----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: <16qcnddW0a4zRoX4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>
dcb89879
@REPLY:
<4b0e3acc-ec9a-47e8-9c26-e96bcfda7c72n@googlegroups.com> bc820f0b
@REPLYADDR Tom Roberts
<tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Tom Roberts
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References:
<281b9f71-7f06-41de-986c-d8a7e27d3d32n@googlegroups.com> <4b0e3acc-ec9a-47e8-9c26-e96bcfda7c72n@googlegroups.com>
@RFC-Message-ID:
<16qcnddW0a4zRoX4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>
@TZUTC: -0500
@PID: Mozilla Thunderbird
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> The crux of the argument is that Einstein`s time synchronization
> method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
I have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description is
impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).
But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates (t,x,y,z),
and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S` with coordinates
(t`,x`,y`,z`), then Einstein`s synchronization holds among clocks at
rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among clocks at rest
anywhere in S` that display t`. After all, that is what is meant by
"inertial frame".
So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.
Tom Roberts
--- Mozilla Thunderbird
* Origin: usenet.network (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441