Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 00:06 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:ff93144e-6b08-4259-826e-adfed177a30d(a)w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 11, 8:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:1d716e5d-6fb0-4a04-9aea-fe249242e945(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 10, 6:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:66fad22e-0a13-4979-b17f-2f405eb13607(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 08:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:8431a5cd-222a-4118-9d15-7bcdf6450410(a)c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> > The point is simply to talk in qualitative >> >> >> >> > terms about what happens to "simultaneity" between the points >> >> >> >> > at >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > start and at the end at which we agree that the clocks are >> >> >> >> > synchronised. >> >> >> >> >> It changes >> >> >> >> > Will you quantify this change? >> >> >> >> I thought you just wanted to talk in qualitative terms. >> >> >> > I did, but not at such a ridiculously broad level. >> >> >> >> You also say you >> >> >> don't want to see math, so I'm not sure what you are expecting here >> >> >> > Just for you to say, for example, "when the local clock accelerates, >> >> > the distant clock falls out of simultaneity and leaps ahead... etc." >> >> > or something of that kind. >> >> >> I already said all that >> >> >> >> >> A frame moving relative to a clock will measure the clock as >> >> >> >> ticking >> >> >> >> slower. >> >> >> >> Less elapsed time will show between an pair of events for the >> >> >> >> relatively >> >> >> >> moving clock than an at-rest clock. That is independent of the >> >> >> >> direction >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> the relative motion. >> >> >> >> >> I had though we agreed to ignore illusions due to propagation >> >> >> >> delays. >> >> >> >> > Indeed, but when you started talking of the clocks "speeding up", >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > caused me confusion. >> >> >> >> Why? Just do not worry about optical illusions and concentrate on >> >> >> what >> >> >> is >> >> >> actually going on. >> >> >> > But you said the speeding up bit *is* a result of an optical >> >> > illusion. >> >> >> No .. I didn't. If you are talking about what is actually seen, then >> >> optical illusion makes a difference. But there is NO optical illusion >> >> in >> >> the SR effects on measured clock rates and lengths etc >> >> >> > You see how hard it is to get a straight but comprehensive answer >> >> > here? >> >> >> You get them .. you just don't accept or understand them >> >> >> >> > would leave a small remainder of slowing, >> >> >> >> There would be the slowing SR predits. You are talking about >> >> >> additonal >> >> >> optical illusions. >> >> >> > No, >> >> >> Yes .. you were. >> > ================= >> >> >> > I was talking about the slowing predicted by SR, which is not >> >> > accounted for by the effects that we've both already agreed are >> >> > "illusions". >> >> >> And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not illusion. The same >> >> that i >> >> already described in detail before >> >> > In view of Noether's work with GR and the >> > *process* we agreed was valid for marking time >> > You seem to be suggesting an aeroplane >> > might fly relative to another aeroplane on >> > some course that would weaken an air marshal's >> > bullet. That would violate PoR. >> >> Why do you think I would be suggesting any such thing? > > It seems fair to lump the effects of a light path > that is changing length under the term "illusion" It is > but you say there is some other effect that > causes a clock to slow. To be measured as slow .. yes > Just to be clear to > what you are referring we need to be more > specific about the *process* that marks time. Doesn't matter > Lets say there is a AC dynamo somewhere and both > stella and terra's clocks are synchronous motors > connected with long wires to that dynamo. > > Every revolution of the dynamo produces a > revolution of both clocks motors. > > What part of the voyage and by what *process* > do the clocks get out of sync? They are never IN sync in the frames in which they are out of sync. So its not a matter of an process changing the sync when it was never there to start with. >> > The statement also also seems inconsistent with >> > Einstein's formal statement. > http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html >> >> What statement? > > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > an imaginary magnitude > > sqrt(-1) > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r�le as > the three space co-ordinates. >> > http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html Nothing I have said is inconsistent with that >> > I know the practice is frowned on in many schools >> > but may I suggest you study material before >> > teaching it. :-) >> >> I have > > Fine for the links you snipped. Now you will > need this one and a bit of history too. No need.
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 00:09 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2be27af4-b759-466e-9241-94261844a2fe(a)z6g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On 11 Apr, 13:11, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:996ae2ac-6e26-46b4-9e71-21242c60c54c(a)30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 13:05, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:db82a4dc-e7c6-4fea-a210-145c805688ef(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 12:24, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:25a765b8-2e31-476f-9935-34014a09438f(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 11:20, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> > based on >> >> >> >> >> > the relative speed between the clocks? (and not based on >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> > direction >> >> >> >> >> > of relative movement?) >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes. I've already said that. >> >> >> >> >> > So what is the extent of the slowing, and on what variables >> >> >> >> > does >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> > depend? (We can speak in quantitative terms on this point.) >> >> >> >> >> It depends on the speed. The greater the speed, the larger the >> >> >> >> effect >> >> >> >> (see >> >> >> >> the gamma factor). That affects the measured clock ticking rate >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> measure length of a moving object. There is also the effect on >> >> >> >> simultaneity. >> >> >> >> >> Its all given by the Lorentz transforms. >> >> >> >> > Indeed. So there is always a slowing, related to speed, no matter >> >> >> > what >> >> >> > relative direction the object may be travelling in. >> >> >> >> Yes >> >> >> >> > In other words, if >> >> >> > an object is approaching you at .9c, it displays a slowing that >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > same as if it were receding at .9c? >> >> >> >> Yes >> >> >> >> If by 'displays' you are not including any optical/visual/etc >> >> >> illusions >> >> >> due >> >> >> to propagation delays etc. >> >> >> > Yes, I had assumed we'd accounted for those already, and are >> >> > disregarding those effects. >> >> >> >> And if by 'slowing' you mean that observers at rest in your frame >> >> >> of >> >> >> reference would measure its ticking rate as slower. >> >> >> > Ah, I've just realised another question. I was assuming that we're >> >> > talking about a fixed amount of "lag" in distant clock. Is that what >> >> > you're talking about, or are you talking about an *ongoing* loss of >> >> > time? In other words, the longer the distant clock is moving, the >> >> > more >> >> > its time lags behind that of the local clock (and, yet, all this lag >> >> > is recouped when the two clocks return to relative rest). >> >> >> The 'lag', as you call it, is distance and velocity dependent. When >> >> there >> >> is no distance between them and no difference in motion, there is no >> >> 'lag'. >> >> > Yes, but the important thing (for me) >> >> Why? > > Because this is an area where I am unsure of the answer. > > > >> > to clarify is that, even if >> > there is only a negligible distance between them, if there is a >> > relativistic difference in velocity, then there will still be a fixed >> > amount of time lag? >> >> Of course, they will be moving, so they won't stay negligibly distant. > > Agreed, but the point is that even when they *are* negligibly distant, > there will still be this fixed amount of lag based on relative > velocity, yes? In other words, velocity relative to the coordinate > system is the sole variable? Not the sole variable. You need boy distance and velocity. If either or both are small, the effect is small. > And it's not relative distance (in the same way it is for propagation > delays), Stop talking about propagation delays .. they are irrelevant here. > nor the relative speed of approach or recession (in the same > way that it is for Doppler shifting)? No .. we are talking about just the SR effects on the inertial frames themselves, not what a given observer in the frame would see. > And they both argue that it is the *other* who is lagging? It is the *other* clock in your example is ahead .. not lagging > (And I know this may sound repetitive, but I'm just making absolutely > sure there is an understanding here.)
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 00:12 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7edd6da7-d460-47ce-8fdf-3167b6d50fa6(a)35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On 11 Apr, 19:02, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 10, 11:55 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > I'm interested in science because I'm interested in the natural >> > > > world, >> >> > > Which "natural world" is only demarcated by your arbitrary and >> > > capricious labels. >> >> > Which is the same arbitrary and capricious labels that everyone else >> > uses. >> >> I disagree that "everyone else" uses these, and I find it astonishing >> that you would presume to speak for, let alone think like, "everyone >> else". > > What I am saying is that everyone uses "arbitrary and capricious > labels", as you put it. > > > >> > As I've said, the only difference is that a minority continue to >> > insist that somehow science has no ideological content at all. >> >> > For me, there is no useful argument to be had on, for example, whether >> > unicorns or angels are "natural" or not - the real question is what >> > sort of ideological framework do they fall into, and invariably you >> > find that a belief in unicorns and angels is simply ancilliary to an >> > ideology involving the supernatural, or ancilliary to a belief that >> > the world does not operate in an understandable, predictable, and >> > mechanistic way (which really sums up my axioms, my "ideology" in this >> > respect). >> >> > In fact, the existence of unicorns would not be incompatible with my >> > general outlook at all. Even angels would not be, as long as they >> > existed within naturalistic principles of cause and effect, and some >> > plausible mechanism was posited for firstly how their influence >> > manifests and secondly for why they have any interaction at all with >> > humanity (or any concern for humanity). >> >> > But once you scratch the surface, you often find that the explanations >> > to these questions are sorely lacking, and that there is in fact not a >> > great deal of concern with how it may be explained on the part of >> > those who posit the existence of unicorns and angels. Indeed, when you >> > ask where the idea even came from in the first place, the answer is >> > rarely (if ever!) "from personal hypothesis", "from inference", or >> > "from observation", but "from religious authority". Such proponents >> > also tend to have a general worldview that is informed entirely by >> > their imaginations or naive beliefs, >> >> ...such as temporally ordered cause and effect between strictly >> material agents... > > Despite your snipe Paul, there is actually some evidence for this, and > as you've conceded before, no experimental evidence against it. Even > when I questioned you on the issue of premonition and cause, you found > it very difficult to explain how it could be experimentally > distinguished from cause and effect. > > Incidentally, I recall that our definition of "material" is different > - remember, my defintion includes what you call the "immaterial". > > > >> > and show a total unfamiliarity >> > with history, science, politics, psychology, economics, or any >> > systematic body of human knowledge that might offer any counter to the >> > mere spoken word of their priest or other religious figures, or which >> > may put a different slant on their beliefs. >> >> In other words, they are ignorant, uneducated, and cowing to >> authority. > > Generally they are ignorant and uneducated, but more to the point they > accept something as true *simply* because authority says it is true, > and same is true for the authority in turn. > > > >> > Indeed, for me, I also take the view that it will often be futile to >> > attack ideology using mere logic. Most people hold an ideology because >> > in some way or another because it has a concrete function for them, >> >> ...such as temporally ordered causality between strictly material >> agents... > > Yes. I said at the outset of my previous post that there is an > ideological (although in this context, for clarity, I prefer to say an > "axiomatic"-) component to my beliefs - which defines the sort of > explanations I'm willing to accept, what sort of evidence I'm willing > to accept, etc. Then that is your problem. It doesn't mean the physics is wrong .. just you are unwilling to accept that it is right. > And before you claim that science, or scientists, don't have ideology, > I refer you back to what I said many months ago, that an ignorance of > ideology, or a lack of concern with it, is not the same as an absence > of ideology.
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 00:51 On Apr 12, 12:06 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:ff93144e-6b08-4259-826e-adfed177a30d(a)w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 11, 8:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >>news:1d716e5d-6fb0-4a04-9aea-fe249242e945(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Apr 10, 6:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:66fad22e-0a13-4979-b17f-2f405eb13607(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 10 Apr, 08:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:8431a5cd-222a-4118-9d15-7bcdf6450410(a)c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> > The point is simply to talk in qualitative > >> >> >> >> > terms about what happens to "simultaneity" between the points > >> >> >> >> > at > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > start and at the end at which we agree that the clocks are > >> >> >> >> > synchronised. > > >> >> >> >> It changes > > >> >> >> > Will you quantify this change? > > >> >> >> I thought you just wanted to talk in qualitative terms. > > >> >> > I did, but not at such a ridiculously broad level. > > >> >> >> You also say you > >> >> >> don't want to see math, so I'm not sure what you are expecting here > > >> >> > Just for you to say, for example, "when the local clock accelerates, > >> >> > the distant clock falls out of simultaneity and leaps ahead... etc." > >> >> > or something of that kind. > > >> >> I already said all that > > >> >> >> >> A frame moving relative to a clock will measure the clock as > >> >> >> >> ticking > >> >> >> >> slower. > >> >> >> >> Less elapsed time will show between an pair of events for the > >> >> >> >> relatively > >> >> >> >> moving clock than an at-rest clock. That is independent of the > >> >> >> >> direction > >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> the relative motion. > > >> >> >> >> I had though we agreed to ignore illusions due to propagation > >> >> >> >> delays. > > >> >> >> > Indeed, but when you started talking of the clocks "speeding up", > >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> > caused me confusion. > > >> >> >> Why? Just do not worry about optical illusions and concentrate on > >> >> >> what > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> actually going on. > > >> >> > But you said the speeding up bit *is* a result of an optical > >> >> > illusion. > > >> >> No .. I didn't. If you are talking about what is actually seen, then > >> >> optical illusion makes a difference. But there is NO optical illusion > >> >> in > >> >> the SR effects on measured clock rates and lengths etc > > >> >> > You see how hard it is to get a straight but comprehensive answer > >> >> > here? > > >> >> You get them .. you just don't accept or understand them > > >> >> >> > would leave a small remainder of slowing, > > >> >> >> There would be the slowing SR predits. You are talking about > >> >> >> additonal > >> >> >> optical illusions. > > >> >> > No, > > >> >> Yes .. you were. > > > ================= > > >> >> > I was talking about the slowing predicted by SR, which is not > >> >> > accounted for by the effects that we've both already agreed are > >> >> > "illusions". > > >> >> And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not illusion. The same > >> >> that i > >> >> already described in detail before > > >> > In view of Noether's work with GR and the > >> > *process* we agreed was valid for marking time > >> > You seem to be suggesting an aeroplane > >> > might fly relative to another aeroplane on > >> > some course that would weaken an air marshal's > >> > bullet. That would violate PoR. > > >> Why do you think I would be suggesting any such thing? > > > It seems fair to lump the effects of a light path > > that is changing length under the term "illusion" > > It is > > > but you say there is some other effect that > > causes a clock to slow. > > To be measured as slow .. yes > > > Just to be clear to > > what you are referring we need to be more > > specific about the *process* that marks time. > > Doesn't matter > > > Lets say there is a AC dynamo somewhere and both > > stella and terra's clocks are synchronous motors > > connected with long wires to that dynamo. > > > Every revolution of the dynamo produces a > > revolution of both clocks motors. > > > What part of the voyage and by what *process* > > do the clocks get out of sync? > > They are never IN sync in the frames in which they are out of sync. So its > not a matter of an process changing the sync when it was never there to > start with. Are they always in sync when comoving, regardless of there history? Sue... > > > > >> > The statement also also seems inconsistent with > >> > Einstein's formal statement. > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > >> What statement? > > > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > > an imaginary magnitude > > > sqrt(-1) > > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r�le as > > the three space co-ordinates. >> > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > Nothing I have said is inconsistent with that > > >> > I know the practice is frowned on in many schools > >> > but may I suggest you study material before > >> > teaching it. :-) > > >> I have > > > Fine for the links you snipped. Now you will > > need this one and a bit of history too. > > No need.
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 01:08
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:284229f6-bfb1-4024-9748-7c3643101c0c(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 12:06 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:ff93144e-6b08-4259-826e-adfed177a30d(a)w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 11, 8:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1d716e5d-6fb0-4a04-9aea-fe249242e945(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Apr 10, 6:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:66fad22e-0a13-4979-b17f-2f405eb13607(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 08:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:8431a5cd-222a-4118-9d15-7bcdf6450410(a)c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> > The point is simply to talk in qualitative >> >> >> >> >> > terms about what happens to "simultaneity" between the >> >> >> >> >> > points >> >> >> >> >> > at >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> > start and at the end at which we agree that the clocks are >> >> >> >> >> > synchronised. >> >> >> >> >> >> It changes >> >> >> >> >> > Will you quantify this change? >> >> >> >> >> I thought you just wanted to talk in qualitative terms. >> >> >> >> > I did, but not at such a ridiculously broad level. >> >> >> >> >> You also say you >> >> >> >> don't want to see math, so I'm not sure what you are expecting >> >> >> >> here >> >> >> >> > Just for you to say, for example, "when the local clock >> >> >> > accelerates, >> >> >> > the distant clock falls out of simultaneity and leaps ahead... >> >> >> > etc." >> >> >> > or something of that kind. >> >> >> >> I already said all that >> >> >> >> >> >> A frame moving relative to a clock will measure the clock as >> >> >> >> >> ticking >> >> >> >> >> slower. >> >> >> >> >> Less elapsed time will show between an pair of events for the >> >> >> >> >> relatively >> >> >> >> >> moving clock than an at-rest clock. That is independent of >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> direction >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> the relative motion. >> >> >> >> >> >> I had though we agreed to ignore illusions due to propagation >> >> >> >> >> delays. >> >> >> >> >> > Indeed, but when you started talking of the clocks "speeding >> >> >> >> > up", >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> > caused me confusion. >> >> >> >> >> Why? Just do not worry about optical illusions and concentrate >> >> >> >> on >> >> >> >> what >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> actually going on. >> >> >> >> > But you said the speeding up bit *is* a result of an optical >> >> >> > illusion. >> >> >> >> No .. I didn't. If you are talking about what is actually seen, >> >> >> then >> >> >> optical illusion makes a difference. But there is NO optical >> >> >> illusion >> >> >> in >> >> >> the SR effects on measured clock rates and lengths etc >> >> >> >> > You see how hard it is to get a straight but comprehensive answer >> >> >> > here? >> >> >> >> You get them .. you just don't accept or understand them >> >> >> >> >> > would leave a small remainder of slowing, >> >> >> >> >> There would be the slowing SR predits. You are talking about >> >> >> >> additonal >> >> >> >> optical illusions. >> >> >> >> > No, >> >> >> >> Yes .. you were. >> >> > ================= >> >> >> >> > I was talking about the slowing predicted by SR, which is not >> >> >> > accounted for by the effects that we've both already agreed are >> >> >> > "illusions". >> >> >> >> And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not illusion. The >> >> >> same >> >> >> that i >> >> >> already described in detail before >> >> >> > In view of Noether's work with GR and the >> >> > *process* we agreed was valid for marking time >> >> > You seem to be suggesting an aeroplane >> >> > might fly relative to another aeroplane on >> >> > some course that would weaken an air marshal's >> >> > bullet. That would violate PoR. >> >> >> Why do you think I would be suggesting any such thing? >> >> > It seems fair to lump the effects of a light path >> > that is changing length under the term "illusion" >> >> It is >> >> > but you say there is some other effect that >> > causes a clock to slow. >> >> To be measured as slow .. yes >> >> > Just to be clear to >> > what you are referring we need to be more >> > specific about the *process* that marks time. >> >> Doesn't matter >> >> > Lets say there is a AC dynamo somewhere and both >> > stella and terra's clocks are synchronous motors >> > connected with long wires to that dynamo. >> >> > Every revolution of the dynamo produces a >> > revolution of both clocks motors. >> >> > What part of the voyage and by what *process* >> > do the clocks get out of sync? >> >> They are never IN sync in the frames in which they are out of sync. So >> its >> not a matter of an process changing the sync when it was never there to >> start with. > > Are they always in sync when comoving, If you mean before they changed motion, then we can assume so for as long as we need to consider. > regardless > of there history? Unless they were not always accurate clocks, or at some time in the past their settings were changed. As this is a Gedanken, we can imagine them as existing and ticking for as long as we want. |