0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Agree, but then why are you applying rules of empiricism to a mathematical statement?
QuoteBut, just as the rules of empiricism do not govern mathematics, neither do the rules of mathematics govern empiricism.You probably don't mean that mathematics cannot be used in physics, so not sure what you mean by this. Most of SR theory is mathematical. There are some empirical predictions of course, but we don't seem to be in disagreement about those, only the mathematical parts.
But, just as the rules of empiricism do not govern mathematics, neither do the rules of mathematics govern empiricism.
No it doesn't. If the model predicts one thing and empirical measurement yields another, then the model does not correspond to reality, but the mathematics in the model is not wrong because of it. The model is the wrong one, not the mathematics.
Not all theories have mathematical formalization, and not all mathematical formalism is part of theories. The hard sciences (like we're discussing here) tend to be quite mathematical, but something like psychological theory might not as much. What defines a theory is empirical predictions. Hence something like string theory (insanely heavy on the mathematics) is arguably not a theory since it has yet to make a prediction. Quantum field theory is a theory, but pilot wave theory is not.Interpretations get into the metaphysics. One can choose to totally skip the metaphysics and just work with the theory raw. That's what Alice could be said to be doing if you keep metaphysical claims out of her conclusions.
QuoteIf so, then we can conclude that the relativity of simultaneity isn't derived from the mathematics.No idea how you conclude that. I challenge you to derive it without mathematics.
If so, then we can conclude that the relativity of simultaneity isn't derived from the mathematics.
They're not equivalent at all. Again, trying implementing a speed limit sign using the alternate interpretation, and you'll see the difference in the mathematics. I notice you didn't respond to that.
RoS is derived from the theory which defines simultaneity in a empirical (physical) way.An absolute interpretation.discards that definition (and several others) in favor of metaphysical ones.
I'm considering the interpretation that makes no additional metaphysical assumptions (raw SR theory). Lacking a conflicting assumption, I can hope this prevents conflict with an interpretation that makes some....The predictions were not derived from any interpretation, which makes none. You describe no predictions above except the simultaneous return of the signals. The rest is just abstract mathematical statements. They could become metaphysical statements had there been any metaphysical premises, but I'm avoiding them for the moment to make the point that the definitions don't require them.Anyway, I more or less agree with the description until it got into a description of what the scientists may or may not have accepted or decided needed testing. The philosophers maybe. Their job is to sort out the sorts of things being debated in this thread.
SR is a theory. The absolute interpretation of it is still SR. If SR fails in a prediction, any absolute interpretation goes down with it.
Interestingly, SR claims up front not to correspond to reality except locally, so there are plenty of non-local tests to falsify it as a model of the universe at medium scales. Simplest test is the inability to sync a pair of clocks on different floors of a building. So there likewise needs to be an absolute interpretation of GR theory.
Interpretations don't have empirical consequences.
QuoteThis is partly the reason why the intuitive response to reading Alice and Bob is to make the assumption that the premises of SR are implied. But we're not doing that. We're assuming the premises of no interpretation.That's what I've been doing as well. Still assuming the premises of the theory, which is OK since they're empirical premises.
This is partly the reason why the intuitive response to reading Alice and Bob is to make the assumption that the premises of SR are implied. But we're not doing that. We're assuming the premises of no interpretation.
The conclusions they draw are often pure mathematical abstract conclusions. 'Clock at A is in sync with clock at B' is a pure mathematical abstract conclusion, not a metaphysical one. 'Clock A is in sync with Clock B' on the other hand is worded as a metaphysical statement. Hence me being picky about the difference.
H-K was an empirical exercise, not an abstract one or a thought experiment. It is in fact the first empirical verification of the twins experiment. One may be free to interpret the results in different ways, but the point was the empirical comparison done at the end coupled with an empirical history of the journey taken by each device.
Beg to differ. There are spaceships out there whose navigation depends on GR. There are clocks moved at very high speeds with predicted results. One can call them space ships if it satisfies some requirement. The thought experiments might help initially work out the details of the theory, but in a thread like this, those thought experiments are just illustrations of the established theory, not means by which new discoveries are expected to be made. We both assume the theory to be sound when we discuss them. I have little personal means to verify it myself.
OK, so you mean metaphysical assumption when you say this. Perhaps you also mean metaphysical consequences when speaking of 'empirical consequences of interpretations'. This sort of language abuse is rapidly destroying our ability to communicate. 'Empirical' and 'metaphysical' are mutually exclusive. As soon as some finding becomes empirical, it ceases to be interpretation. You walk out of the cave and see what causes the shadows on the wall for the first time. The various interpretations of those shadows are now empirically validated or falsified theories and are no longer interpretations.
Understood, but I refuse to use this wording myself. It seems intentionally designed to mislead. We need a word to replace 'empirical' then, something to mean what actually can be observed, because you're destroyed that meaning. Communication not possible with no word that means that anymore.
Lloyd (1988: 2), a philosopher of evolutionary biology, stated that, ―Under a general hypothetico-deductive view of theories, a theory is understood as offering hypotheses from which, in combination with empirical assumptions, deductions can be made regarding empirical results.
Why look at the deflection of a particle’s trajectory in an electromagnetic field in order to measure its charge? – and doing so will demand a large number of auxiliary empirical assumptions.
The model solves for the mass evolution based on what are thought to be the dominant input boundary conditions. Some empirical assumptions are made to predict the behavior of lower order physics.
By identifying the energy that must be absorbed through deformation of the vehicle’s roof using the FMVSS 216 five inches (127 mm) of roof crush strength limit as a constraint, it was possible to calculate theoretically using some broad empirical assumptions generated from rollover crash test data, Vehicle roof strength as it relates to contained occupant injury prevention during rollover crashes
one word of caution is that the Doppler Dimming method strongly depends on empirical assumptions of the electron density and ion temperature, thus possibly leading to different results with different assumptions (Wilhelm et al. 2011).
Again, the 2nd is a physical statement, the 1st an abstract one. Both are statements about the physical configuration, so I agree with you as you word it.
It is derived from his convention. There is no interpretational component to that.
It's entirely testable. He put a way to do it in his paper. That demonstration involves purely empirical methods, so it can very much be verified empirically.Your problem seems to be an assumption that Einstein is making a sort of metaphysical statement by #1. But it's just an abstract statement, and one that can be tested.
A metaphysical assertion (had one been made) would not be observable. The abstract thing is quite observable. You're confusing the two. No such statement of the former has been made, nor derived.
QuoteIn the domain of empiricism, something which is unobserved or unobservable constitutes an "empirical assumption".As I said, I understand what you mean by this, but will not accept the language since doing so would deprive me of a word I need for its defined purpose.
In the domain of empiricism, something which is unobserved or unobservable constitutes an "empirical assumption".
QuoteThe intepretation makes a claim about the configuration of the physical system.The theory (not any interpretation) makes this abstract claim about the configuration of the physical system. The theory isn't based on any new assumptions, so it is hard to contest.
The intepretation makes a claim about the configuration of the physical system.
Quote1) Reading [d/c] on clock C0 = physical claimThat's an empty physical claim, standing in opposition to one where the clock doesn't read that at some point, like it skips over some times or something. It wouldn't be a clock if this claim was unrealistic. And it's clock at C0 BTW.
1) Reading [d/c] on clock C0 = physical claim
Again, all empty claims, in opposition to an interpretation that the light signals were diverted elsewhere. None of these are claims. They're descriptions of events, using wording that frames (most of) them in an abstract coordinate system.
Quote4) 2 & 3 coinciding with 1 = physical claimAbstract (neither physical nor metaphysical) claim. Your insistence otherwise seems the source of our disagreement, and the source of my labeling your wording as strawman.
4) 2 & 3 coinciding with 1 = physical claim
In relatively moving frames, 1,2,3,5 are not established. #4 is demonstrated only in one frame and unknown (without employing further methods) in other frames. The sync test cannot be performed in other frames, and we've not devised a means here to demonstrate whether or not they're in sync in a given one. But I deny that at this point b) has been demonstrated. Bob hasn't done this.
Alice has not concluded RoS. That comes from the SR, not from new experimentation. If you don't assume the empirical premises of SR, it doesn't follow. Newton didn't posit RoS because he was unaware of the empirical premises in question. It follows quite trivially from empirical evidence. You don't need to do any arithmetic to conclude it.
I'm mostly talking about the theory here, not somebody else's interpretation of it. I won't go so far as to assert that there is no metaphysical language used in Einstein's works, but I'm not relying on it....It is not. It is never concluded from SR. Only certain (most/all) interpretations assume this, but not the theory itself, and RoS is derived from the theory, not any interpretation.An interpretation that has metaphysically direction-dependent light speed is functionally equivalent to a coordinate system with non-orthogonal axes. While it is mathematically valid to do this, one might wonder why one would wish to adopt such an interpretation.
Anyway, in such an interpretation, Einstein's convention still works and Alice's clocks are still in sync in her frame by that convention. It works because the convention doesn't reference any metaphysical assumptions.
Of course not. RoS isn't such a statement at all, as I've said for countless posts. You're just now getting that?...Since absolute simultaneity is a metaphysical premise, it doesn't conflict since they're in unrelated realms. So agree.
No such concept has been introduced by the theory. The absolute interpretation introduces that concept and thus gives meaning to a variant to that question, and yes, even that can be verified by Einstein's convention (if you choose to use the convention). What cannot be verified is the clocks being at respective locations C0, C1, and C2, so the test can at best assume they are at those locations, or not assume it and declare that this physical sync cannot be determined.
Hard to parse that. I presume we're using Einstein's definitions here, in which case, yes, of course. The events are simultaneous in one coordinate system and not the other. Both are abstract statements.
Abstract simultaneity convention is something like this: You select an arbitrary coordinate system of 4 orthogonal axes in spacetime and draw a line from each event tangent to the temporal axis. If the two tangent lines meet the arbitrarily selected axis at the same point, they will also have that property with any line parallel to the selected one. It is the orientation, not location, that counts. Anyway, if that abstract condition is met, the events are simultaneous by definition of the convention. There is no metaphysical statement of simultaneity implied by that. It is an abstract statement made about a physical system. The description here speaks of events and not of synced clocks. The latter are not events.All such coordinate systems are mathematically equivalent, and the property will not be met with some of them using the same two events. That is another way of answering your question above.
I didn't say the clock in the next room reads d/c. I said it does in the coordinate system where the rooms are at a fixed location. The latter is not a physical statement, but an abstract one.
Quoteare you saying that SR does not confict with, or make any claims/statements/etc. which contradict the absolutist interpretations?The theory doesn't, no. An interpretation of it might, but I have a hard time thinking even of that one.
are you saying that SR does not confict with, or make any claims/statements/etc. which contradict the absolutist interpretations?
It isn't concluded nor even assumed, and there are all these sites that show it can't be done, so it obviously isn't needed by the theory at all, which needed no modification due to the inability to show this. It uses a convention with coordinate systems with orthogonal axes. It is a definition of a convention, not an assumption about the underlying reality that isn't needed for statements not concerning that underlying reality.
QuoteIf you're arguing that she doesn't assume isoptropyIf she's using just the theory and no interpretational baggage, then yes, I'm arguing that.
If you're arguing that she doesn't assume isoptropy
He does not give it that meaning, which is why of course all the denial sites gather like flies around that passage.
I meant that also. A statement is not a prediction. A prediction is an anticipated result of a measurement. The word implies the measurement has not yet been performed.
I said it wasn't a prediction, not that it wasn't a physical statement. Predictions are used to verify/falsify a theory. A theory that doesn't make a distinct prediction isn't a theory, however blue in the face it might turn describing a physical system.
Some of the string theorists' tribulations regarding untestable predictions are shared by epidemiologists and other researchers...When the causal effect of interest is ill defined, the counterfactual theory of causal inference from observational data and the elegant statistical methods derived from it lead to predictions that are untestable.
Untestable predictions and hypotheses lie outside the realm of science. Suppose someone told you, for example, that lightning storms are caused by angry ghosts. If this is true, you would predict that when ghosts are angry, there will be more lightning storms. It's not a valid scientific hypothesis, however, because neither the proposed explanation nor its predictions are testable. There is no possible experiment you can design to determine whether ghosts are angry and whether their wrath is correlated with the incidence of thunderstorms, so the hypothesis and its predictions are completely untestable.
A local comparison is not frame dependent. That comparison can be (and was) done in any frame. It isn't possible to not be in the other frames. H-K beginning and end events were not done by equipment that was stationary in the same frame as each other. It was an unnecessary requirement and no care was taken to do so. Likewise with the twins at both ends of the journey. The requirement is that they be together. That's all. Comparisons are objective if they're local. I suppose mass comparisons are not....Again, you are redefining the term from the way say Minkowski or Galileo define it, but since we have an alternate term, communication isn't as hampered.
If we apply Occam‘s razor and excise the ether from Lorentz‘s theory, what we obtain is not special relativity. It is still possible to retain the Newtonian space-time plus conspiring dynamical effects by defining by fiat a privileged reference frame. For example, the Lorentzian could baldly say that the privileged frame is the one in which the real time is measured, period.
An intertial frame cannot be accelerated. An accelerated frame can, but it has different properties.
That's fine. She didn't conclude it from that since it is true in any frame, and the clocks are not synced in them all.
I mean what I said and not what you said. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. I'm not comitting the strawman fallacy since the statement makes no claims (false or otherwise) about what some interpretation might assert. Not sure what you think a strawman is. I just made a claim and invite being corrected. I might be wrong on this one.
Neither a theory. If either is a theory, what prediction does it make? It's an interpretation until it has a falsification test.
It was brought up due to its relevance to a sync convention being discussed. Sync convention is relevant to this thread topic.
So to repeat, I brought it up as a relevant example of a different sync convention. I persisted with it because you suggested that he cannot have done what he did (which was measuring light speed utilizing a one-way method, not measuring the one-way speed of light).
You still deny it! This is the 2nd reason why I didn't let it drop. SR says the method is valid and should yield exactly c. The theory says that, not any interpretation. It follows trivially from the empirical premises of SR. If your interpretation denies this, it is wrong.
Your claim of there being issues with a defined convention is noted. What do you think a convention is? Is that another word that is going to get redefined?
I never meant that. He was measuring SoL using a one way method.
If you could meausre 1WSoL, yes, but that doesn't mean that SoL cannot be measured using a one way method. If it yields c every time (as PoR say it must), then no absolute motion can be detected. Tooley is quite right about this.
QuoteThis leads to slightly different conclusions than SR, but not in terms of things that can actually be tested.Yes, they're different conclusions, but not conflicting ones. All interpretations (if they add premises) make additional conclusions based on those added premises. You have been calling this circular reasoning, but I have not.
This leads to slightly different conclusions than SR, but not in terms of things that can actually be tested.
Apologies, I don't really understand the analogy. The speed limit sign can still imply relative to the road.
That's a redefinition of how the term is used in physics. Perhaps you should choose another one. Why do reunited instruments need a frame? They can reunite on the fly, comparing results at some event as they pass. Events don't have frames.
but that would, of course give rise to a paradox bcos it would require Alice to show that Bob's clock ticks slower than hers, while Bob shows that Alice's clock ticks slower than his.
but, as we can from things like the Twin-paradox and Hafele-Keating experiments, measuring instruments must be reunited in a single frame
are you from the UK btw?
And yep, the meter was ... relative to the Earth, calculating the circumference.
Quote from: HalcEmpirical measurements agree with that and much more. Why not take the full statement that all of EM is included in principle of relativity? That doesn't assume anything, and it includes your subset principle. Why go for the weak premise when there's a stronger empirical one?I am familiar with the idea, but only in the context of SR. If it implies the one-way speed of light, then I've stated the issues with that.
Empirical measurements agree with that and much more. Why not take the full statement that all of EM is included in principle of relativity? That doesn't assume anything, and it includes your subset principle. Why go for the weak premise when there's a stronger empirical one?
Just put yourself in Alice's shoes. You've finished all the math, you'e derived all your statements, now your ready to jump back into the real-world, the physical world, the world where the rules of empiricism apply.You are located at the mid-point between two clocks; you have your own clock; you send out a light pulse from the mid-point to each clock. Can you be sure that the light pulses reached each clock simultaneously?
Yes it can, and is, because the mathematics is far simpler if a relative interpretation is used. That was my point. You claim the mathematics is the same.
What is 'reciprocal time dilation' and how is it different from the comparison made with everybody with identical motion?
A comparison of respective elapsed time has nothing to do with the tick rates of either clock. You read what each clock says and subtract. The rates of the clocks play no rote in that calculation. The twins experiment can be described without any acceleration at all using nothing but pure inertial clocks that are never stationary relative to each other and never accelerated.
That is a requirement of neither test. I don't think you know your theory at all.
I'd say 'maths' and 'centre' if I was.
OK, 1/40000000th of the circumference of Earth as it was known at the time. If that's so, it is based on some Earth dimension. You'd think they'd make it divisible by 360 or something.
No, since she cannot determine that she remains at that location. Good thing she never claimed to have done what you ask.
If you are saying that RoS is a purely mathematical artefact which bears no resemblance to the physical world then you will find I'm in agreement.
If the model makes a prediction about the physical world which cannot be observed it is an untestable prediction. If an oberver makes a conlusion about the physical world that relies on that untestable prediction, then they are assuming a conclusion about the physical world.
You are either confusing the conclusions of the mathematical model with the conclusions drawn from the actual empirical evidence, or you are saying that certain aspects of the model does not represent the physical reality of the physical reality it purports to model.
What we are doing is discussing the intepretations. The SR interpretation and those other interpretations that are mathematically and empirically equivalent to SR.
The empirical equivalence might be a bit of a misnomer bcos it could be taken to suuggest that they predict the same things, when in actuality it means that all empirical tests to date have falsified none of the interpretations.
The Michael Tooley interpretation (which appears to be the same as an Etherless Lorentz-Poincare interpretation) doesn't predict reciprocal time dilation in the manner that SR does.
Lorentz-Poincare theory employs the same mathematics but doesn't include RoS.
Quote from: HalcI'm considering the interpretation that makes no additional metaphysical assumptions (raw SR theory).When you say "raw SR theory" do you mean the mathematics of the Lorentz Transformation?
I'm considering the interpretation that makes no additional metaphysical assumptions (raw SR theory).
If both are referred to as SR theory, then SR theory cannot imply relativity of simultaneity because simultaneity is absolute in the absolutist interpretation.
If SR theory implied RoS
I'm sure you will have been able to deduce that we are discussing Einstein's interpretation versus absolute interpretations.
Quote from: HalcSR claims up front not to correspond to reality except locally, so there are plenty of non-local tests to falsify it as a model of the universe at medium scalesI'm arguing that it doesn't correspond to reality locally.
SR claims up front not to correspond to reality except locally, so there are plenty of non-local tests to falsify it as a model of the universe at medium scales
Quote from: HalcInterpretations don't have empirical consequences.They imply empirical consequences. The returning of the light signals simultaneously is an empirically testable consequence in all interpretations.
Quote from: Halc 'Clock at A is in sync with clock at B' is a pure mathematical abstract conclusion, not a metaphysical one. 'Clock A is in sync with Clock B' on the other hand is worded as a metaphysical statement. Hence me being picky about the difference.When we jump into the real world, "Clock at A" represents a physical clock which can be labelled "Clock A". Indeed, the location "A" is represented by a mark on the floor of a spaceship whos inertial motion cannot be determined.
'Clock at A is in sync with clock at B' is a pure mathematical abstract conclusion, not a metaphysical one. 'Clock A is in sync with Clock B' on the other hand is worded as a metaphysical statement. Hence me being picky about the difference.
We don't need to interpret the results any differently, we can just recognise that one reference frame is privileged over the other. The mountain cannot go to Mohammed, so Mohammed has to go to the mountain.
Quote from: the_roosh on 10/07/2019 08:01:57If you are saying that RoS is a purely mathematical artefact which bears no resemblance to the physical world then you will find I'm in agreement.And yet pages later you go on about it. It may or may not bear a resemblance to the physical world. I'm not claiming it one way or the other. Such would be a metaphysical claim.QuoteIf the model makes a prediction about the physical world which cannot be observed it is an untestable prediction. If an oberver makes a conlusion about the physical world that relies on that untestable prediction, then they are assuming a conclusion about the physical world.Again we agree. QuoteWhat we are doing is discussing the intepretations. The SR interpretation and those other interpretations that are mathematically and empirically equivalent to SR.I don't know which SR interpretation you are referencing. I'm talking about the blank interpretation that makes no additional premises from the ones in the theory. So there is no 'the SR interpretation'. All (even the absolute ones) are SR interpretations.QuoteThe empirical equivalence might be a bit of a misnomer bcos it could be taken to suuggest that they predict the same things, when in actuality it means that all empirical tests to date have falsified none of the interpretations.By definition, yes.QuoteThe Michael Tooley interpretation (which appears to be the same as an Etherless Lorentz-Poincare interpretation) doesn't predict reciprocal time dilation in the manner that SR does.In fact it doesn't predict anything at all, else it would not be an interpretation.
I'm not the one calling unobservables 'predictions'. I made none of those, having laid no claim of correspondence of an abstract thing to physical reality.
The convention depends on the isotropic one-way speed of light reltive to all co-ordinate systems. That is only part off the SR interpretation.
It's entirely testable.
How does Alice observe that the physical photons make physical contact with the physical clocks located at the points A and B on her physical spaceship at the moment that coincides with the reading d/c on clock C0?
Poincare derived RoS before anybody else, but their interpretation uses a different convention to define simultaneity. Einstein used an empirical convention. Lorentz-Poincare does not.
In a contribution for a volume celebrating the 25th anniversary of Lorentz‘s doctorate, Poincaré explained his point by means of an illustration that strikingly resembles Einstein‘s method for the synchronization of clocks. He showed that if two observers at rest with respect to each other, but in motion with respect to the ether, try to synchronize their clocks by means of light pulses, the result is that their synchronized clocks are late with respect to the real time.
Imagine two observers who wish to adjust their watches by optics signals; they exchange signals, but as they know that the transmission of light is not instantaneous, they take care to cross them. When the station B perceives the signal from the station A, its clock should not mark the same hour as that of station A at the moment of sending the signal, but this hour augmented by a constant representing the duration of the transmission. Suppose, for example, that the station A sends its signal when its clock marks the hour 0, and that the station B perceives it when its clockmarks the hour t. The clocks are adjusted if the slowness equal to t represents the duration of the transmission, and to verify it the station B sends in turn a signal when its clock marks 0; then the station A should perceive it when itsclock marks t. The time pieces are then adjusted. And in fact, they mark the same hour at the same physical instant, but on one condition, namely, that the two stations are fixed
In the contrary case the duration of the transmission will not be the same in the two senses, since the station A, for example, moves forward to meet the optical perturbation emanating from B, while the station B flies away before the perturbation emanating from A. The watches adjusted in that manner do not mark, therefore, the true time; they mark what one may call the local time, so that one of them goes slow on the other. It matters little, since we have no means of perceiving it.
I mean the entire theory, not one little part of it. The theory only uses empirical premises. No assumptions.
QuoteIf both are referred to as SR theory, then SR theory cannot imply relativity of simultaneity because simultaneity is absolute in the absolutist interpretation.Again, it uses a non-empirical convention to conclude that.
It deduces RoS using the empirical convention to define simultaneity.
It doesn't imply it. One is free to choose a different convention, but the convention is not a physical or metaphysical assumption of any sort. Some interpretations use a different convention, but those are usually not empirical conventions, but rather based on a non-empirical assumption. That different kind of simultaneity may or may not be relative, but being based on an assumed premise, that kind of simultaneity becomes assumed and not testable.
standard formulations of the Special Theory of Relativity involve an assumption that is not even in principle testable if the rest of the theory is true: the status of the One-Way Light Principle will be that of a gratuitous metaphysical assumption.
Not talking about Einstein's interpretation because I don't have a list of his additional premises, so I'm going with just his theory sans additional premises.
No it isn't. It is a consequence of the theory upon which the interpretation is based. An empirical consequence of an interpretation would be an additional prediction not made by the underlying theory. If one were to exist, the 'interpretation' would cease to be an interpretation by definition.
A mark on the floor does not designate a location since no definition of the floor being stationary has been established. A coordinate system is required to do that, and 'Clock A' makes no reference at all to that essential coordinate system. Thus no empirical conclusion can be drawn about Clock A, but one can be made about 'Clock at A'.
1) Any experiment (twins, H-K) anything at all, can be done and analyzed in any frame. It doesn't change the result. 2) Mohammad need not stop at the mountain any more than the mountain need stop at Mohammed.
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 16:40:17The convention depends on the isotropic one-way speed of light reltive to all co-ordinate systems. That is only part off the SR interpretation.That would be an interpretational assumption. No, it doesn't assume that. The convention is simply established by definition. That's what a convention is.
Wrong. Subtracting the values and getting identical figures demonstrates that the clocks at those locations are in sync, by the established convention. Your counter examples use a different convention, but no claims about those other conventions have been made.
By using the method described by Einstein. Are you suggesting I'm referring to different events than the ones where these physical occurrences take place?Or are you suggesting that no such event exists and the light was intercepted or something? I am admittedly assume that the latter is not occurring, but there are interpretations that suggest exactly that. The events you describe represent counterfactuals, which, under certain interpretations, do not exist until measured at a later time. Einstein's comment about the moon not existing if not observed was along the lines of denial of the principle of counterfactual definiteness. Since I'm avoiding metaphysical assumptions, I cannot assume that one.