Eckard, when I wrote of the velocity being different for different reference frames I was talking about E. kLingman considering different kinetic energies. The page you suggested doesn't load for me.

What appears to be logical inconsistency can be explained by the lack of differentiation between products of observation (that I have for a long time referred to as Image reality) and existing (source) material objects (for a long time referred to as Object reality). For example the two distant clocks from which signals are received by the two observers. A received signal is processed into a product. The content of Those products pertain to the time the signals were emitted. They are not the existing reality external to the observer. They are not telling the time -Now (at uni-temporal Now) in which the material distant clock exists.

Due to the very high speed of light; the time shown in the observation product formed from EM radiation, received by an observer, from a local clock is exceedingly close to the time on the material clock, ( a particular material/physical configuration.

The material clocks is in the reality external to the observer. The observation products are generated by the observer and only appear to be the external reality.

"But time is no more defined by a clock than pressure is defined by a pressure gauge, speed by a speedometer, or gravity by a graded spring. Time is not defined by clocks. It is naturally fixed, manifest in motion, as with the celestial bodies. By defining time by his clocks, A. Einstein detached time from physical reality. "Stephen J. Crothers The Special Theory of Relativity: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0086v1.pdf

The historical context is, early days of railway systems requiring co-ordination of clocks for the working of train timetables. The advance of electrical signals over pneumatic signalling. A time signal (and the product generated from such a signal) is something different from passage of time. But if both are just called time confusion can arise.

Perhaps more precise vocabulary would be helpful. A clock does not really show time but an observer sees an apparent clock display setting. For co-ordination of clocks- A time signal is not really sent but the clock setting plus signal transmission time (a duration, during which the signal is in transit). If sight is being considered it is not really time that is transmitted but EM radiation, that can be processed into seen present ( an observation product) pertaining to the radiation's emission.

Avoiding the term 'time'for disambiguation.

A clock does not really show time but an observer sees an apparent clock display setting.

For co-ordination of clocks- A time signal is not really sent but the clock setting plus transmission duration.

Re. sight, it is not really time that is transmitted but EM radiation, that can be processed into seen present ( an observation product) pertaining to the radiation's emission.

Stephen J. Crothers, in the cited paper, quotes Einstein from "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies."" It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it 'the time of the stationary system.'" The defined time written of is the common, synchronized clock display setting.

BTW The term 'privileged', with particular meaning in Relativity, appears to have been misinterpreted (page 10)

That is Page 10, The Special Theory of Relativity:Logical Inconsistencies. http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0086v1.pdf Stephen J. Crothers

I couldn't get the APS page with the paper to load

S. Crothers does not seem to grasp what Einstein is doing from the outset. Einstein is establishing the clock display setting of the stationary observer's reference frame. He is not defining passage of time or establishing a system of stationary observers.

Georgina,

I already mentioned that Crothers' sigma=1 corresponds to v=0. It does not matter whether or not Crothers directly grasped what Einstein tacitly did when he applied Poincaré's two-way method of synchronizing that was successfully used in practice on condition v = 0.

When Einstein claimed that this method is generally valid he was evidemtly wrong in case of relative motion (v =|= 0) between A and B. In order to understand this you don't need Galilean and Lorentz transformation, just the simple and plausible redshift/blueshift reasoning by Christian Doppler.

If the clock of A emits a timespan and the distance between A and B increases, then B receives an increased timespan (redshift): In case of decreasing distance, B receives a shorter timespan (blueshift). A and B mutually "see" their clocks run differently plus or minus and by more than "time dilution" amounts.

The reason for Einstein to use Poincaré's two-way (round-trip) synchronization without any reasonable justification was to mathematically arrive at the transformation which was introduced by Lorentz and adopted by Poincaré in order to defend the aether thich was not found in Michelson's (and Michelson with Morley's) experiment. Mathematically seemingly flawless, Einstein's Relativity gave rise to useless controversy up to now.

Unfortunately, what has been called Relativity or invariance theories were confused with the experimentally well confirmed strong effect of Lorentz Gamma on the so called "relativistic" mass. Im that, Klingman is definitely on the right trace.

If you Georgina, are imagining an omnipresent ubiquitous now, then you should be aware that this is inconsistent with Einstein's (itself inconsistent) Relativity which is a tight bundle of useless paradoxical tenets including time dilution, length contraction, etc. Notice, I am capitalizing Relativity as to indicate that it got meanwhile a irrefutable belief.

EB

Eckard, I don't understand why you suggested S. Crother's paper.

I think the synchronization of the clocks is used to set the clock display setting (clock 'time') of the background frame of reference, not used on moving objects.

Re."If you Georgina, are imagining an omnipresent ubiquitous now, then you should be aware that this is inconsistent with Einstein's (itself inconsistent) Relativity" EB. That is where categorization comes in. Uni-temporal Now pertains to the existing material reality in which observers exist. Space-time pertains to the products of processing received signals whether directly via senses of an observer or with intermediate technology

Georgina,

I appreciate Crothers' APS paper because it reminds of undeniable logical inconsistencies although Crothers does not yet reveal Einstein synchronization as the basic inconsistency, and he also fails to attribute gamma merely to the integral m v dv.

You

"think the synchronization of the clocks is used to set the clock display setting (clock 'time') of the background frame of reference, not used on moving objects"

and you argues

"Uni-temporal Now pertains to the existing material reality in which observers exist. Space-time pertains to the products of processing received signals whether directly via senses of an observer or with intermediate technology".

Aren't you aware of Einstein'n mistake? One cannot eat the cake and have it though. Einstein postulated that all clocks have the same properties and he tacitly assumes that they will remain synchronized. This would be the a correct thought with v=0. However, even if all clocks were of the same quality and simultaneously set to a common start value, Doppler's reasoning let us understand that from the perspective of A the clock B and vice versa run either faster or slower in case of v =|= 0. In other words, A and B may be thought as synchronized only for one moment. General application of two-way synchronization is only justified with v=0. I see it's use by Einstein a dirty formal trick aiming to arrive at gamma. Some consequences are nonsensical, just a matter of stupid belief.

What about space-time, while this related to abstraction and Relativity concept ignores the distinction between the categories past and future, it is often advantageous.

The situation with quantum mechanics might be similar.

EB

Eckard, I agree not all clocks are the same and there are many factors that can affect timekeeping. Einstein is thinking of ideal clocks. That isn't really an error but a simplification. You seem to have missed my posts that suggest avoiding the term 'time' for disambiguation. I thought it would be helpful. Doppler shift is something affecting the space-time product, the image reality formed from received signals. It is not affecting the source reality. An error I have identified is not taking into account the periodic nature of EM radiation. The period of such motion being invariant under translation. Space-time products are generated by each observer. When input related to a particular event is received is related to when it (the event) is perceived (as present). So if an event is past, present or future also depends. It is not the source reality.

Eckard, sitting still in a car I am stationary relative to the car (and the scenery is moving), even if I'm seen to be travelling at 80km/hr with the car by an outside observer, who considers himself and the scenery stationary. Whether stationary or moving is a point of view.

When the ideal clocks are synchronized, at the location of each clock the clock display setting is the same. They are seen or otherwise found to be different from that by a distant observer because a signal must be received in order for the display setting of that clock to be a part of that observer's present. What the distant observer sees or otherwise perceives does not alter the synchronization of the material clocks.

Georgina,

Einstein in 1905 gave a seemingly compelling argument: The time of flight from A to B t_AB must be the same as t_BA from B to A. This is correct if there is zero velocity v between A and B, and also if the signals from A and from B are simultaneously emitted. However, Einstein's synchronization condition assumed a return trip, first from A to B, and then back from B to A. Let's assume the distance AB has grown by vt_AB when the light arrived at B. Then the return path BA and also t_BA are increased because the emission from B happens already with the delay vt_AB. Hence, Einstein's "synchronization" must not be used with v =| = 0. This implies that there is no logical justification for arriving at gamma via

c/(c+v)+c/(c-v)=2/[1-(v/c)^2]

A return trip doesn't begin at A and B simultaneously.

Einstein's ideal clocks are OK, except for his confusion of the category mathematical construct with reality.

In reality, it exclusively depends on the assumed as point-like event at the source of the signal it emits whether it is traceable in the past or just expected in the future.

You wrote: "What the distant observer sees or otherwise perceives does not alter the synchronization of the material clocks." As I tried to explain, Einstein synchronization cannot at all permanently synchronize B with A in case v =|= 0. SRT is logically flawed from the very beginning.

EB

Eckard, I don't know why you are arguing against trying to synchronize clocks moving relative to each other. It doesn't seem to be what Einstein was suggesting be done. NB in following quote "..clocks that are at rest relative to this system". "Further, by means of the clocks at rest in the system at rest and using light signals in the manner described in §1, the time t of the system at rest is determined for all its points where there is a clock; likewise, the time T of the moving system is determined for all the points of the moving system having clocks that are at rest relative to this system, applying the method of light signals described in §1 between the points containing these clocks." On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Einstein. 1905. Volume 2: (English translation supplement) Page 140 via Einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154