Do the laws of physics demand that clocks be synchronized?

Do the laws of physics demand that clocks be synchronized? Let's
take a wild guess and suppose the answer is no. Imagine, then, every
observer in every frame of reference deciding to set his clocks in
whatever way he wanted. The consequences would be disastrous for
relativists. The Lorentz transformation then couldn't possibly be
the correct rule to express how events (x,t) get mapped into events
(x',t') in moving frames of reference. Have you ever heard that the
homogeneity and isotropy of space and time require linear coordinate
transformations? I have just now proven that ridiculous myth to be
false.

Just for fun I have taken the Lorentz transformation equations (which
imply a specific and well-known synchronization scheme) and reset all
the clocks in a wild and unsettling manner. The end result is a group
of nonlinear transformations that obviously contain the same physical
content as the original Lorentz transformations. See exercise 1 and 2
of [Only registered users see links. ]

You can't imagine all the flack that I've received over this. My
critics act as if I've violated some cardinal law of physics or
something. I piety them for their small-minded delusions. Sometimes
I do see a humorous side. Should I laugh more at the implications of
their words? What good would it do? In their religious frenzy to
condemn me as a heretic, they're not even capable of understanding my
words.

Eugene Shubert
[Only registered users see links. ]

Perfectly Innocent wrote:

Your ignorance is of demonstrated great comfort to you. The GPS
system works. The GPS system is heavily corrected for Special and
General Relativity. The first GPS satellite was not default corrected
and it didn't work to spec until the corrections were applied. You
are an ignorant ass.

[Only registered users see links. ]
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
[Only registered users see links. ]
Relativity in the GPS system

[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>

[snip stooopidity]

--
Uncle Al
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
(Do something naughty to physics)

"Perfectly Innocent" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:c45b45b3.0310250739.3370cf97@posting.google.c om...

You have taken a wild guess supposing that you are insane.
And you have just proven yourself right.
Congratulations.

Dirk Vdm

Perfectly Innocent wrote:

Simultaneity is unique for every observer!

Dear Perfectly Innocent:

"Perfectly Innocent" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0310250739.3370cf97@posting.google.c om...
....

Linear coordinate transformation include a constant offset (different times
for *now*) and a slope (different rates). Lorentz is not even *sweating*
what you find as an issue. Synchronization can be nothing more than
recording *now* for the series of clocks.

You don't posture well.

David A. Smith

"Dirk Van de moortel" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<LKxmb.106622$[Only registered users see links. ]>...

So your point of view is that the laws of physics do indeed demand
that clocks be synchronized. That's interesting.

Eugene Shubert
[Only registered users see links. ]

My personal predilection for mischief, irreverence for religious
relativity and absurdly nonlinear clock synchronizations is no threat
to the homogeneity and isotropy of spacetime. If I'm wrong and if my
continued use of hazardous and unlicensed clock synchronizations
begins to tare at the fabric of spacetime, then, and only then,
will I do away with the threat--for a fee.

Eugene Shubert
[Only registered users see links. ]

"Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand
for this, partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly
because they didn't get invited to those sorts of parties."
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979)

Eugene Shubert
[Only registered users see links. ]

"Perfectly Innocent" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0310251630.2faf4f3c@posting.google.c om...

Yes, lovely book, but not only is it science *fiction*, it's a comedy, so
what's your point?

Perfectly Innocent:

Not bad for a wild guess.


OK. So that means there exists absolutely no relationship between
any two clocks.


Why is that? I think you have turned something obvious into
something mystical.


That is completely silly. You've said above that observers set their
clocks as they choose. So far you haven't specified how two observers
satisfy the first postulate. So sure, so long as you don't satisfy the
first postulate, you can do anything you want. Once you impose the
first postulate as a constraint, your choices are severely limited.


No, you haven't. Homogeneity and isotropy require the form of
the equations of motion to have no explicit dependence on the
coordinates. You have to define things like energy, momentum,
angular momentum (or some quantities you want to call "laws of
physics") such that any of your inertial observers defines them
in the same way in their own frames.


You seem to have some idea that the labels on a clock face have
some mystical power to alther the laws of physics in different
frames.


The only thing that's obvious is that didn't prove the
assertion.



Yes, I can. I could imagine more if anyone else decided to
join the thread.


You mean like the one you overlooked when claiming that your
so-called "sxr" transformation was a group, yet had no inverse
for any element? (The inverse of the identity doesn't count).


You left out, "Bless them Father, for they know not what they do".