Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
You're still putting the cart before the horse here. The clocks are only considered to be synchronised under the standards of observations defined by the appropriate frame of reference.
It's not a case of "the clocks are synchronised therefore a reference frame is established". It's a case of, "the reference frame in which the system is described as stationary will describe the clocks as synchronised by the appropriate procedure"

I'm not sure if you remember in our previous discussions, but that is precisely how outlined the establishing of a reference frame; it involved populating the universe with synchronised clocks at rest relative to the observer  I think the point I was arguing was how an observer could be at rest relative to a set of imaginary, mathematical coordinates. It's not necessarily a point we need to get back into
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
This is stipulated by the reference frame. It is a definition established by our choice of reference frame. It is not an assumed metaphysical fact upon which we establish the reference frame.

This would seem to suggest that the set of [imaginary] mathematical coordinates [chosen to describe physical events] bestows metaphysical properties upon the universe in the form of the Relativity of Simultaneity; together with the physical structure necessitated to accommodate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
It is one thing to suggest some LorentzPoincairetype dynamics as an explanation for relativistic phenomena. It is another to suggest that the orthodox geometric account of relativistic phenomena is inconsistent.

Some key points here:
1) I'm not arguing [anymore] that the Einsteinian interpretation is inconsistent, I'm arguing that its selfconsistency stems from its assuming its conclusion, an assumption which I am arguing is contradicted by [implied] obervational evidence  implied by the thought experiment used to explain it.
2) We don't need to rely on dynamics in a LorentzPoincare style interpretation; bcos an LP style formulation can be derived in an entirely kinematical manner, following the Einsteinian approach  as I will try to outline below.
Somewhat separately, but entirely related, the LP interpretation can be divested of an undetectable Ether  given it plays no [detectable] role in anything. This leaves us with an absolute reference frame. Essentially, we don't need an absolute reference frame, we need a privileged referece frame that defines "true time". There are 2 posssible approaches to removing the need for this privileged reference frame; my preferred route is simply removing the idea that there is a "true time"  an atemporal interpretation does this. Altternatiely, we can simply use a privileged reference frame for the definition of our units of measurement. As a matter of operational necessity, the rest frame of the Earth plays this role because that is how we have defined our units of measurement.
This is not the kinematical derivation, but it addresses some possible "background" issues.
3) The clock synchronisation thought experiment can be taken to represent a possible realworld, experimental setup that can be used to test the assumption of Einstein's clock synchronisation convention  if the assumption is determined to be invalidated, then we are left with an alternative interpretation that has been derived kinematically.
As per the the Synchronisation Convention, the journey time for a light signal from clock A to clock B is assumed to be the same as the journey time from B to A. This equates to assuming the simultneity of clock synchronisation events. In the thought experiment with Alice and Bob, their emitters and their 2 clocks, we effectively have 3 examples of this in the one setup.
The thought experiment can be seen as a testing of this assumption, so what is the outcome? Basically, every relatively moving observer provides observational evidence that the clocks are not synchronised i.e. that the clock synchronisation events were not simultaneous. This is juxtaposed with Alice's assumption  in the face of contradictory empirical evidence  that her clocks are synchronised.
Maintaining this assumption leads, by way of necessity, to the conclusion of relativity of simultaneity but only because the "events which are simultaneous in one frame...." part of the definition is assumed i.e. the conclusion is assumed.
Maintaining this assumption requires us to accept a position where observers can be both right and wrong about oberved physical; a seeming paradox in anyone's language but not in the Einsteinian interpretion of relativity; however, it's selfconsistency is entirely based on its circularity.
The alternative is one where we equally have to accept that observers are both right and wrong, but it is the infintiely more palatable case where obervers are mistaken in their assumptions and it is the observational evidence which is correct.
Upon dropping the assumption of simultaneity of clock synchronisation events we are left with a purely kinematical derivation of the theory which extends the Galilean Principle of Relativity to simultaneity/synchronisation because, when you think about it, there is no way to determine that two events are simultaneous. We can determine that light signals from two events arrive at a detector simultaneously, but this cannot be used to determine the simultaneity of those events.