follow my descriptions and if you could understand my initial 3 points.

Regards,

Paul Grandewitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

3) Do you understand why I draw yellow lines under 45° for the travel of the light?

No!

Synchronization happened in both systems independently long before t=t'=0. It resulted in a common time t in S, and a common time t' in S'. This means in particular that t'(A')=t'(B')=t'(C') after synchronization. In Fig. 2 I have chosen t'(A')=0 in agreement with Einstein's Figur 36.

I do not understand why your synchronization procedure yields t'(A') ≠ t'(B') ≠ t'(C') in contrast to Einstein's procedure which yields a common time in an inertial system in agreement with his equation tB − tA = t'A− tB provided the signals exchanged between A and B travel at constant speed.

Why don't you give a quantitative formula for the "slanted" angle of the t'=0 line? What is your reading of the additional clocks in Fig. 2? Is it the reading as shown in Fig. 3 which is believed by Hugo Alberto Fernández ? Without a quantitative prediction your theory cannot be applied and put to the test.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

You don't understand why I show the path of light moving along the positive or negative x direction as moving under 45° direction. This means for me that you don't understand the principle of the Minkowski diagrams. I don't say that you agree with SRT. However, you should understand the theory of you try to oppose. Let me explain. The 45° is there because the progress of time along the vertical axis is assumed to be mapped with the same distance for one unit of time as the light moves through space in that same unit of time. There is no need for you to agree this. There is a need to understand it.

WWE>: Synchronization happened in both systems independently long before t=t'=0. It resulted in a common time t in S, and a common time t' in S'. This means in particular that t'(A')=t'(B')=t'(C') after synchronization. In Fig. 2 I have chosen t'(A')=0 in agreement with Einstein's Figur 36.

It seems that you don't understand the Minkowski diagram. Can you agree that whatever happens with light as seen in the moving frame S' has to be the same in the other frame S. So, any observer in S next to A' at the moment A sends of the light for its synchronisation with B' will be assumed to be able to register that event in the timing of S. In the same way any observer next to B' at the moment it bounces the light back to A' can be assumed to be able to register that event in the timing of S. Then there can be assumed another observer in S that can observer the event that the light comes back to A'. The observers in S thus can measure the distance between the sending and returning of the light with respect to A' and based on the assumption that light moves constant in S locate the x position that is halfway between them. They also can measure the time of that location when A' passed that location and see that that event of passing of A' happened halfway in time between the observed sending of the light and returning of the light. With this it is completely possible to describe the process of synchronisation in S' as events observed in S. The graphical representation of what I described here is what I have shown in the diagram that carries the name Minkowski diagram. The two points A' and B' are at rest in S'. Thus the synchronisation procedure done longer ago or around the time that is designated t=0 has to be represented in the Minkowski diagram as only a translation along the worldline direction of A' and B'.

WWE>: I do not understand why your synchronization procedure yields t'(A') ≠ t'(B') ≠ t'(C') in contrast to Einstein's procedure which yields a common time in an inertial system in agreement with his equation tB − tA = t'A− tB provided the signals exchanged between A and B travel at constant speed.

Synchronisation of the locations A', B' and C' in S' will yield that in S' is obtained that t'(A') = t'(B') = t'(C') but that is how it is interpreted in S'. I said that as seen from the reference frame S it can only be agreed that t'(A') = t(A) = t(B) = t(C) and in S' it only can be agreed that t(A)= t'(A') = t'(B') = t'(C'). Maybe you understand this if you realise that any of these terms is a 4 dimensional point in spacetime. Each space point is named here with A, A', B, B', C, C'. A, B, C are at rest with respect to each other but moving with respect to A', B', C'. A', B', C', are at rest with respect to each other but moving with respect to A, B, C. The configuration where all these six locations are with respect to each other in time are events of spacetime.

WWE>: Why don't you give a quantitative formula for the "slanted" angle of the t'=0 line? What is your reading of the additional clocks in Fig. 2? Is it the reading as shown in Fig. 3 which is believed by Hugo Alberto Fernández ? Without a quantitative prediction your theory cannot be applied and put to the test.

The slanted angle is less than 45° from the vertical direction the tangent of this angle represents the velocity of the system S' with respect to S. It is less than the speed of light. Writing this in equations only would lead to the LT. Your Fig.3. also lacks numbers but we see that the time displayed at B' when B' and B are adjacent is less than the time displayed at A' and the time displayed at C' is even double less than the time displayed at A' than the time difference displayed by B' with respect to A' at the moment C' and C are adjacent. All these events of being adjacent the time for A, B, C is displaying the same time. So, Fig.3. would be a possible situation.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

Fig.3. would be a possible situation

Now you confirm Fig. 3 which results from eq.(2) and was also supported by Hugo Alberto Fernández . As I suspected before, the LT was behind your reasoning ("Writing this in equations only would lead to the LT"). Your described synchronization procedure, however, has nothing to do with Einstein's procedure of § 1 that does not depend on any velocity, but requires only equal time periods for the exchange of signals between A=>B and B=>A. Einstein's procedure yields t'(A') = t(A) = t(B) = t(C) = 0 (Figur 36) as well as t(A) = t'(A') = t'(B') = t'(C') = 0 (Fig. 2). You agree to these clock readings as seen by the observers in S and S' who are very close to their clocks. None of these observers would read 0 = t'(A') ≠ t'(B') ≠ t'(C') as predicted by the LT (Fig. 3).

It remains a mystery to me why you insist on readings that are different for observers in S' and S when they look at the very same clock. This does not happen for the observers in A and A' who mutually read t=0=t'. Why should the other adjacent observers of Fig. 3 disagree on the mutual clock reading???

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

The LT is a consequence of the considerations on how to perform the synchronisation. That is why I oppose that the LT is the basis of the synchronisation. The decision to call something synchronous if it fulfils the condition that the Einstein Synchronisation procedure can agree with it, leads to the situation that the result of synchronisation within one reference frame can be transformed into a synchronisation in a different reference frame with the use of the LT. It is also possible to get the same transformation on pure geometric way. One is Geometria the other is Mathematica the implementation into one case then is Arithmetrica.

Since you fail to understand the 4D Spacetime description you fail to understand SRT.

WWE>: Your described synchronization procedure, however, has nothing to do with Einstein's procedure of § 1 that does not depend on any velocity, but requires only equal time periods for the exchange of signals between A=>B and B=>A.

The synchronisation procedure can be done at any speed. That would not lead to any difference in the result. Thus my choice of light also would not lead to any difference. Whatever speed is chosen for the messenger in the moving frame. The resulting Minkowski Diagram can be scaled so that from the stationary frame the messenger speed is represented as a 45° angle line. Then you have the situation that the objects at rest in the moving frame trace their world line under an angle less than 90°. This always will result in a slanted line for simultaneity in the moving frame with respect to a horizontal line for the level of simultaneity in the stationary fame. The synchronisation in the stationary frame is represented by the messenger moving and the objects at rest. Thus we have their worldlines at 90° angle to the horizontal line and the messenger path a triangle with two equal long legs. That this exchange takes equal time is assumed.

WWE>: It remains a mystery to me why you insist on readings that are different for observers in S' and S when they look at the very same clock. This does not happen for the observers in A and A' who mutually read t=0=t'. Why should the other adjacent observers of Fig. 3 disagree on the mutual clock reading???

I state that all observers, those in S and in S' will see the same thing when they are at the same position. Those in S will say that the event that A and A' are together and B and B' are together and C and C' are together happens when t(A)=t(B)=t(C). They all will agree that t(A)=0=t'(A') and t(B)=0>t'(B') and t(C)=0>t'(C'). At the moment t'(C')=0 C' is not next to C but has passed that location. At the moment t'(B')=0 B' is not next to B but has passed that location. That is why in the LT there is not only a transformation for the time but also one for the length. The LT is derived from the consequences of the chosen synchronisation procedure.

WWE>: Einstein's procedure yields t'(A') = t(A) = t(B) = t(C) = 0 (Figur 36) as well as t(A) = t'(A') = t'(B') = t'(C') = 0 (Fig. 2).

Wrong. You either can make the picture as (Figure 36) from Einstein with your first set of events, or you put it upside down and get the second set of events but then you can't have the extra clocks in S at B and C. The figure of Einstein is not a Minkowski diagram. The connection line between A, B, C is not congruent with the connection line between A', B', C'. These two lines have an angle with respect to each other in 4D spacetime. You should read t(A)=0 as the value displayed for the event (xA,yA,zA,tA)=0. That is a point in 4D spacetime. In our situation A and A' are the same event. Thus from the position A there is a level of simultaneity through A, B, C that intersects a level of simultaneity through A', B', C'. All clocks on these lines happen to show the value 0. But since they are not on the same line only one set, in our case A and A', can occupy the same space location.

WWE>: You agree to these clock readings as seen by the observers in S and S' who are very close to their clocks. None of these observers would read 0 = t'(A') ≠ t'(B') ≠ t'(C') as predicted by the LT (Fig. 3).

I disagree with your view. I have been detailed in explaining my difference with you and you ignore it. All observers will agree that 0 = t'(A') ≠ t'(B') ≠ t'(C') when A is next to A' and B is next to B' and C is next to C'. Those in S call those 3 events simultaneous those in S' call those 3 events not simultaneous.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

The LT is a consequence of the considerations on how to perform the synchronisation.

NO! The LT is a consequence of Voigt's unfounded postulate ("da ja sein muss") that the D'Alembert operator should be form-invariant for observers moving in the medium. See:

Article On the Origin of the Lorentz Transformation

I oppose that the LT is the basis of the synchronisation

Who claims this?

Those in S will say that the event that A and A' are together and B and B' are together and C and C' are together happens when t(A)=t(B)=t(C)

Yes.

They all will agree that t(A)=0=t'(A') and t(B)=0>t'(B') and t(C)=0>t'(C')

No. This is obvious nonsense, since there is no other reading available in S' than t'=0 at t=0 in S.

Fig. 2 is in agreement with Poincaré's synchronization as expounded by Einstein in §1, Fig. 3 is in agreement with Voigt's absurd postulate as expounded by Einstein in § 3. A child can see that Fig. 2 is incompatible with Fig. 3.

That's all I have to say. As a genuine relativist believing in red herrings like "spacetime" you will never accept these facts.

Good night!

Wolfgang

Dear Paul,

the time like procedure yes, it does not matter how fast two clocks pass close to eachother and is not at the base of any particular transformation, is universal.

The Einstein sync proc can be done only for clocks in the same rest-frame and is the only one valid "at a distance" no speed is admitted. It is at the base of the Lorentz transformations, when it is not possible to have it (circular motion) the LT are not applicable.

The Tangherlini synch procedure can be performed at a distance and any speed, imagining the space disseminated of clocks at rest an in sync with the Einstein proc.

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

WWE>: NO! The LT is a consequence of Voigt's unfounded postulate ("da ja sein muss") that the D'Alembert operator should be form-invariant for observers moving in the medium. See:

Because we have to have that the speed of light is the same in both directions is the basis of the Einstein Synchronisation procedure as it is used in the SRT. If the first person was Voigt who came up with that or not makes no difference. The name we give to that is to credit the people. Based on the choice we have to conclude that we get relativity of simultaneity and we get that we can get the relation between values in one frame to the values in another frame by the use of the LT.

WWE>: Who claims this?

I claim that. When you choose to use that light moves at the same speed in both directions then the result is that you have to relate the frames with the LT.

WWE>: No. This is obvious nonsense, since there is no other reading available in S' than t'=0 at t=0 in S.

You are talking about S and S' in the way SRT talks about them. That means that in S and S' all values of t and t' are available. We only have to look for what values of t and t' are next to each other in one event within spacetime.

WWE>: Fig. 2 is in agreement with Poincaré's synchronization as expounded by Einstein in §1,

You state that and I have shown you in the drawing at the top of this discussion that you are wrong. You have failed to come with a proof that my drawing is wrong. You only have responded with procedural objections.

WWE>: Fig. 3 is in agreement with Voigt's absurd postulate as expounded by Einstein in § 3. A child can see that Fig. 2 is incompatible with Fig. 3.

Yes, a child can see that Fig.2 and Fig.3. are incompatible. The reason why that is so is because Fig.2. is in violation with the synchronisation procedure you have assumed to be the basis of that figure.

WWE>: That's all I have to say. As a genuine relativist believing in red herrings like "spacetime" you will never accept these facts.

What do you try to get? You make a document to show that SRT is wrong and do that with invalid arguments. Then you refuse to go deeper into the reason why your argument is invalid. You stick on the proclamation that Fig.2. is based on the correct synchronisation procedure and refuse to do that procedure. This means you stand on the same basis as those that argue that earth is flat and then refuse to look at the evidence that proves them wrong. I repeat. You state that Fig.2. is the result of the Synchronisation procedure. However, that Fig.2. is impossible to obtain with that Synchronisation procedure. You might get it with another procedure but then you don't follow the procedure selected by SRT. You refuse to go into further detail.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

Stefano>: The Tangherlini synch procedure can be performed at a distance and any speed, imagining the space disseminated of clocks at rest an in sync with the Einstein proc.

Let us assume we do a Tangherlini sync and then take the way the clocks display their time to show that it is different from the way the clocks show their time with the method of the SRT. Would that difference prove that the SRT is wrong? No. It only shows that we can have different methods of synchronisation. We have even more methods of synchronisation. One other is the one used in GPS. They all can be useful in their application field.

What is the basis of our physical time keeping? That is a repeat in a change. Something changes over time and returns to the same configuration. We now can count that repeat and use that as reference of time. The absolute basis of that is a repeating change within an atom. There we have something related to an orbit. That is a change in spacial configuration over time that returns back on itself. With motion free of acceleration the return on itself of this basic orbital process has components perpendicular to the direction of motion and components parallel to the direction of motion. Those latter are an implementation of the SRT synchronisation procedure. It moves with the assumed same speed from one spacial extreme to the other spacial extreme and back. We know that it didn't move in a straight line, but we assume that both legs of the movement are equal distant and assume took equal time. Yet the result is that the time for one orbit changes with respect to time observed in another system that is moving.

This is why SRT makes sense. The propagation speed of EM phenomena is the speed of light. The SRT results are valid if there is, or is not, an Aether.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

in S and S' all values of t and t' are available.

To be precise: At t=0 all synchronized clocks in S show t=0 as demonstrated by Einstein in Figur 36. At t'=0 all synchronized clocks in S' show t'=0, since S' has been synchronized by the same method (§ 1) as S. The result is illustrated in Fig. 2. There is no other clock reading available than t=t'=0 at this moment. If you claim that any observer could see a different clock reading, he is either blind or suffers under a mental desease.

Since the postulated LT predicts desynchronized clocks (Fig. 3), Voigt's postulate must be abandoned. It is well known that the LT could never be verified by experiment, but a number of experiments exist which refute the SRT=LT. If simultaneity were relative as predicted by the LT, we could not have a common world time on the rotating earth.

I refrain from discussions on your flat, immobile earth.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

WWE>: To be precise: At t=0 all synchronized clocks in S show t=0 as demonstrated by Einstein in Figur 36.

The reference frame S is a set of points that don't move with respect to each other. For each moment of t they are a complete 3D space. In the Figure 36 only one dimension is shown thus that is a complete line. Any other time t≠0 would represent thus a different line separated from the line t=0 in a direction orthogonal to this line and parallel to it.

WWE>: At t'=0 all synchronized clocks in S' show t'=0, since S' has been synchronized by the same method (§ 1) as S.

All synchronised clocks in S' are also on a line. Any time t'≠0 is parallel and separated from the line t'=0.

WWE>: The result is illustrated in Fig. 2. There is no other clock reading available than t=t'=0 at this moment.

I remain at the position that you only have proclaimed that Fig.2. is the result and have not demonstrated that Fig.2. is the result.

WWE>: If you claim that any observer could see a different clock reading, he is either blind or suffers under a mental desease.

That observer is neither blind nor has a mental disease. He sees the reality that you refuse to accept. You proclaim something without deriving it. Your legalistic reasoning does not help you. You have to come with a proof by performing the synchronisation procedure in geometric construction or, if you prefer the formatting troubles, a set of equations. As long as you proclaim hat you can jump over the location where others tell you that the problem is you will not be able to solve the issue.

WWE>: Since the postulated LT predicts desynchronized clocks (Fig. 3), Voigt's postulate must be abandoned. It is well known that the LT could never be verified by experiment, but a number of experiments exist which refute the SRT=LT. If simultaneity were relative as predicted by the LT, we could not have a common world time on the rotating earth.

As long as you have not shown that you can derive the result from a synchronisation as seen from an observer moving with respect to the frame where the synchronisation takes place I will not recognise that you have the appropriate skills to verify the validity of these statements. Both your statements are wrong.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

“…Why has the view of W.W. Engelhardt about SRT clock synchronisation problems?….”

- yeah, what W.W. Engelhardt writes here isn’t correct. However “proving” that by using Minkowski’s SR diagrams seems as rather strange – from the SR quite evidently follows that the SR is true.

However if somebody go a bit out from the SR, remaining at that in indeed physics and having healthy mind, he would to paint once more diagram – for the other frame, where the frame, that is at rest in the FIG2of WWE, moves; and will see, that all the contrary, in this frame there is no the Voigt-Lorentz “non-simultaneity”, which it has on the FIG2of WWE, when this non-simultaneity appeared in the frame, which in the FIG2of WWE hasn’t this “non-simultaneity”.

When both cases, though co-exist simultaneously and are completely differnt, are completely legitimate in the SR – what for anybody, who has the healthy mind, seems as completely strange.

Besides, for such anybody seems as rather strange also – why those, who truly believe in that the SR is a true physical theory, don’t paint in such as this cases two Minkowski diagrams, what seems would be quite natural?…

What takes place in the reality is explained only in the Shevchenko-Tokarvsky’s informational physical model, see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317620440_About_some_conventions_in_mechanics

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1142628, the paper

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317067896_The_notion_speed_and_the_Lorentz_transformations DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10250.47043 is useful also.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,

Here the question is not what theory covers best the reality. The question is if the view of W.W. Engelhardt is correct that his Fig.2. is the correct result of Einstein Synchronisation in both frames S and S'. You may favour another explanation of reality. However, if you understand SRT enough then you are welcome to add your view on the question. In the moment that W.W. Engelhardt tries to show why SRT is wrong based on an assumption that something is according to SRT that is not and then reaches a discrepancy that he thinks proves his case, then I point him to the basic error of his logic.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

three days ago you wrote: Synchronisation of the locations A', B' and C' in S' will yield that in S' is obtained that t'(A') = t'(B') = t'(C')

Choosing with Einstein t'(A')=0 results in t'(B') = t'(C') = 0 in perfect agreement with Fig. 2. Your claim that these clock readings cannot be read by observers in S who are sufficiently close to the S' clocks means that your observers are either blind or have lost every sense of reality. If they see desynchronized clocks which were synchronized before as in Fig. 3, they suffer from hallucinations.

A tautological proof that "proves" the validity of the LT on the grounds that the LT is correct is just ludicrous. I have no more to say.

Regards,

Wolfgang

To Sergey Shevchenko :

what W.W. Engelhardt writes here isn’t correct.

In case you have spotted an error in "Einstein's Third Postulate", please let me know what is wrong.

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

“…In case you have spotted an error in "Einstein's Third Postulate", please let me know what is wrong.…..”

- it is at least wrong in that contains allegation that there is no “relativity of simultaneity” in the objective reality – as that you write in this thread, i.e. if there are [at least] two moving relatively [inertial] reference frames, then all events that are simultaneous in one frame are simultaneous in other frame.

That isn’t so, and that was known long before Einstein’s 1905 year paper; and that, say, Poincaré points in a few his publications.

The problem appeared just when Poincaré extended the Galileo relativity principle outside existent in those times mechanics, when the problem appeared:

In the mechanics relativity principle establishes that the events, which are simultaneous in one frame are simultaneous in other frame. If, say, in a Galileo cabin fixed in a port somebody in center of the cabin shoots in opposite direction, then bullets moving with identical speeds V hit in opposite the cabin’s walls simultaneously, and, besides, they damage the walls identically by impacting identical momentums.

If the ship with the cabin moves somewhere with a speed v, then the bullets obtain additional momentums – one that moves ahead so moves with the speed (V+v), one that moves back the speed (V-v), having correspondingly different momentums. However since the both wall move ahead with v also, bullets again hit the walls simultaneously, and, because of momentums of the both walls at the interactions are added and subtracted to/from the bullets momentums, bullets again damage the walls identically.

But in XIX century it was already known, that this scheme doesn’t work when somebody shots by light flashes – in any case, independently on moves a light source or is fixed, the speed of light is constant, it is impossible to add/subtract some speed from the speed of light; nonetheless corresponding changing of momentums remains – light that is flashed ahead becomes by bluer that is flashed back is redder, and at light interactions its momentum again is added/subtracted by “walls’ momentums”; so – in accordance with the relativity principle - say, humans near front and back walls see the same identical in both cases light, say, green, independently on – cabin is fixed or is moving.

However, at that it is evident that, because of that the speed of light cannot be changed, time moments when light hits in the walls, which are simultaneous in fixed cabin are non-simultaneous in moving cabin.

To solve this puzzle a number of hypotheses were suggested, as, say, that light propagates in an ether and the cabin captures and carries ether – as the cabin carries, day, the air, and so flies and cutlets in moving cabin behave as in fixed cabin.

Etc., but the puzzle was solved essentially after Lorentz discovered Lorentz transformations, where the indeed existent physical effect of non-simultaneity of clocks’ shovings in relatively moving frames: (i) – was “explained” by introduction of “local time” [and “local space” to “explain” the moving bodies lengths contraction], and (ii) – this non-simultaneity turned out to be quite certain – be equal to the Voigt/Lorentz in/decrement ±vx/c2.

This “explanation” was evidently ad hoc claim – from that something happens with light by no means follows that the same must happen with everything in Matter. Including that the clocks shovings in the frames must be in accordance with the transformations.

So when Einstein in 1905 also “explained” this effect, claiming, in fact, that there is very mighty Essence “light”, which, to hold its speed constant in all/every frames, forces bodies to be contracted and to slow down internal states rates, including forces clocks to slow down their tick rates.

For that for him was necessary to cancel the absolute Matter’s spacetime and to postulate that all/every inertialy reference frames are completely equivalent and legitimate.

Further Minkowski “explained” the puzzle postulating absolute omnipotence of the relativity principle. That was, essentially, in the 1905 year paper already, but Minkowski claimed that the principle so might, that to the principle be hold Matter’s space/time/spacetime must transform in differently moving frames in accordance with the Lorentz transformations and “discovered” the “fundamental properties of the space/time/spacetime” and the “fundamental relativistic effects”. And just the Minkowski theory is the standard version of the SR in physics now.

Yet from the 1905 postulates above any number of absurd logical, physical, biological, etc. consequences directly and unambiguously follow; and for anybody, who understands what are the absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time” [see, for example, SS posts in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_most_precise_definition_of_time_And_what_is_the_easiest_way_to_describe_time ] it is clear, that these fundamental properties and effects principally are nothing else than some fantastic claims of humans that didn’t understand – what these phenomena/notions are.

Nonetheless the relativity principle is indeed very mighty, and the points above are often inessential at analyzing of events/processes that are/happen in Matter. As that was/is in the “classical” mechanics also; and, say, if a car crashes into a wall, for mechanics it is the same – what, the car or the wall, really where moving.

However, if the car’s driver will assert that in the collision the house owner is guilty since exceed the house’s speed, anybody will think that the car driver has problems with psyche. But when a true SR believer quite seriously claims that muons that are created in Earth atmosphere reach Earth’s surface because of they “contract space”, that is till now the standard “physical explanation” of this fact.

But, again, the “relativity of simultaneity” is real physical effect, and the real explanation – why that is so, which is based on quite reasonable and consistent with experimental data postulates, from which no any absurd consequences follow, is given in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, see the papers that are linked in the SS post above.

Cheers

Dear Paul and Wolfgang,

Paul Gradenwitz and W.W. Engelhardt

I see so far a big difficulty to find points of agreement.

Let me propose something here which is very elementary and on which a very good degree of agreement is likely to be found.

Let's consider the LT in their simplest form:

t'=(t-vx/c2)*(1-v2/c2)-1/2

and

x'=(x-vt)*(1-v2/c2)-1/2

if we consider low speeds v

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

“…Here the question is not what theory covers best the reality.……”

- without answering on this question any consideration of any scientific, in this case – physical - problem is principally questionable.

Including, again, from the SR any number of absurd logical, physical, biological, etc. consequences directly and unambiguously follow, as, say, the case, when you attempt above to show that W.W. Engelhardt is wrong using Minkowski diagram, from which simply a next such consequence follows – if you paint two diagrams for two relatively moving frames, which are, as that the SR postulate, both absolutely completely legitimate, than in every frame the same really simultaneously happened events are completely legitimately both - simultaneous and non-simultaneous; and, say, your objection to W.W. Engelhardt turns out to be not an objecftion.

“…However, if you understand SRT enough then you are welcome to add your view on the question….”

The indeed physical initial basic model of mechanics is developed in the informational physical model of Matter https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics , DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494, which is based on the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s indeed philosophical conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns, including Matter and every material object is/are absolutely truly some informational patterns/systems.

In the model practically all existent Meta-physical problem are solved/essentially clarified, including, again, most of the basic mechanic’s problems.

The mechanical models is based on a few, quite reasonable and from which no absurd consequences follow, postulates:

(i) – because of the rigorously existent flaws in the SR above by rigorous proof by contradiction quite rigorously follows that Matter’s spacetime is absolute;

(ii) from that particles are only some informational patterns, which constantly change their states, but are at that stable, quite reasonably follows that the particles are some close-loop algorithms, which run on “hardware” of the 4D binary – in accordance with the von Weizsäcker’s outstanding 1954-55 years “Ur hypothesis”, and reversible – in accordance with the outstanding Fredkin-Toffoly finding that at evolution, including at interactions, of a system of reversible elements, the system doesn’t lose energy, fundamental logical elements (FLE),

- [FLEs so have 4 utmost universal degrees of freedom at changing its state at their “flipping”, and, besides, some FLEs have 4 not universal independent logical marks “Fundamental Force charges”, but that is essential in other than mechanics=kinematics+dynamics physical branches]

- so the corresponding Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian “empty container” with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct); “cτ” is the “coordinate time”, “X,Y,Z” are 3 space, and “ct” is “true time” dimensions; and

(iii) - in the absolute spacetime the 4D “ether” is placed, which is dense lattice of the FLEs, and particles are some disturbances in the lattice, which appear at transmission to some FLE some 4D momentum. So

(iv) - so particles – and, of course, so every other material object- a body, star, galaxy, etc. are always moving with 4D velocities in the 4D Matter’s sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z); and in the 5-th, “true time” dimension. Since all 4 “sizes” of FLE are equal [and in the model the sizes are equal to Planck length], this motion

- happens as “equal footing” motion in all 5 dimensions [in metrics “cτ” and “ct”], and

- proceeds [in the sub-spacetime] with 4D velocities that have identical absolute values that are equal to the speed of light [which isn’t really fundamental constant, that is the speed of “FLE flopping point” motion as steps on Planck length, lP, in Planck time, tP, c= lP/tP];

– so the close-poop algorithms “particles” are some “gyroscopes”, which, quite naturally at constant motion in the 4D sub-spacetime are always oriented relating to the 4D motion direction.

(v) – all particles are two main types: “T-particles” and “S-particles”, which are created by fundamentally different momentums [since the “cτ” and 3 space dimensions, though are similar, but are fundamentally different]:

- “T-particles” are created by momentums that were directed along the cτ-axis, and so when are at absolute 3D spatial rest move along this axis with the speed of light, however can be impacted spatially directed momentums, and so to move in the 3D space with some speed, V , also, which is, as that Pythagoras prescribed, is always lesser than c;

S-particles are created by momentums that were directed along some space direction, and so always move only in 3D space and only with the speed of light, and don’t move in the coordinate time; photons are S-particles.

From the (i) – (v) above follows:

- since motion in the cτ-dimension is changing of internal state of a T-particle, including when it is at rest in space, if a T-particle moves also in space, its speed in the coordinate time decreases in the Lorentz factor, again as that Pythagoras prescribed, so its internal processes are slowed; and, say, moving unstable particles live longer, and, correspondingly, the Lorentz factor appears in the Lorentz transformations;

- T-particles at rest in space have orientation so, that their size in 3D space is maximal, moving in space along X-axis T-particle’s orientation rotates on some angle in the (X, cτ) plane, and, if a body is composed from particles rigidly enough, the whole moving in space body rotates in this plane. Again as that Pythagoras prescribed, thus, in Lorentz transformation the Voigt-Lorentz decrement appear.

Etc., the post is too long, so more see the SS&VT papers that are linked in last two SS posts;

only let repeat here: the Lorentz transformations – as the Galileo transformations also, though, are the equations of motion in some reference frame of points of rigid bodies, or systems of rigidly enough interacting bodies, using coordinate data about these points in the frame, where the bodies are at rest or move composing rigid system;

and the Lorentz transformations by any means don’t relate to some spacetime points inherently, as that is postulated for the “local space/time/spacetime” in the Lorentz theory and as that is postulated for the whole Matter’s space/time/spacetime in the SR.

And to understand – what is true mechanics, it is practically enough to know the Pythagoras theorem, Matter is rather simple logical system…

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,

thank you for your recapitulation of textbook SRT. It is clear now that you did not identify any error in my paper "Einstein's Third Postulate" that you probably did not read, as you do not refer to it. You probably did not read Einstein's book of 1938 either where he refuted himself the LT by demonstrating absolute simultaneity between relatively moving systems in his Figur 36. It is obvious that the synchronized clocks in the moving system S' - which is indistinguishable from S - show t'=0 (Fig. 2) in agreement with § 1. The prediction of the LT (§ 3) I have plotted in Fig. 3. It is at variance with Fig. 2, i.e. Voigt's postulated LT must be abandoned.

Since there is no experimental proof for the validity of the LT, it is not a great loss to get rid of this theoretical construct that gave birth to a monster like Minkowski's "spacetime". In practical life the SRT=LT is ignored anyway, but one has established a common World Time and GPS Time which is simultaneous among relatively moving clocks.

In a previous comment I gave a list of experiments which are at variance with SRT=LT. As you have not read it, I reproduce it here:

1) Measured velocity of the solar system relative to the CMB

2) Two Doppler formulae depending on 'source moving', or 'detector moving'

3) Stellar aberration as observed on binary systems

4) Sagnac effect as measured by Michelson-Gale

5) Possibility of setting up a common World time or a GPS time among remote and relatively moving clocks

6) Wrong prediction of two velocity-dependent masses

7) Failure to measure the salient term xv/c2 in the time transformation

8) Direction of time from past to future. Multiplying time with nine arbitrary figures does not create a "fourth coordinate"

9) Not to speak of Einstein's refutation of the LT by clock synchronization

Please save me to repeat all the arguments which were brought forward in these lengthy discussions of the Relativity-Gospel. It is obvious that believers in this doctrine are unable to admit that their Scripture of 1905 contains a veritable contradiction between §1 and §3. In case you find an error in my paper after you have read it, please let me know.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

I see so far a big difficulty to find points of agreement.

I fully agree with Paul Gradenwitz as to his statement: Synchronisation of the locations A', B' and C' in S' will yield that in S' is obtained that t'(A') = t'(B') = t'(C'). I have illustrated this situation in Fig. 2 adopting Einstein's choice t'(A')=0. When Paul claims that observers in S observe clock readings of synchronized clocks as illustrated in Fig. 3 which are, however, not synchronized, these observers suffer from a mental desease.

(a) t'=(t-vx/c2)

What is your rationale to transform time? The vx/c2 has never been measured. Time is absolute. If you manipulate it, you lose the conservation laws of momentum and energy. If you have any experimental indication that energy is not conserved in time, hurry up and build a perpetuum mobile on this basis!

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,

You respond to me with your views and theories. They might be interesting, they might be better than any other theory proposed in RG. Then still they are not of interest here. The question here is if within the constraints of SRT we can have the situation that the level of simultaneity, for two reference frames S and S' with a relative velocity, can be congruent. The Fig.2. of the document Article Einstein's third postulate

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Paul Gradenwitz ,

We have the SRT as a fact

...that is refuted by real experiments. A theoretical postulate is not a fact in my book. I wrote in my paper that Einstein's third postulate could not be satisfied, if the LT were taken as a fact, but I cannot see the slightest reason why Einstein's synchronization should work in S, but not in S'. In this situation one must conclude that synchronization is always achievable, e.g. with a rotating rod, but LT is a "castle in the air" as Einstein put it.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear Wolfgang,

I don't know if you ever read this dissertation of Selleri

http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Selleri_Weak_Relativity.pdf

he is a Phyiscist who has legitimate doubts on the LT,

he also wonders on the opportunity of the term vx/c2 which preserves the invariance and propose the inertial transformations instead.

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

I stand the position that SRT is a theory that exists. What reason would you have to oppose its validity if there would not be such theory?

WWE>: ...that is refuted by real experiments. A theoretical postulate is not a fact in my book.

In my understanding a fact is something that you can describe with a substantive. Even a hallucination is a fact for the person having it. Only we can agree about the relevance of it for reality.

You do your best to refute something and, in order to have a chance of success, you will need to formulate your argumentation such that they are relevant within the theory you try to refute.

WWE>: I wrote in my paper that Einstein's third postulate could not be satisfied, if the LT were taken as a fact, but I cannot see the slightest reason why Einstein's synchronization should work in S, but not in S'.

You will continue to fail to see that reason as long as you fail to look into the rebuttals you get. Is it reasonable and understandable for you that light originating from a moving object would propagate through space with the same speed as light that originates from a stationary object as seen by a stationary observer?

Can you explain me a bit more about your rotating rod? When A and B are separated along the x axis what is the direction of the rotation axis of the rod?

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

you will need to formulate your argumentation such that they are relevant within the theory you try to refute.

I do not have a private argumentation. I use Einstein's argumentation in § 1 leading to Fig. 2 due to synchronization, and his argumentation based on Voigt's postulate in § 3 leading to Fig. 3. All I am saying is that Fig. 3 is at variance with Fig. 2, or § 3 contradicts § 1. You have agreed to this argumentation, but your observers are blind or mentally sick so that they cannot see the reality of common simultaneity in both systems. The engineers ignore the blind relativists and establish a common time on earth and in the GPS-satellites. See Ashby's 'transformatIon' t'=t between ECI and ECEF.

Is it reasonable and understandable for you that light originating from a moving object would propagate through space with the same speed as light that originates from a stationary object as seen by a stationary observer?

Of course! This is the case in air for an observer who is at rest with respect to the air. But the relative velocity between the wave crests and an observer moving relative to the air is not constant. To be precise: The D'Alembert operator describing both sound and light is not form-invariant for moving observers as Voigt erroneously postulated ("da ja sein muss"). He did not explain why his theory should hold for light, but obviously fails for sound.

Can you explain me a bit more about your rotating rod?

It is Professor Thim's rotating rod that he could not realize technically at the university of Linz after his retirement. Suppose you have two hands on the faces of two clocks. If you separate the clocks and connect the hands with a rotating rod, the clocks will simultaneously show the same reading. As Pauli remaked in 1921 synchronization may be achieved by various means.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

I disagree with you that Fig.2. is a possible outcome of a correct performed synchronisation. I have given my explanation why and added a graphical support for that. You have not yet shown me where I made and error. You only have vented that you don't understand it.

WWE>: It is Professor Thim's rotating rod that he could not realize technically at the university of Linz after his retirement. Suppose you have two hands on the faces of two clocks. If you separate the clocks and connect the hands with a rotating rod, the clocks will simultaneously show the same reading. As Pauli remaked in 1921 synchronization may be achieved by various means.

You didn't answer my question. I asked in what direction is the set of clocks connected with the rod moving? If the clocks are observed moving along the direction parallel to the relative direction of movement of the frames then the rod will appear to have a torsion that will make that the clocks display the same level of simultaneity as any other method would do. If not, then this rod would be a method to find out the speed of us through space. This is not possible so the rod has a torsion. I had a longer conversation about that before.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

I disagree with you that Fig.2. is a possible outcome of a correct performed synchronisation.

Fig. 2 is in perfect agreement with your correct statement:

Synchronisation of the locations A', B' and C' in S' will yield that in S' is obtained that t'(A') = t'(B') = t'(C')

Choosing with Einstein t'(A') = 0 yields 0 = t'(B') = t'(C'). This situation is depicted in Fig. 2. The same method of synchronization is applied in S yielding t(A) = t(B) = t(C) = 0 as depicted by Einstein in Figur 36 which you seem to accept.

Why do you contradict yourself by claiming that synchronized clocks are not synchronized (Fig. 3)? Why don't you accept a common World Time among relatively moving clocks? Why don't you accept that SRT=LT has been refuted by a number of experiments that I have enumerated?

this rod would be a method to find out the speed of us through space [This was Thim's idea]. This is not possible [why ???] so the rod has a torsion.

Our speed through space is 370 km/s vs tau leonis as measured by NASA. The rod will break, if the ends do not rotate simultaneously with the same frequency at both ends.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Wolfgang,

WWE

You do not stop surprising me. First, your delusional and unjustified article on simultaneity, what you arrogantly call "Einstein's Third Postulate", and now these other nonsense about time and conservation laws.

It is very well known that if time were absolute then Galileo's velocity theorem would be valid, which would allow absurdities such as infinite velocities and energies.

On the other hand, Noether's theorem showed that energy conservation only requires homogeneity of time, it does not matter if it is absolute or relative.

Finally, the conservation of momentum is not related to time, it is consequence of the homogeneity of space.

Regards

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

WWE>: Why do you contradict yourself by claiming that synchronized clocks are not synchronized (Fig. 3)? Why don't you accept a common World Time among relatively moving clocks? Why don't you accept that SRT=LT has been refuted by a number of experiments that I have enumerated?

I don't contradict my self. Let me try another analogy. Assume you have a highway with a ramp and cars with a set of clocks. These cares are on the road and on the ramp. We now can assume that a first set of car is exact at to point where the ramp joins the road. Some cars are not yet on the joining point on the ramp and on the road. The road cars drive faster than the ramp cars. You can make sure that all clocks in the car are synchronous. Yet the cars on the ramp are not next to the cars on the road. They are a bit lower. It is a bit weak analogy but it should show that we can have objects that share the same time display, t=t'=0 , but don't need to share the same space location.

The Synchronisation procedure in S' has as result that a different x coordinate is selected as the position where they show their time t'=0 than where the clocks in S are located although if they would all be at rest in one reference frame their separation would make them stand adjacent. This outcome of the synchronisation procedure is the direct consequence of the choice to assume that the speed of light is the same in both frames.

WWE>: Our speed through space is 370 km/s vs tau leonis as measured by NASA. The rod will break, if the ends do not rotate simultaneously with the same frequency at both ends.

Our speed is 370 km/sec with reference to the CMBR. That is a relative speed with respect to a reference. That is not an absolute speed. Is the CMBR, and with that the average location of all visible galaxies, moving past us while we remain stationary or are we moving through local space? I would agree that the latter version makes more sense, but the measured speed does not help us to answer that question.

The rod would have a torsion for each different reference frame that torsion appears different. Once stationary in that a frame torsion will not accumulate to different rotation speed of front and back. Thus it will not break. It is an intriguing issue that we can discuss more if you want.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Hugo Alberto Fernández ,

...what you arrogantly call "Einstein's Third Postulate"

What is "arrogant" when I call Einstein's assumption “We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions” his third postulate? You and Paul Gradenwitz argue fiercely that this postulate cannot be satisfied, if one takes the LT as a description of reality. Both of you argue for Fig. 3 which follows from the LT, but is in evident contradiction with Fig. 2 that follows from Einstein's definition of synchronism. The fact that believing relativists have more confidence in Voigt's postulated LT ("da ja sein muss") than in Einstein's realistic synchronization procedure does not lend credibility to an experimentally refuted postulate.

If you say "momentum and energy are conserved in the course of time", you assume a time that is independent of a systems velocity. This time may be measured by comparison with a rotating ball (e.g. earth) that does not change its frequency due to the conservation of angular momentum in time.

if time were absolute then Galileo's velocity theorem would be valid,

Indeed. It describes very well the Sagnac effect with c ± v on the rotating earth (Michelson-Gale 1925). Adopting the LT the Sagnac effect disappears, see: Data Classical and Relativistic Derivation of the Sagnac Effect

Regards,

Wolfgang

W.W. Engelhardt

Dear Wolfgang,

“…You probably did not read Einstein's book of 1938 either where he refuted himself the LT by demonstrating absolute simultaneity…Since there is no experimental proof for the validity of the LT.[etc]..”

Sorry, but for me it isn’t interesting what said/wrote Einstein and/or all most of other people, including innumerous refuters, about the SR. Now there exist quite clearly formulated theory that is spelled out in most of physical textbooks, and which is the standard and widely used in physics - “special relativity theory”; and when some SS comment appears on a RG discussion, which relates to the SR, in the comment practically always concrete points are discussed taking into account only just this theory.

And to discuss really the SR’s problems – which quite naturally exist, is necessary at that to understand – on what assumptions this theory is based, and what, why, and how the theory infers from the base [postulates]?.

If a discussion isn’t in accordance with these points above, including because of some posters haven’t rational answers on the last questions here, as that is in your case, the discussion is senseless, and, if a discussant is stubborn in own opinion, endless.

Just therefore in the former post to you I wrote a number of principal basic points, which should be understand for those, who are going to discuss the SR, and this post doesn’t contain, say, concrete points in your paper. Till you don’t understand that the “relativity of simultaneity”, and so corresponding term (-vx/c2) in standard Lorentz transformations [which is (-vx/c) for metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z)], is inevitable for the indeed very mighty relativity principle could act, and a few other basic points that are clarified in this post, you cannot understand what happens in Matter, and so will write only something that isn’t adequate to the reality, and anybody will not able to explain to you something, including what are mistakes, say, in your papers.

Including, say, that

“…It is obvious that the synchronized clocks in the moving system S' - which is indistinguishable from S - show t'=0 …”,

- when you compare showings in relatively moving frames, where synchronization of clocks is correctly made, i.e. in accordance with the Lorentz transformations, and so, say, as “Einstein synchronization”, the case when all distant clocks in both frames simultaneously show “0” is principally – why see the SS post above, that was known well before appearance of even the Lorentz theory – physically impossible.

As well as that

“…Since there is no experimental proof for the validity of the LT,….”

- is incorrect also, the Lorentz invariance, i.e. the validity of the Lorentz transformations, is checked now with precision at least 10-15; when somebody claims that he discovered some deviations, that means only that in this experiment either the instrument at operation or the experimentalist at the instrument’s design and/or of obtained data interpretation, had some faults; etc.

Again, the main problem in/with the SR is as: it is quite evident that the SR isn’t adequate to the reality completely – that immediately follows

- from quite rigorously true fact that from the SR any number of absurd consequences directly and completely unambiguously follow,

- from that the SR is based on quite fantastic postulates that real Matter’s spacetime is imaginary [mathematically] Minkowski space, which has evidently fantastic “fundamental properties”, when Matter’s spacetime is evidently real [mathematically] Euclidian spacetime,

- from that the discovered in the SR “fundamental relativistic effects” are evidently fantastic allegations, etc.

These problems are quite real, however 10-15 above is real also.

So for indeed physicists the real problem is – why that is so, when and how the fantasies above reveal themselves and so what are limitations of the SR application and what correct theory works instead?

Successful application of the imaginary space is well understandable, however, - the “Minkowski 1908 space” is the Poincaré 1906 [“Sur la dynamique de l’ electron”, submitted in 1905] space, where he showed, that the Lorentz transformation can be derived provided the condition of invariance of the quadratic form s2= x2+y2+z2 - c2t2 in the space where the t-coordinate is imaginary.

Though Poincaré understood that Matter’s spacetime is Euclidian, and for him that was simply interesting mathematical result, Minkowski claimed this space as really existent, and so Minkowski space and the standard SR formalism are nothing more than mathematically correct re-formulation and application of of the Lorentz transformation; and so it is necessary to find – where/why the Lorentz transformation aren’t valid completely .

The rest of the SR problems is clarified in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, since because of a vivid discussion the links are in the SS posts are ouside the visible page I repeat the main answer – the Lorentz transformations are valid only for rigid bodies and rigid system of the bodies; if in a system bodies are free, this system evolves essentially not in accordance with the transformations

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.48709,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317620440_About_some_conventions_in_mechanics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1142628

these two papers can be enough, though to more undetstand it is worthwhile to read

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494 also.

If some questions appear – welcome.

Cheers

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

we can have objects that share the same time display, t=t'=0 , but don't need to share the same space location.

You miss the point. After synchronization ALL clocks in S' show t'=0. An observer in S will always find a clock in S' which is next to him at time t=0. Since there is no other clock reading available in S', he cannot but read t'=0 like the relatively moving observer in S' does when he reads his own clock. Einstein has illustrated this fact at the origin where both observers agree on t'=0=t.

The Synchronisation procedure in S' has as result that a different x coordinate is selected...

The synchronization procedure in S' according to § 1 is independent of the sytem S. It does not refer to any x-coordinate or relative velocity of another system S. This is respectively true for S where the result is what Einstein illustrated in Figur 36. I have illustrated this result in Fig. 2 to which you agree by stating that arbitrarily placed clocks in S' show simultaneously the same time t'=0 as that shown by the clock at the origin x'=0.

That is a relative speed with respect to a reference.

That is a speed relative to the random wave crests of the CMBR. If the velocity of light is independent of the observer's velocity, the wavelengths must transform linearly with velocity in order to observe a linear Doppler effect. See equation (21) in my paper "On the Origin of the LT". I never found this equation in a textbook.

The rod would have a torsion for each different reference frame that torsion appears different.

So, we can find a reference frame where the rod breaks as seen from this system, and another one where it does not break. What will happen in reality? I bet it will not break, but the absurd prediction of the LT will break down.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul,

“…The question here is if within the constraints of SRT we can have the situation that the level of simultaneity, for two reference frames S and S' with a relative velocity, can be congruent. The Fig.2. of the document Article Einstein's third postulate [etc]….”

The last SS post to Wolfgang above – and former posts to Wolfgang as well – seems can be sufficient explanation why in this case it seems as non-rational to discuss the question within the constraints of SRT as that is in the quotation above.

And as to

“…a method to find out the speed of us through space. This is not possible……”

- that isn’t correct principally. Matter’s spacetime – see the SS post to W.W. Engelhardt 1day ago now – is fundamentally absolute, and so only the problem remains – how the absolute rest/motion in the 3D space of T-bodies can be observed. Photos move in the 3D space when are being at absolute rest in the coordinate time always, and corresponding “absolute frame” is well observed.

At that, because of every T-body – as everything beyond QM events/effects – move in the Matter’s 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) only with 4D speeds of light, for observing a T-body at absolute rest/motion in the 3D space [if an absolute velocity is measured, then to assign some “absolute fixed” point in the 3D space isn’t a problem] there is no necessity to find some concrete “absolute rest” spatial point and to place in this point some anchor with wording “this anchor is at absolute 3D rest”. Any body in which its internal processes run with maximal rate [so, say, a clock that ticks with maximal rate is] is at absolute rest, quite independently on – in what concrete space point it is.

So in this case there exists only one problem - how the absolute rest/motion can be observed/measured; and that is possible yet now – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.48709;

Cheers

Dear all,

I hope this can be helpfull for this discussion:

STR say nothing about the relation between the time read by Observer 1 with his clock and the time read by Observer 2 (in relative motion with Observer 1) with his clock.

Please see this video and especially section 9:29-9:50 "we need to step back and review a bit...":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwWKi9sSAA

How did the person who talks resolved what he calls "this sounds crazy"? First he says that "we have to be extremily careful...". Then, instead of having two times, a time for each reference system, he presents (implicitely) at least four different times in section 9:29-9:50. We can call these four times t1, t2, and t2' and t1'.

- t1 could be the time that Observer 1 sees with his clock.

- t2 could be the time that Observer 2 reads with his clock.

- t2' is the time that Observer 2 "sees" in the other system, at Observer 1 location. We can supose that the two observers are very close such that they can "see" each other.

- t1' is the time that Observer 1 "sees" at Observer 2 location.

Based on the presentation, we have the two equations t2=gamma t1' and t2' =1/gamma t1' (which can be written t1 = gamma t2'). (if we repeat the analysis with Observer 1, we get the same two equations t1=gamma t2' and t2 = gamma t1').

We have four unkowns with two equations. Thus, this problem has an infinity of solutions.

SR theory does not say about the relation between t2 and t1 (the relation between time read at Observer 1 location by Observer 1 and time read at Observer 2 location by Observer 2 is not given, not considered), and between t2' and t1'. These times can thus be equal (we can have t2=t1 and t2'=t1', this is not against the theory). The theory doesn't say anything about them. The theory only says about the relation between the time that an Observer reads with his clock and the time that the Observer in the second system "sees" at the first Observer location.

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

WWE>: You miss the point. After synchronization ALL clocks in S' show t'=0. An observer in S will always find a clock in S' which is next to him at time t=0. Since there is no other clock reading available in S', he cannot but read t'=0 like the relatively moving observer in S' does when he reads his own clock. Einstein has illustrated this fact at the origin where both observers agree on t'=0=t.

We can go on for some time with a yes no exchange. The definition of the Einstein synchronisation leads to the consequence that for the clock in S reading t=0 there is a clock in S' next to him that does not read t'=0. I did my best to explain why with drawings. You could do me the favour to come with a drawing that shows how you would represent the Einstein Synchronisation procedure evolving over time so that we can get further.

WWE>: The synchronization procedure in S' according to § 1 is independent of the sytem S. It does not refer to any x-coordinate or relative velocity of another system S. This is respectively true for S where the result is what Einstein illustrated in Figur 36. I have illustrated this result in Fig. 2 to which you agree by stating that arbitrarily placed clocks in S' show simultaneously the same time t'=0 as that shown by the clock at the origin x'=0.

You partly quote me and have ignored my extension that is not convenient to you. I invite you to show that you are capable of more than just stating something is the result of a procedure and do that procedure your self.

WWE>: That is a speed relative to the random wave crests of the CMBR. If the velocity of light is independent of the observer's velocity, the wavelengths must transform linearly with velocity in order to observe a linear Doppler effect. See equation (21) in my paper "On the Origin of the LT". I never found this equation in a textbook.

The transformation of the wavelength would need a complete agreement that you interpret the SRT correct before you are able to use that against it. Since we argue above that you interpret it wrong I will not recognise your argumentation here as sufficient.

WWE>: So, we can find a reference frame where the rod breaks as seen from this system, and another one where it does not break. What will happen in reality? I bet it will not break, but the absurd prediction of the LT will break down.

No. The torsion in the rod is created from inside and not imposed from outside. The crystal lattice deforms to force the torsion.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Halim,

I cannot disagree with what you say.

I'm disapponted that the video reports:

tmoving = gamma tstationary

it is in any case the way around : time dilation means that the moving clock goes slower,

ticks less frequently, its clock has a slower period.

it is tmoving=gamma-1 tstationary

or in therm of PERIODS of clocks it is

Tmoving = gamma Tstationary

I always wonder why people do not pay attention to these things whose mistakes are not trivial when the topic is about them...

And this mistake is propagated.

I've just written to this guy....

Dear Stefano,

Yes, I have written

t2' =1/gamma t1

t2' is time that observer 2 "sees" at observer 1 location and t1 is time that observer 1 reads with his clock.

Basically, with two observers, there are four different times in STR, but only two equations which give relation between these times.

What I want to emphasize is that, according to the video, it is possible to have t2=t1. Both observers can read the same time with their clocks, but each observer "sees" (or imagine in the framework of SR) that the time at the other system go slower. I think the video confirms that t1' and t2' are not physical parameters, there are not real parameters. What is real is the time that each observer reads with his clock ( t1 and t2).

This video is another confirmation of Wolfgang analysis about the three clocks problem. Both observers agree to have the same time, but they also both agree that the time of the other observer go slower. This is of course contradictory and nonsense from physical point of view. This can be accepted from mathematical point of view, in Voigt analysis of the Doppler effect. However, the parameter that really change is not space or time but the frequency of the wave.

Dear Paul Gradenwitz , The definition of the Einstein synchronisation leads to the consequence that for the clock in S reading t=0 there is a clock in S' next to him that does not read t'=0. Einstein's §1 Definition of Simultaneity leads to a common clock reading t'(A')=t'(B')=t'(C')=0, i.e. ALL clocks in S' show simultaneously t'=0. You agreed to this clock reading. I must accept that you refer above to a sick observer in S who reads t'≠0 on the same clock where the observer in S' reads t'=0. I am not prepared to discuss any further the pathological hallucinations of your mentally ill observers. The torsion in the rod is created from inside and not imposed from outside. Agreed. That's why the torsion does not depend on observers moving relatively to the rod. Fortunately the rotating shaft of a jet engine does not break while we are observing the flight across the Atlantic. That's why Professor Thim was right when he proposed a rotating rod to establish simultaneity in an inertial system. Regards, Wolfgang

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

All clocks in S' show simultaneously t'=0 according to what S' defines as simultaneous. All clocks in S show t=0 according what S defines as simultaneous. What S defines as simultaneous and what S' defines as simultaneous differ. It is the difference in simultaneity that gives the result.

The rod has a radius of its axis. Rotation speed is absolute. The outer part of the rod travels a longer distance in the same time and thus moves faster. That changes the shape of the rod. The trajectory of movement is a spiral. Thus the rod gets a torsion. The torsion angle per unit of length is very little. For a yet moving through air the torsion is less than induced by the engine forces where the rear fan drives the front fan.

Prof Thim was right. A rotating rod can establish simultaneity but will give the same result as the radar method with the relativity of simultaneity.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

It seems the discussion about that

“…STR say nothing about the relation between the time read by Observer 1 with his clock and the time read by Observer 2 (in relative motion with Observer 1) with his clock. …”

- is too long, because of the quotation above has rather indirect relation to physics; and not only, though.

Really all is quite the contrary, and STR says, of course - though in some cases erroneously, see the SS posts above - all about the relation between the time read by Observer 1 with his clock, and the time read by Observer 2 with his clock,

[ when [Observers] are relatively moving, say with a speed V along X-axis, having inertial reference frames “K” and “K’” ], and about a lot of other physical information besides that about time.

Just that is the sense destination, and purpose of the Lorentz transformations, as of any other correct coordinate transformations in physics and mathematics: for Observer 1 the transformations connect data that just Observer 2 has, and reverse.

In mathematics that is connecting/mapping Observer 2’s data about coordinates of points in some [mathematical] space and Observer 1’s data about coordinates of the same points in the same space, and reverse.

In physics the transformations between the moving Observer’s frames, which – the frames – consist of a coordinate system – as that is in mathematics, and, additionally, a set of scaled rules and specially synchronized distant clocks, which allow Observers to measure the main parameters of material objects/systems, i.e. distances, time intervals between events, momentums, energies, etc.

And in physics, as that is in mathematics, in Matter’s spacetime any number of different coordinate systems/frames can be defined, however transformations between the frames coordinate systems have a sens only if connect/mapp always the same points in one common, i.e. “absolute”, for all different coordinate systems space.

However physics differs from mathematics in this case fundamentally in at least one point else:

- transformations in physics really don’t connect points just of the space/time/spacetime, they are equations of motion of material objects in some frame by using data about coordinates of the same objects that they have in other frame. That is true for any correct transformations, so, for simplicity of writing, an example for Galileo transformations: x=Vt+x’, t=t’:

- here “x’” and “t’”, and “x” and “t”, aren’t coordinates of all arbitrary points in Newton’s spacetime, the first pair is coordinates of flies and cutlets in principally limited Galileo cabin measured by Observer 2 in the cabin, as they are seen for Observer 1 – the other pair - on a shore. Just they move in the cabin with the speed V, when Observer 1 thinks that he is at rest in some fixed space and that time, as that Newton claimed, “of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external”, and his clocks show this time, and Observer 2 thinks that he is at rest in some fixed space – which moves in this case for Observer 1, where, though, time flows identically as for Observer 2.

Though, of course , space doesn’t move to anywhere. And time fundamentally cannot, and doesn’t, flow to anywhere, Newton was wrong, etc. – more see the last SS post in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_most_precise_definition_of_time_And_what_is_the_easiest_way_to_describe_time and links in the thread.

That above isn’t too essential in Newton’s physics, however becomes by principal in fast bodies mechanics, including if we consider the SR, which postulates the principally wrong illusion that Lorentz transformations is the mapping of just spacetime points [and the Lorentz theory does that, although to much lesser extent]. Again, the transformations are valid only for rigid bodies and rigidly composed systems of bodies, and are valid only to spacetime coordinates of the bodies, and have no any relations to other than these coordinates spacetime points.

When the SR claims, say that “time is what clocks read/show”, i.e. that if a clock is placed in some 3D space point with the time coordinate “t” the clock read and so shows “t”, that is a nonsense, the clock’s showing is determined by what distances and with what speeds it moved because of some purely material impacts that forced its motion.

And only if a clock in the rigid reference frame moves remaining rigidly connected in the rigid system “reference frame”, its showings will be for other frames in consistence with the transformations.

An example: let there is a rod having a length L, which moves along X-axis in, for simplicity absolute [at rest in the absolute 3D space], frame with a speed V , and on the rod two clocks are placed on opposite rod’s ends.

The rod at motion is rotated in the Matter’s absolute 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) (X, cτ) plane [why – see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts] on the angle so that its front end is “younger” than the back end clock on the Voigt-Lorentz decrement -VL/c ≡ -βL [=βL/c in metrics (τ,X,Y,Z)], and so it occupies in the space interval L’=L(1-β2)1/2, as that is called “FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction”;

and all that is in full accordance with the Lorentz transformations. However all that relates only to rod’s occupied points in the sub-spacetime, and has no any relation to the rest in the infinite sub-spacetime.

Again, that is true only if the rod is rigid and clocks are rigidly connected on the rod. So, including, if the front end clock will be slowly moved to the back end, being at that rigidly connected with the rod, its showing at the clocks’ meeting will be practically identical with the back end clock’s showing.

However if it will be moved freely from the rod, the decrement above remains unchanged, and at the clock’s meeting their showings will differ on the decrement. That allows to measure the absolute rod’s speed – and that is the first method of the absolute speed measurement in the paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.48709 of two methods that are suggested in this paper.

Cheers

@Paul Gradenwitz

You said:

"All clocks in S' show simultaneously t'=0 according to what S' defines as simultaneous. All clocks in S show t=0 according what S defines as simultaneous. What S defines as simultaneous and what S' defines as simultaneous differ. It is the difference in simultaneity that gives the result"

This is why in my previous comments I suggested to show explicitly what is implicit in SR: when we consider two observers in relative motion, there is no two different times but four different times. These four different times should be shown explicitely. Everybody will see it clearly. There is only two equations to relate these four times. Thus, there is an infinity of solutions.

SR states the relation between the time that Observer 1 reads with his clock and the time that Observer 2 "sees" at Observer 1 location (I repeat: at Observer 1 location). SR says nothing about the time that Observer 1 reads with his clock and the time that Observer 2 reads with his clock. This is clear from the video I posted above.

To Paul Gradenwitz :

All clocks in S' show simultaneously t'=0 according to what S' defines as simultaneous. All clocks in S show t=0 according what S defines as simultaneous.

Agreed. That's what I have depicted in Fig. 2: All clocks show simultaneously t'=0=t. More simultaneity is not possible :-).

To Sergey Shevchenko :

You claimed that my writing is wrong. It is impolite not to tell me what is wrong in "Einstein's Third Postulate". I am looking forward to your reply.

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

Let me even more specific. All clocks in S' show simultaneously t'=0 according to what S' defines as simultaneous. All clocks in S show t=0 according what S defines as simultaneous. The events that are called simultaneous in S and the events that are called simultaneous in S' only can be identical in a plane in 3D that is perpendicular to the direction of relative motion of S and S' to each other. Since the line of motion shares only one point with that plane your figure Fig.2. is not representing a correct result of synchronisation.

WWE>: Agreed. That's what I have depicted in Fig. 2: All clocks show simultaneously t'=0=t. More simultaneity is not possible :-).

More simultaneity is not conceivable for you. However it is possible.

Regards

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

You talk about two observers moving with respect to each other. In SR these observers are represented with their worldline, their path through spacetime. Perpendicular to their worldline as seen in their proper view of spacetime is their level of simultaneity. The intersection of the worldline of the other observer with this level has a time as seen by the observer at rest with that level. The observer at the point of intersection event. Of cause you can't get a clear solution. You only can get the relative relation. You can't get an absolute time. An absolute time is not the solution of the equations.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

WWE>: Agreed. That's what I have depicted in Fig. 2: All clocks show simultaneously t'=0=t. More simultaneity is not possible :-).

More simultaneity is not conceivable for you. However it is possible.

Your "hyper-simultaneity" must have been dreamt up by your psychotic observers who read t' ≠ 0 when the clock they are looking at shows t'=0. Irrationality in the Relativity-Gospel...

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

Either you have the situation that you have 3 pairs of clocks as in your Fig.2. all show the time t=0 and then the clocks in S or in S' are not synchronised according to the Einstein Synchronisation method or you have the situation that the clocks both in S and S' are synchronised and then you will have the pairs show the time when they meet that looks more like your Fig.3. We talk here what is the result within the constraints of SRT.

The moment when B' observes his clock to read t'=0 he is not next to B. Same for C' and C. If relativity of simultaneity is hard for you to understand, then you have some learning to go.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

Either you have the situation that you have 3 pairs of clocks as in your Fig.2. all show the time t=0 and then the clocks in S or in S' are not synchronised according to the Einstein Synchronisation method or you have the situation that the clocks both in S and S' are synchronised and then you will have the pairs show the time when they meet that looks more like your Fig.3. We talk here what is the result within the constraints of SRT.

The moment when B' observes his clock to read t'=0 he is not next to B. Same for C' and C. If relativity of simultaneity is hard for you to understand, then you have some learning to go.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

W.W. Engelhardt

Dear Wolfgang,

“…You claimed that my writing is wrong. It is impolite not to tell me what is wrong in "Einstein's Third Postulate". I am looking forward to your reply.….”

I wrote on this ask already – for me to explain and for you to understand what is wrong in your paper is necessary before for you to understand some basic in this case physical points; if there is no such understanding, then any explanation is impossible; and so the SS posts here are explanations of these points.

First of all in the posts it is explained – what are the Lorentz transformations, which indeed in standard physics are some ad hoc mathematical equations that fit the theory with experiment. That [explanation], again, is possible, and is done, only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, the links to corresponding papers see SS post 2 days ago now,

when indeed in the standard physical SR theory this fitting and the adequacy of the transformations to the objective reality is “explained” by some too fantastic way and by “discovering” seems too marvelous of “fundamental properties of the space/time/spacetime and relativistic effects”.

Again, the Lorentz transformations are adequate to the reality because of indeed really, material objects that always move in 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) of Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z, ct) with 4D speeds of light [and with the speed of light in the 5-th, i.e. “true time” dimension, but that isn’t too essential in this case] , and because of all/every particles are some close-loop algorithms/gyroscopes, the T-bodies, i.e. bodies that have so rest masses, which are most of Matter’s objects, and rigid systems of the bodies,

if move in the 4D sub-spacetime with some non-zero 3D spatial speed along, say, X-axis, then a T-body/rogid system:

- really rotates in the (X, cτ) plain [“cτ” is the “coordinate time” dimension/ axis], so the spatial projection of the body/system becomes be really contracted relatively to the case when the body/system is at absolute 3D space rest; and so front end of moving body/system really is “younger” in the cτ-axis on the Voigt-Lorentz decrement, than the body’s/system’s back end; all that is simply according to Pythagoras theorem, and

- since the motion along the “coordinate time”, i.e. along the cτ-axis, is real changing of internal state of running algorithms “particles” / bodies/ systems of bodies,

because of the its 4D speed is equal to the speed of light, at spatial motion the body/system moves along the cτ-axis slower relatively to the case when the body/system is at absolute 3D space rest - in the Lorentz factor, again simply as that Pythagoras prescribed, in the body/system their internal processes are really slowed in the Lorentz factor, including, since clocks are material objects that show how their internal processes run, the moving clocks’ tick rate really slows down, correspondingly in this factor.

All these real physical effects are so quite adequately described by the Lorentz transformations. That happens fundamentally not always - as that wrongly the SR postulates, however that happens in most really existent and actual for humans physical situations.

Next point, which is necessary to understand, is in that the phenomenon/notion “reference frame” isn’t some arbitrary thing. That is a system of scaled rules and synchronized clocks, which allows physicists to obtain experimental data about values of basic physical parameters at analysis of concrete physical tasks, without such data any analysis is impossible.

However the analysis can be adequate to the reality only if the rules and clocks in the reference system are arranged/synchronized adequately to the reality, including that is possible – see above only if the clocks are synchronized in accordance with the adequate to the reality Lorentz transformations, including by using “Einstein synchronization”, which follows from the Lorentz transformations.

Again, the transformations are equation of motion of points of moving in a “stationary” frame rigid bodies/systems using coordinates of these points that are obtained by instruments of a co-moving with these bodies/systems reference frame. That allows for a “stationary” observer to analyze adequately to the reality – what happens in the co-moving system, and that is widely used in physics, when some data are obtained in a lab frame, but to analyze the data is easier, say, in a center mass system. In this case the obtained in the lab frame experimental data are transformed in accordance with the transformations between frames, and, after the analysis, are transformed by the same way into values in the lab system.

Etc. – and, again, that is physically possible only if the transformations are adequate to the reality. If in a lab reference frame the instruments are arranged non-adequately to the reality; or/and at analysis in some “virtual” [say, a centre mass] reference frames at transforming of the physical variables some non-adequate to the reality transformations are used, the results of such “researches” can be rather strange.

So, including, when somebody invents some “new” synchronization and/or some “new” transformations between the frames, which isn’t consistent with the Lorentz transformations, that simply means that this inventor doesn’t understand – what the wordings “reference frame” and “transformations between the frames” mean. Including that is in the case of “Tangherlini synch procedure”, at using “rotating rods” above, etc.

And, including, that happens when you write about some sets of distant clocks that in both of relatively moving frames simultaneously show “0”. Such case is, of course, possible and can be quite easily realized: in a time moment when the clocks of two relatively moving frames occur in the same, say, X1, X2… points, the clocks in one, say “stationary”, frame by some method set themselves and corresponding clocks in the moving frame in “0” [that is “Tangherlini synch procedure”]; and further indeed, between the frames there will not be some “relativity of simultaneity”.

Again – in that there is no problems. But at evolution of the physical situation in Matter the clocks will show for all other material objects time just only in accordance with the Lorentz transformations, when for Matter it is completely the same – what, and by what way, some two legs living being on Earth wrote on some clocks’ faces…

More see the SS posts in last seems 4-5 days ago now, and papers that are linked in the posts. Though the discussion seems as rather vivid, that isn’t now too hard problem.

Cheers

Paul Gradenwitz

On November 11, 2019, you wrote this paragraph:

"In my drawing I represent what happens in the reference frame of S. That means that the light moves at the same speed in all directions for S. I then also use that light traveling as seen from S' will not overtake or will not be overtaken by light as seen from S."

The third sentence does not make sense.

Also, in the previous paragraph, which consists of one long sentence, you wrote "ate" instead of "at" in the last line.

From my perspective, these two examples of your written expression suggest a pattern. Do you see it, too?

As a specialist in textual analysis, I am wondering if this "glitch" in your written expression may be something that, if you can correct it, will sharpen your thinking, and thereby, improve the clarity and coherence in your written communications of your scientific ideas.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of my comment.

- - Nancy Ann Watanabe, Ph.D., Comparative Studies in Literature (textual analysis, French, English, German, Spanish, Latin), certified in teaching technical and professional writing, College of Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle

Dear Paul Gradenwitz,

Let us suppose that we consider t2 with a certain value (it could be t2=0, such as in your discussion with Wolfgang). SR theory will not give a solution for t1, because there is an infinity of solution with 3 equations and 4 unknowns and there is no direct relation between t1 and t2.

If you show explicitely that there are four parameters of times (t1, t1', t2 and t2') and not two parameters of times, everybody will see the problem of the theory.

In physical reality, we are not intersted by the time that the other observer "sees" at our location, but we are intersted by the time that we see with our clock at our location and the time that the other observer see with his clock at his location.

Wolfgang's analysis has cleary shown the contradiction. Both observers agree to have the same time (t2=t1), by using Einstein's synchronisation technique. But by using LT, they must have different time (t2'/=t1'). This is because there are four parameters of times: t1, t1', t2 and t2'.

Best regards

Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,

you argue by assuming that Voigt's postulated LT describes reality. The LT was, however, refuted by Einstein in his book with Infeld of 1938 by demonstrating "time dilation", see Figur 36. Hence, your arguments referring to LT and ensuing "Minkowski-space" are void and irrelevant.

Do you deny that Einstein's synchronization procedure of § 1 works yielding simultaneous clock reading as in Figur 36 and Fig. 2? These questions were not answered by you, but you claim that my writing is wrong. Please identify any errors, but do not refer to a theory other than SRT which was not considered by me in the paper.

Regards,

Wolfgang

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

you have the situation that the clocks both in S and S' are synchronised and then you will have the pairs show the time when they meet that looks more like your Fig.3.

You can see that ALL clocks in S and S' show t=0=t' simultaneously. Like your psychotic observers you hallucinate, however, that the synchronized clocks in S' and S are not synchronized showing t=0 and t' = - x'v/c2.

I told you already that I am not prepared to discuss the fixed ideas emerging from an irrational Gospel.

Regards,

Wolfgang

Sergey Shevchenko

Sir, Your philosophical perspectivism is rather refreshing, for example in the following observations (1) where you bring us back to "the reality" and (2) when you explain how a tunnel-visioned scientist may misconstrue key concepts in the very scientific research he or she is, ironically enough, attempting to renovate:

Sergey Shevchenko: Etc. – and, again, that is physically possible only if the transformations are adequate to the reality. If in a lab reference frame the instruments are arranged non-adequately to the reality; or/and at analysis in some “virtual” [say, a centre mass] reference frames at transforming of the physical variables some non-adequate to the reality transformations are used, the results of such “researches” can be rather strange.

[SS continued]: So, including, when somebody invents some “new” synchronization and/or some “new” transformations between the frames, which isn’t consistent with the Lorentz transformations, that simply means that this inventor doesn’t understand – what the wordings “reference frame” and “transformations between the frames” mean. Including that is in the case of “Tangherlini synch procedure”, at using “rotating rods” above, etc.

Thank you for sharing your many admirable insights. I also appreciate your efforts to furnish, as Wolfgang W. Engelhardt observes (above), some historical context in a "textbook" account of highlights that illuminate clock synchronisation problems encountered by Albert Einstein, whose love of poetry surfaces in his work as a scientist who built "castles" in mid-air.

This thread is certainly one of the most intellectually stimulating purely scientific ones I have encountered since I joined Researchgate circa July 2018.

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

WWE>: You can see that ALL clocks in S and S' show t=0=t' simultaneously.

Since Simultaneously for S means something different as Simultaneously for S' it is impossible to extend the validity for simultaneously of S onto any event other than A' once you have defined that A and A' meet and have the same time sowing on their clock. You bluntly assume that you can extend the meaning of what S understands as simultaneously onto all the clocks in S'. Since that is wrong the rest of your argumentation is wrong.

WWE>: I told you already that I am not prepared to discuss the fixed ideas emerging from an irrational Gospel.

You start to do so in your document in the moment that you state that the clocks are synchronised according to the Einstein Synchronisation Method. Once you do that you state that you have done something within the rules of SRT. That does not mean that you agree with the rules. It means that both, those that support those rules and those that oppose those rules, have to agree that you start your reasoning from within the domain that is called valid within SRT. Only after there is agreement that you have correctly created a configuration within the rules of SRT then you can continue from there and try to come to a contradiction. If you start from a configuration that is in contradiction with the rules of SRT then your argumentation is invalid. That is so irrelevant of the question if SRT itself is valid or not.

It was your choice to say that those clocks in S and those clocks in S' are synchronised according to the SRT methods. Then it was your choice to state that this would result in Fig.2. where that is impossible within the rules of SRT. So it was your choice to start an argumentation why SRT is wrong by starting with an invalid starting point.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

It was your choice to say that those clocks in S and those clocks in S' are synchronised according to the SRT methods.

According to Einstein's relativity principle inertial systems are indistinguishable as a 'state of rest' cannot be defined. Hence it is justified to equip not only the system S with clocks and observers at every point, but also system S'. These clocks must be synchronized which in § 1 Einstein proposes to execute by the exchange of signals that take the same time to travel from A to B as from B to A. Hence, the "method of the SRT" is based on the relationship tB - tA = t'A - tB. This method has absolutely nothing to do with the LT which is already obvious by noting that it does not contain the velocity of the signal exchange.

The result of this synchronization was visualized by Einstein in Figur 36 and by me in Fig. 2 to which you agreed when you wrote t'(A')=t'(B')=t'(C')=0. Voigt's postulate of the invariance of the D'Alembert operator as taken over by Einstein in § 3 without quoting Voigt predicts, however, t'(B') = - x'(B')v/c2 ≠ 0 as visualized in Fig. 3 to which you also agree. By applying your private synchronization method that has nothing to do with the "method of the SRT", but depends on the relative velocity v, you declare the contradiction between Fig. 3 and Fig. 2 as non existing. This is an irrational belief alien to serious physics.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

WWE>: The result of this synchronization was visualized by Einstein in Figur 36 and by me in Fig. 2 to which you agreed when you wrote t'(A')=t'(B')=t'(C')=0.

You can't use that I agree to something when what I did was making special conditions that you omit here. For A and A' is valid that they simultaneously read on their clock and on the other t=t'=0. Also is valid for A and for A' that they assume that their other clocks B, C, B', C' read t=t'=0 BUT, the position where A' assumes that B' and C' are is different from the position where A assumes that B and C are when they read that time value. The result is that Fig.3 is possible and Fig.2 is not possible.

What you visualised in Fig.2. was not the result of the same synchronisation method that Einstein used. It is not my irrational belief. It is your irrational belief that you can proclaim something without making the needed verification and then think you can base your results on that.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Dear Lady Nancy,

- thanks for your post.

As to other posts after the last SS post above it seems as next time to write, that

- to discuss this thread question there is no necessity to read/write here - what, when, where and in what context somebody said/wrote about the Lorentz transformations, including about the “relativity of simultaneity”, for that it is enough to read any good textbook where the SR is spelled out, and

- because of any discussions about something can be rational only if the discussants understand the basic points that relate to the discussion,

- to understand - what in the textbooks is true and why is true, and what is wrong and why is wrong, it is necessary to read the last week SS posts in this thread and links in the posts.

In other case any discussion can be only endless exchange by some irrational – as some conversation of a blind with a deaf - messages…

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

The reason I liked your historical overview, as I indicated, is because of the way you link together the parade of theorists.

I had a distinct impression that you, Sergey Shevchenko, exemplified the mind and intellect in action such that the textbook material transcends the dry factual information because of the way the facts are presented to readers refined, but not refracted or distorted as might be expected, and enhanced by the subjective lens of your philosophical perspective. I have never before been privileged to see the inimitable convergence of voice and vision as applied to a vista in the history of science.

However, as a specialist in textual analysis, heretofore primarily of texts in imaginative literature (poetry, fiction, dramatic literature, expository prose, stream-of-consciousness narrative discourse, e.g., William Faulkner's _The Sound and the Fury_), I am wondering if the splendid effects you achieve in the specific thread fragment to which we (you and I) are directing our attention, will be preserved or destroyed if you were to rewrite it in more standard English, and moreover, if you were to flesh-out and expand it.

I appreciate your epitomic academic and imaginative picture of a "plasma of the

historical, critical, and theoretical consciousness at work," which combines art and science.

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

what I did was making special conditions

Your statement t'(A')=t'(B')=t'(C')=0 is in perfect agreement with Einstein's synchronization condition tB-tA=t'A-tB based on equal transmission times A=>B and B=>A. It leads both to Figur 36 and to Fig. 2 where the clock readings t=0=t' do not depend on the position of the clocks or on the relative velocity between the systems. Which "special condition" did you make that invalidates both your statement and Einstein's synchronization procedure carried out both in S and S' independently? Why does Einstein's procedure work in S, but not in S'? Which "special condition" distinguishes inertial system S' from inertial system S?

Regards,

Wolfgang

To Sergey Shevchenko :

it is enough to tread any good textbook where the SR is spelled out

It is now obvious that you swim in the mainstream that believes in Einstein's Relativity-Gospel in spite of the fact that Einstein himself led Voigt's postulate ad absurdum in his book of 1938.

My little paper "Einstein's Third Postulate" is apparently too difficult for you to understand, but it is discourteous to call my writing wrong when you are unable to identify an error in the text.

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

WWE>: Your statement t'(A')=t'(B')=t'(C')=0 is in perfect agreement with Einstein's synchronization condition tB-tA=t'A-tB based on equal transmission times A=>B and B=>A.

SRT describes reality win spacetime. Spacetime is 4 dimensional. Every object at a point of space follows in spacetime a path. This path is the worldline. Objects at rest in reference frames that move with respect to each other follow worldlines that are at an angle with respect to each other. Your initial condition that A and A' at the moment that both their clocks read the time 0 means that their worldlines intersect for both at that time reading.

WWE>: It leads both to Figur 36 and to Fig. 2 where the clock readings t=0=t' do not depend on the position of the clocks or on the relative velocity between the systems.

Wrong. The line, connecting the points on the worldlines with equal reading of the time are at different angle for different reference frames. The worldlines of the objects A and A' can intersect, the worldlines of B and B' can intersect, and the worldlines of C and C' can intersect. These intersection events (4D spacetime points) can be on the line that connects the events t=0 for A, B, C, but then it can't be on the line that intersect the events t'=0 for A', B', C'. You only can have one of the latter 3 objects be next to its counterpart of the first set A, B, C with equal reading.

WWE>: Which "special condition" did you make that invalidates both your statement and Einstein's synchronization procedure carried out both in S and S' independently? Why does Einstein's procedure work in S, but not in S'? Which "special condition" distinguishes inertial system S' from inertial system S?

The Special condition that makes it all as I described is that these two systems S and S' move with respect to each other with a velocity v. In the picture shown at the top of this question this angle between the line that connects events with same time reading is shown.

WWE>: My little paper "Einstein's Third Postulate" is apparently too difficult for you to understand, but it is discourteous to call my writing wrong when you are unable to identify an error in the text.

I identify the error in your text and did write a lot in this thread. If another agrees with that then a simple conclusion sides hime at my side and there is not a direct need that this person then repeats all I have written. There is however a stronger reason for you to clarify your position by performing constructions or writing equations that show the synchronisation procedure in the different systems S and S'. Your simple declaration that synchronisation yields the result that you proclaim is not enough. It is this declaration that encompasses the error in your text.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

even at low speeds the LT which are t'=t+vx/c2 finds the primed clock have a different reading than the non-primed.

That is only a trivial consequence of having used light beams in the attempt to report the same event from one system to another.

The definition of simultaneity is a consequence of the procedure adopted to put in sync two clocks, hence it is STIPULATED. That is not what occurs for real between two clocks, the readings of the two clocks "at the same time" are not those indicated in the MINKOWSKI diagrams because it is impossilbe to have such notion in space-time, not because it does not exist but this is just an issue/consequence of that framework which arbitrary re-defines simultaneity. If the simultaneity is instead defined with the light spot (VITALY GINZBURG) or with external procedures, the Minkowski picture fades away.

Space time is just a conventional framework based on the approximation of having assumed that c as invariant and the simultaneity relying on exchanging signals at that speed.

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

Stefano>: The definition of simultaneity is a consequence of the procedure adopted to put in sync two clocks hence it is STIPULATED.

I completely agree with you. However, when W.W. Engelhardt first stipulates that he has used the procedure of the SRT then he should not complain that it has the consequence of a certain interpretation of simultaneity. I would not so consequent oppose him if he would state that he used a different method of synchronisation. The method of synchronisation and the relativity of simultaneity are two sides of the same metal.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

The Special condition that makes it all as I described is that these two systems S and S' move with respect to each other with a velocity v.

This condition is irrelevant in Einstein's synchronization procedure of § 1:

tB - tA = t'A - tB

The speed of signal exchange does not enter §1. It could be a pedestrian's speed provided A=>B is the same as B=>A.

It is clear now that you ignore Einstein's synchronization procedure so that you cannot obtain the result of Fig. 2 that contradicts the prediction of the LT in Fig. 3.

Without justification you take Voigt's postulated LT ("da ja sein muss") as a description of reality from which Minkowski derived the monster 'spacetime' with the absurd 'worldlines'. The ensuing fantasy ('unrealistic idea') has attained reality in your mind like in the minds of believers in the Relativity-Gospel. Your "proof" that Fig. 2 is incorrect is tautological: You assume that the LT is correct and derive from this conjecture your drawing that is supposed to "prove" that the LT, i.e. Fig. 3, is correct.This line of argument has a precedent in Einstein's paper: He claims to derive the LT from the postulate c=const and "proves" subsequently - using the very same LT - that c=const.

This discussion could have been considerably shortened, if you had clearly said that you ignore the synchronization procedure of §1, but take the postulated LT as a reality without questioning its foundation.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

To Paul Gradenwitz :

The method of synchronisation and the relativity of simultaneity are two sides of the same metal.

This is complete nonsense. Please read §1 Definition of Simultaneity where any relative velocity of other inertial systems does not play any role.

Dear W.W. Engelhardt .

You write in your article:

“Let a ray of light start at the ‘A time’ tA from A towards B, let it at the ‘B time’ tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ‘A time’ t'A. In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

tB - tA = t'A - tB

(17) (PDF) Einstein's third postulate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311218110_Einstein's_third_postulate [accessed Nov 22 2019].

So light is mentioned to be used in your text. It should be possible to use something different but let us take this light. That light should move the same speed for the observer in S as the observer in S'. Thus if an observer in S and S' are adjacent, at the same event(4d point), they agree that the light starts at A and if other observers in S and S' are adjacent they agree that the light bounces in B. The same for light starting in A' and bouncing in B'. Thus if I make a drawing that describes how the light goes that starts from A, bounces at B and returns to A then both observers in S and S' should agree the events. Also when in the same reference frame I describe how observers in S describe how light starts in A' and bounces at B' and returns at A', then observers in S' should agree about these events.

I describe what happens from the viewpoint of S only. S' is moving with respect to S and light moves with c as seen from S independent of the movement of the sources and mirrors in S'. So, I have not violated any part of the definition of simultaneity.

WWE>: The speed of signal exchange does not enter §1. It could be a pedestrian's speed provided A=>B is the same as B=>A.

However, you forget that the speed of light is incorporated in the interaction of all elements that constitute any object. Only through EM interaction atoms can maintain or alter their distance. The proper time that is valid there influences how the processes of electrodynamics and optics are perceived in each reference frame. Thus arguing what that would be by jumping from the view in one frame to the view in another frame can be initially problematic. That is why I only showed one frame S and describe how the procedure has its result in the other frame S' as seen from the first frame S. So any speed of the synchronisation messenger is the proper speed, the speed as interpreted by the observer in the appropriate restframe. You may look in the picture at the top. There light starts at A', moves under 45° upward till it reaches B' at the line t'=0 and moves at the same angle back till it reaches A' again. That angle represents a speed. It can be any speed. That is only a matter of scaling the time axis. Yet, because the worldline of A' is not perpendicular to the line t=0, the triangle that we just described has not equal length legs. With that the line that connects B' with half the length of the worldline of A' can't be parallel to the line t=0. It has to be at an angle with t=0 and is shown in that picture as the line t'=0.

Have another look into that picture. We have there a line for light from A to B. Assuming that this light path also would be followed from A', then it should originate from A' at an even earlier time. Then it would reach B at the moment when also B' is there. If then at that moment A' would be at A then the light moving back from the event B, B' at t=0, would follow a different path from B to A than it would follow from B' to A' because otherwise the location where A' meets A would not be at half the time for the light to do the roundtrip A', B', A'. Then the clocks of S' would run at an event slower speed and light would travel at different speeds dependent on if the source or mirror is moving or not. This makes this other look show that such option would violate the principles set for the problem.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

So light is mentioned to be used in your text. It should be possible to use something different but let us take this light.

All I take from Einstein's § 1 is the synchronization relationship tB - tA = t'A - tB that leads to Einstein's Figur 36 with three synchronized clocks in S. You agree with me (and Pauli, and Prof. Thim) that it is simply based on the assumption "A=>B is the same as B=>A". Applying the synchronization relationship on the system S' leads to Fig. 2, since S cannot be considered as a unique inertial system. The synchronization procedure may be executed in any inertial system.

I only showed one frame S and describe how the procedure has its result in the other frame S' as seen from the first frame S.

A second relatively moving system is irrelevant for clock synchronization according to § 1. When the procedures in S and S' lead independently to t=0=t', the observers in both systems must necessarily agree on this reading as there is no other reading available at this moment. Einstein has illustrated this fact for the clocks and observers at x=0=x' in Figur 36, but it holds at all locations x and x' since the clocks were synchronized in S' by the same method as in S.

Since Voigt's postulated LT predicts t'=-x'v/c2 at t=0, the postulate is obvious nonsense (unreal) and must be abandoned. The Minkowski world (spacetime, 4d points etc.) and your reasoning "fades away" then, as Stefano Quattrini has formulated.

This makes this other look show that such option would violate the principles set for the problem.

This seems to be your way to express that Einstein's third postulate cannot be satisfied.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear Paul,

the Einstein Synch procedure (ESP) is based on exchanging light waves between observer at rest, has a sound experimental evidence since it relies on "two way speed of light" verified as c in several experiments in vacuum so it is not based on c invariant. it is an objective fact that two clocks have simultaneous times if they underwent ESP, simultaneity is an objective fact.

With LT it is arbitrarily assumed that c is invariant hence, two clocks A, B at rest and set in sync in IRF1 , are not seen in sync from IRF0 at speed v in the direction of separation of the two clocks.

If IRF2 travels perpendicular to the direction of separation, it sees A and B in synch.

Simultaneity for bodies in relative motion, becomes if re-defined this way, strongly dependent on how light waves are used, hence subjective, hence it is not an ontology, hence becomes relative if we use light waves.

A and B set in synch, remain in sync, the moving observer sees them out of sync due to the method (light waves) used to communicate the occurrence of events.

The non acceptable prediction is the following : two clocks, set in synch in IRF0 (ESP), after equal acceleration they are found out-of-sync in IRF1. There is nothing which have set the clocks out of sync, it is an effect without an actual cause....

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

Do you want to argue against SRT or do you want to argue if you can proclaim that you use an SRT procedure and state an outcome that is in contradiction with SRT. The first discussion is what you write about. The second discussion is what I took as the subject here.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

WWE: All I take from Einstein's § 1 is the synchronization relationship tB - tA = t'A - tB that leads to Einstein's Figur 36 with three synchronized clocks in S. You agree with me (and Pauli, and Prof. Thim) that it is simply based on the assumption "A=>B is the same as B=>A".

Up to here we can agree. Within every frame it is assumed that the same physical experiment obtains the same outcome as seen for the experimenter at rest in that frame.

WWE>: Applying the synchronization relationship on the system S' leads to Fig. 2, since S cannot be considered as a unique inertial system. The synchronization procedure may be executed in any inertial system.

No, it does not lead to Fig.2. The synchronisation procedure ESP leads to the same result for every observer that does this procedure within his reference frame as observed within his reference frame. You know that time dilation exists. GPS would not work without taking into account this phenomenon. So, the progress of time in a frame, moving with respect to another frame makes that the time progress as seen for an observer at rest in that frame appears to be different when observed from an observer moving with respect to that frame. This only can be like this if the units of measurement of the two change such that their proper values give different results for observers looking to their results from a different frame. The synchronisation procedure my be executed in any frame but it is done with the units of that frame and not with the units of a different frame.

WWE>: A second relatively moving system is irrelevant for clock synchronization according to § 1. When the procedures in S and S' lead independently to t=0=t', the observers in both systems must necessarily agree on this reading as there is no other reading available at this moment.

You postulate here that "this moment" is universal valid for any frame. What is perceived as "this moment" in one frame is not perceived as "this moment" in another frame. It is the procedure that Einstein developed in his article where he did not run too fast and did put this assumption that simultaneity is universal at the start. You put that assumption at the start and then manage to come to a discrepancy.

WWE>: Einstein has illustrated this fact for the clocks and observers at x=0=x' in Figur 36, but it holds at all locations x and x' since the clocks were synchronized in S' by the same method as in S.

No, it does not hold because the synchronisation done in one frame is done with the units of that frame. The synchronisation of another frame is done with the units of the other frame That does not need to result in the same outcome. It only needs to result in the same outcome for the local observer at rest. Same are the numbers, not the events(4D points).

WWE>: Since Voigt's postulated LT predicts t'=-x'v/c2 at t=0, the postulate is obvious nonsense (unreal) and must be abandoned.

What obvious reason is there to abandon it? If you take for that your reasoning that I am challenging you for here, then you have a circular reasoning. For me it is not obvious to abandon it.

WWE>: This seems to be your way to express that Einstein's third postulate cannot be satisfied.

This is a characterisation of my argumentation and no comment about the content. You aren't able to find an error. So you revert to only classification as if that is sufficient to reject it.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

I write against an interpretation, indicating what should be the right interpretation.

The agreement with ESP does not imply an objective validity of the LT although LT are also based on ESP.

Let's consider the LT from O to O'

a) t'=gamma(t-vx/c2), x'=gamma(x-vt)

it can be rewritten as

b) t'= t*gamma-1- vx'/c2 , x= x'*gamma-1 +vt

the first part of b) is

c) t'= t*gamma-1

it can be seen in different ways.

It is experimentally verified that, by passing at 0 distance, the rates of clocks are in this relation, when in a lab the primed object has been set in motion at speed v

dt'=dt gamma-1 (ives stilwell, muon etc)

that is also the well known expression of the proper time and also the time relation in the Tangherilini transformations.

Basically the term vx'/c2 is exclusively determined by the fact that the speed of the signals used to communicate an event from O to O' , is finite.

The retardation, due to having applied a signal of finite speed, generates that term which has nothing to do with the absence of simultaneity, but simply with the fact that , with light beams, an objective/absolute simultaneity for moving bodies cannot be established: the simultaneity established with light waves between moving bodies becomes subjective. That the simultaneity with light beams with objects in motion cannot be established, does not mean that it does not exist at all.

If vx'

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

The synchronisation procedure ESP leads to the same result for every observer that does this procedure within his reference frame as observed within his reference frame.

This is what I have depicted in Fig. 2: Every observer in S' close to his clock reads t'=0. Einstein has depicted the same for the observers in S: Every observer in S close to his clock reads t=0.

Why do you say: "No, it [the synchronization procedure according to §1] does not lead to Fig.2." What is special about the system S'? The procedure works in S which moves relatively to the left of S'. Why should it not work in S' which moves relatively to the right of S?

Without answering this question the discussion cannot proceed.

Best regards

Wolfgang

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

dt'=dt gamma-1

This relationship is nonsense, since "time" cannot be "dilated", but clocks may tick at different rates. In the GPS t'=t holds between ECI and ECEF, see Ashby's paper. The above relationship would lead to the absurdity that the Boulder clock lags behind the Braunschweig clock and vice versa.

Suppose twins are born on the pole. They travel along the respective meridians to antipodal positions on the equator where they have a relative velocity of about 900 m/s. After a life time of 80 years they return to the pole. Who is older? No one, in spite of their relative velocity that enters gamma above.

Is energy conserved in time t' or in time t? It is, of course, conserved in time t=t'.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

Stefano>: I write against an interpretation, indicating what should be the right interpretation.

That is in my understanding a different issue. You give a lot of equations. That is fine. You conclude with:

Stefano>: The retardation, due to having applied a signal of finite speed, generates that term which has nothing to do with the absence of simultaneity, but simply with the fact that , with light beams, an objective/absolute simultaneity for moving bodies cannot be established: the simultaneity established with light waves between moving bodies becomes subjective. That the simultaneity with light beams with objects in motion cannot be established, does not mean that it does not exist at all.

I agree with you that an absolute simultaneity is something we can assume it could exist. You point out the problem that all hinges on the finite communication speed. All events inside the light cone are called time like related and all outside the light cone are spacelike related. Anything that is spacelike related could be called simultaneous without running into some causality problems. Thus there are a lot of possible simultaneity planes you can choose of. One of them would be the absolute level of simultaneity.

Stefano>: If vx'

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

WWE>: Why do you say: "No, it [the synchronization procedure according to §1] does not lead to Fig.2." What is special about the system S'? The procedure works in S which moves relatively to the left of S'. Why should it not work in S' which moves relatively to the right of S?

Why? You say it. S is moving with respect to S' and S' is moving with respect to S. So, either you can have 3 clocks in S shown to display t=0 and one of the clocks in S' next to a clock in S showing his time t'=0 and then you represent the simultaneity of S, or you can have 3 clocks in S' shown to display t'=0 and one of the clocks in S next to a clock in S' showing his time t=0 and then you represent the simultaneity of S'. Any other representation is not SRT. It might be a valid representation of a different description of reality. It is not a valid representation within SRT. I don't state that one or the other is better. I only state that you can't proclaim something to be consistent with SRT that is not consistent with it.

Light coming from a distant source appears to have a wavefront that is a plane. That plane is under an angle with respect to the direction of travel. What angle is that. Do you agree it is 90°?

When some observer moves in a direction perpendicular to the source of that light then the apparent direction of the source is different. This is the aberration. Yet the moving observer interprets the light wave front to be at 90° to the direction of the movement of light in his frame. The wave front didn't rotate. Only the level of simultaneity, that what the moving observer calls the set of locations where the light has the same phase at the same time, has changed. That is SRT at work.

WWE>: Suppose twins are born on the pole. They travel along the respective meridians to antipodal positions on the equator where they have a relative velocity of about 900 m/s. After a life time of 80 years they return to the pole. Who is older? No one, in spite of their relative velocity that enters gamma above.

Again, you take the wrong example. Rotation is absolute. If one of the twins would travel to the equator and back while the other travels to the equator and returns after a long time, then the one that spent the longer time at the equator has traveled a longer path through spacetime than the one who spent most of his time at the rotation axis. Thus the clocks would differ. You see, your example has the twins remain balanced in their distance to the rotation axis, my example has the imbalance that is needed to see a relative time dilation effect.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Wolfgang,

that relation means that the stationary clocks runs at a faster rate than the moving clock. We have to skip the concept of time in general. That relation between clocks remains a fact.

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

We are discussing here if an attack on the SRT is wrong formulated. This means that we are talking about the SRT in the most ideal manner. How this SRT implements in reality is then the next situation. Your vx'/c2 is something that will appear in the way an inertial frame is interpreted from another frame. The common time of one frame is not the common time in another frame. When I have the observation of a clock at rest in one frame S' form another frame S over zero distance then I can know how, at the same time for S, another set of clocks in S' and S, again at zero distance, have their time display relation.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz

correct, because in general clocks desync due to kinetics.

>

no it is the most important one

Only if each frame includes only one clock or a configuration of clocks which does not allow to implement a common time extended in 3D.

If both 3D frames, Platforms P1 and P2 are disseminated with clocks in sync in each frame and get compenetrated, each clock will compare itself with the moving clock which passes at zero distance in synch with any-other in its platform, whose desynch will not be related at all to vx'/c2 which is 0 since x'=0 but will be related only to the gamma factor.

Simultaneity gets disseminated/propagated in P1 and P2 and becomes absolute since any distant clock in P2 has the same desynch as any other in P2 in regards to any clock in P1 (as it occurs also in the TANGHERLINI T)

There is no way that one clock in Platform P2 will desynch differently as seen from platform P1.

The 3D clock grid is a way to implement a "infinite speed" of propagation of signals, there are no signals actually, but only the fact that objectively the clocks in P1 were set in Synch and remain in sync since they belong to the same IRF.

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

Stefano>: no it is the most important one.

I think that you know something about newtonian gravity theory. There we have an equation where the force of gravity is f=G* M1 * M2 / r2 and you would not stand that position hat this is the ultimate correct theory of gravity. The orbit of Mercury shows there is some problem with it. Yet, you would maybe have the patience to go in a discussion with me that I am wrong if I state that the above equation should be f=G* M1 * M2 / r3 . The issue in this thread is if the SRT is implemented correctly when creating Fig.2.

Your 3D clock grid was set up by using finite speed communication. There is a belief that the clocks are still at sync. The confirmation, that it was so, only comes over finite time communication. Under some conditions you can make a situation where you don't need the vx'/c2. That does not mean that the transformation is different.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

either you can have 3 clocks in S shown to display t=0 and one of the clocks in S' next to a clock in S showing his time t'=0 and then you represent the simultaneity of S, or you can have 3 clocks in S' shown to display t'=0 and one of the clocks in S next to a clock in S' showing his time t=0 and then you represent the simultaneity of S'.

Please explain why I cannot equip two inertial systems with an arbitrary number of clocks each. Suppose two trains S and S' with some hundred passengers. Each of them carries a watch on his wrist that indicates the common World time. Suppose the world time is twelve o'clock when the two trains meet on adjacent tracks. Why should I throw out all passengers except one at the origin in either S or in S' who can see through the windows that his counterpart's clock in the other train indicates twelve o'clock like his own watch?

What is the difference in simultaneity when all synchronized clocks in S' show twelve o'clock and all synchronized clocks in S show also twelve o'clock as mutually confirmed by the passengers at the origin?

That is SRT at work

Please read my Apeiron paper Article Relativistic Doppler Effect and the Principle of Relativity

in order to learn that SRT fails when it is put to work on the observation of binaries. Einstein's "aberration formula in its most general form" depends on the relative velocity between star and telescope which was hailed as a great simplification by Pauli in 1921 and Einstein himself in 1917. Unfortunately, the observations are in blatant contrast to this conjecture. The changing velocity of the star does not play any role.

your example has the twins remain balanced in their distance to the rotation axis,

Yes. Their relative velocity is about 900 m/s on the equator during their life time. Who is older when they return to the pole? See: Working Paper Relative Velocity between Antipodes

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

That relation between clocks remains a fact.

Surely not, since the Boulder clock cannot lag behind the Braunschweig clock and vice versa. This is logical nonsense.

If you put t'=t (1-V2/c2)(1/2) where V is the velocity relative to Selleri's privileged system, you have for the earth V=vt+vr where vt=370 km/s and vr=30 km/s. The "time dilation" would have a mixed term vt.vr/c2 of order 10-7 that varies annually when the earth revolves round the sun. By observing pulsar frequencies which are at least as stable as the cesium clock such variations would have been detected long ago.

Cordially, Wolfgang

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

yes, implementing simultaniety within a region of space which can be extended at will, like the CMBR.

It is not a belief that such clocks at rest remain in Sync, otherwise automatically also SR would be over since its inception.

the common time it is not a condition, it is a very general configuration not very difficult to understand, (GPS are more sophisticated, they define a common time but in a rotating frame). Vx'/c2 is supefluous at best, being only a the direct consequence of the finite speed of communication of events. It makes sense and has a Physical value only if SIGNALS are communicated between moving bodies, exaclty how the Lorentz transformations were born, but there is no ontology whatsoever behind it, no simultaneity is at its command.

The 3D synch clock grid has a very important property :

Let take G1 as a grid where the common time t, is defined

G2 where another common time t' is defined

if for one clock in G1 it is t'=gamma-1*t

it will be true for any clock between G1 and G2.

it has to be as it is trivally logical that t=gamma*t'

it will never occur that

t'=gamma*t

this shows the existence of a local preferred frame which Selleri and Tangherlini mentioned, something which vaguely reminds about the stationary ether of Lorentz.

Dear W.W. Engelhardt ,

The propagation of a message between clocks, at whatever speed you like, is independent from the source and valid for any frame. So if it is the post man or light, whatever speed the source might have, during the propagation the postman of one reference frame and the postman of another reference frame will move with identical speed neither of them overtaking the other. That is the principle of the source having no influence on the propagation speed. So the communication of time of observers inside the train has not one person walking over the floor of the train while the communication of the time of observers along the track has not one person walking along the track. The person performing the communication inside the train and the person performing the communication outside along the track both go with the same speed independent of the relative speed of the train with respect to the track. That is the basis of the SRT ESP.

WWE>: Please explain why I cannot equip two inertial systems with an arbitrary number of clocks each. Suppose two trains S and S' with some hundred passengers. Each of them carries a watch on his wrist that indicates the common World time. Suppose the world time is twelve o'clock when the two trains meet on adjacent tracks. Why should I throw out all passengers except one at the origin in either S or in S' who can see through the windows that his counterpart's clock in the other train indicates twelve o'clock like his own watch?

You don't need to throw passengers out of the train. You only can't state that all passengers have the same time as their counterparts in the other train. There is one reality of the trains meeting head to tail. There is the other reality that the observers in each train have set their clock according to a principle that results in that they call that meeting to happen at a different time.

WWE>: The changing velocity of the star does not play any role.

You didn't realise what I was pointing at. The aberration amount is not my issue. The fact that each observer perceives the wavefront to travel perpendicular to its perceived direction of travel while the light originates from one single source is where I stated SRT to be at work. On observer, with a different velocity as the other observer sees the star light to come from a different direction. There is an angle between the two directions. How much angle there is is not relevant for what I state. The fact that the light from one source appears to have the wavefront be perpendicular to the travel direction for each observer is what I pointed at. We can discuss later if Einstein was correct about how large that angle is.

WWE>: Yes. Their relative velocity is about 900 m/s on the equator during their life time. Who is older when they return to the pole?

When you trace their worldline in Minkowski space then both worldline lengths are equal so they aged the same. Relative speed of 900 m/s in a circular motion is not a case that is described in SRT. Any circular motion example is not valid to argue against SRT that it is describing frames without acceleration. SRT can be used to explain effects in rotational systems and then things like the Sagnac effect are clear. Because a rotating frame is not an inert frame the observations in such frame have to be different from observations in an inert frame.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

Stefano>: It is not a belief that such clocks at rest remain in Sync, otherwise automatically also SR would be over since its inception.

It is a belief. The clock could have failed and we would assume that it still is working correct until information of its failure has reached us.

Stefano>: Vx'/c2 is superfluous at best, being only a the direct consequence of the finite speed of communication of events.

SRT makes use of finite speed communication. If Vx'/c2 is an artefact of that premise, then it is what it is. It is part of SRT. If you like it or jot, if you think another transformation is better makes no difference to it. You will agree that a term Vx'/c2 is part of the SRT related equations and the term Vx'/c3 is not.

Stefano>: it has to be as it is trivially logical that t=gamma*t'.

That you write this sentence makes in trivially clear that you didn't understand the relativity of simultaneity. t=gamma*t' means that based on what t interprets as simultaneous it describes how there the clocks t' appear to change their value. t'=gamma*t means that based on what t' interprets as simultaneous it describes how there the clocks t appear to change their value. Both equations are no simple mathematical interchangeable. They describe how one perceives from his reality the other. Because the reality of one is different from the reality of the other the equations used in one are not interchangeable with the other. Chile is below my feet. China is below the Chilean feet. (Yes, I sit there in the moment) The equations describing the location of the other as below my floor can't be inserted in the equations of these others about me. My up down orientation is different from the up down orientation of them. The same is true with SRT. The level of simultaneity of one frame has its set of equations to describe the relation of time progress in other frames. Another frame has a different level of simultaneity, a different orientation, and within that orientation the same set of equations again can describe the time progress in other frames but seen from a different 'angle'.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul Gradenwitz ,

>

this is a bit like the conception of naives of QM who think that one thing is exist only when they perceive it, but not in other moments.

>

Never said it is an artefact, it what is necessary to make such transformation works with EM waves.

Yes, but I don't see how it can be relevant to what..

>

ROS is determined by such term Vx'/c2. You fail to understand that it is present also at low speeds but long distances (provided that I have only one clock in O' and one in O) , it has nothing to do with high speeds or high energies but only with the fact that the light-time becomes detectable in the economy of the experiments. In this case the clocks APPEAR to be in desync..

>

that is why I see YOU did not understand the ROS.

DEAR....in that case they do not appear, a finite differece is present: the twin effect is not an apparent phenomenon, you end up with two clocks which eventually are desyc in the same IRF.

should I understand that in one case it is t=gamma*t' and in the other case (as for gravitation)

it is t'=gamma-1*t...because in that case you got it right...

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

We may argue about what is a belief. What I try to point you at is the problem that we only would know after 8 minutes if the sun did see an impact of a comet or not. That happens at a time according to our interpretation of simultaneity and we learn about it 8 minutes later. We have no evidence of such event even where we might have good prediction of such event. Thus, we believe our physics knowledge and predict that something will happen.

Stefano>: Never said it is an artefact, it what is necessary to make such transformation works with EM waves.

Other transformations have other equations.

Stefano>: Yes, but I don't see how it can be relevant to what..

That is relevant to the question I am discussing with W.W. Engelhardt. I don't discuss if SRT is the right theory. I discuss that assumes to have created a picture in agreement with SRT that is not in agreement with SRT. That is similar to the difference between r2 and r3. You know what is a correct newtonian equation and what isn't a correct Newtonian equation. You can defend what is a correct equation without taking position if that describes reality in the best way.

Stefano>: ROS is determined by such term Vx'/c2. You fail to understand that it is present also at low speeds but long distances (provided that I have only one clock in O' and one in O) , it has nothing to do with high speeds or high energies but only with the fact that the light-time becomes detectable in the economy of the experiments. In this case the clocks APPEAR to be in desync..

I understand that this ROS is there for any difference in speed of the frames.

Stefano>: DEAR....in that case they do not appear, a finite difference is present: the twin effect is not an apparent phenomenon, you end up with two clocks which eventually are desync in the same IRF.

Here you take an example of transition between frames. When we look into just two frames and their relation then the observer in one frame will observe the clock in the other frame to run at a slower speed. Assume that we would have a third frame and these two frames move with respect to this frame with 0.3c and 0.6c , then observers in both initial frames would interpret the other to move with 0.3c and thus see the other clock move slower while the third fame observer sees the clock of one frame move slower than the other. Now who is right? We have no absolute frame. We could have three interpretations. Once we start to move between frames we talk about who's worldline length is most. That will decide about who is older when the twins meet again.

Stefano>: should I understand that in one case it is t=gamma*t' and in the other case (as for gravitation) it is t'=gamma-1*t...because in that case you got it right..

No. You should understand that as seen from the first frame the other frame is moving and thus its clock appears to go slower and for the other frame the first frame is moving and thus for the other frame the clock of the first frame appears to be slower. You then get two equations t=gamma*t' and t'=gamma*t but you are not allowed to combine them as t=gamma*t'=gamma*gamma*t=gamma2t. One equation belongs to one reference frame and the other belongs to the other reference frame.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz