Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Don Stockbauer on 12 Apr 2010 07:36 On Apr 12, 6:30 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 12, 7:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:2213c7c5-6855-426c-97d7-a61c6cfd44ee(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Apr 12, 6:43 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > >>news:fa4dab9f-c41d-4c72-abf4-82f764e88070(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > On Apr 12, 1:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(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. > > > >> > I am as baffled as Ste. > > > >> Not surprising > > > >> > We have a constant length > > >> > path to the master clock (dynamo) that never looses > > >> > a tick. > > > >> What master clock.. That is not in the scenario being discussed. We > > >> have > > >> two clocks in sync a fixed distance apart .. then they move toward each > > >> other, and finnally meet each other and remain in sync. > > > > If you don't understand the *process* by which > > > You are off topic again > > It is not off topic to inquire about the > clock mechanism. It may be *unfair* because > I already know you are using a mechanism > based on a non existent particle. But it > is not off topic. Non-existent particles are so gauche.
From: Peter Webb on 12 Apr 2010 07:46 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:99288ec2-07c1-47e8-b8b6-ae20eabbda5e(a)c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Apr, 09:26, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> > It does tell you something about physicists though. The philosophy of >> > science (including the physical sciences) has nothing at all to do >> > with physics. >> >> Of course, as you know nothing at all about physics, and I daresay don't >> know a single physicist, your opinions on the subject are worthless. >> >> Instead of hanging around physics newsgroups telling physicists that they >> don't know what they are doing, why don't you take this opportunity to >> learn >> something about physics and physicists? > > Again with the rhetoric. What on Earth am I doing here besides > "learning about physics", in particular relativity? > 1. Telling us your own bullshit theories. 2. Accusing other people of being ignorant. 3. Blaming everybody else for your own lack of understanding 4. Refusing to learn physics by studying it, instead accusing those who have studied it of not knowing what they are talking about. 5. Engaging in gratuitous rudeness. > While we're at it though, I don't expect to be lectured about the > scientific method from someone like yourself who had never even heard > the name "Lakatos". See, there you go again.
From: Peter Webb on 12 Apr 2010 07:48 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:3d571564-52bb-4f9c-81ad-752aecdec282(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Apr 12, 3:54 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > What are these "effects" remaining after Ste > allowed for changing path lengths. Can you > offer a real experiment with neutral particles? > > Sue... > > __________________________________ > > I assume that by "neutral" particles you mean "uncharged" particles. > > And I further assume that you decided to place this arbitrary constraint > on > the sorts of particles that you would accept because you hoped that it > would > exclude the *huge* amount of evidence deriving from particle acclerators, > which due to their design only accelerate charged particles. > > Unfortunately, even placing this arbitrary and irrelevant constraint > doesn't > help. Particle accelerators (and for that matter naturally occuring cosmic > rays) produce a wealth of uncharged and unstable particles as collision > debris. These travel further then their half-life at rest would suggest, > because of time dilation (in our frame) and length contraction (in their > frame). Observed every day in particle acclerators and cosmic ray > observatories around the world. The constraint is not arbitrary. To qualify as inertial-motion a particle cannot be subject to a force. _______________________________ Which has nothing to do whether it is a charged particle, so I guess it was arbitrary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force << Today the "special theory" exists only, aside from its historical importance, as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the epistemological foundation of those formulas must be sought in the context of the general theory.>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm __________________________________ Gee, there you go again with some irrelevant cut-and-paste. I answered your question. A simple thank-you would have sufficed. > > HTH
From: Peter Webb on 12 Apr 2010 07:52 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:383eec51-82b0-49b1-9dfb-93717d6eff77(a)u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Apr, 09:23, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:62792735-a8f8-4444-beb9-08a9f2076d72(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> On 12 Apr, 05:09, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > >> > 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. >> >> This is where I've become confused again. I'm trying to establish the >> amount of retardation (or advance) in the distant (i.e. moving) clock >> as against the local clock. We've accounted for propagation delays, >> and we're disregarding them completely. >> >> Now, to what degree is the distant clock appearing retarded (or >> advanced), and how (i.e. to what degree) is that retardation or >> advance related to: >> a) distance; and >> b) velocity? >> >> __________________________________________ >> If you are excluding propogation delays, why the word "appearing", which >> implies what you see after propgation delays? > > I was attributing no specialised meaning to the word "appearing". > > > >> Assuming this was some kind of typo, the relative rate of clocks ticking >> is >> given by the Lorentz formula. This contains a variable for the relative >> speed ("v"), but *not* the relative distance apart, which quite literally >> doesn't enter the equation. > > Then you'll understand my confusion, because Inertial said relative > distance *did* enter into the equation. > I suspect not. Inertial knows what he is talking about. But as is typical of you, you don't provide an exact quote; you are almost certainly either lying or didn't understand what he said. I normally ask you for the direct quote, but you never provide it, so I won't bother doing this again. > > >> > > And it's not relative distance (in the same way it is for propagation >> > > delays), >> >> > Stop talking about propagation delays .. they are irrelevant here. >> >> I was using it to demarcate the variable involved (in this case, >> relative distance, and in the case below with Doppler, change of >> relative distance). >> >> __________________________________ >> All you have done is muddy the waters. The difference in rate at which >> clocks tick has *nothing* to do with their separation, only their >> relative >> velocity. What you will actually see does depend upon the separation, as >> what you actually see includes a propogation delay, which is a function >> of >> their separation. >> >> Got it yet? > > So if we disregard the propagation delay (and as far as I'm concerned, > I thought we had already agreed to do so many posts ago), there is > then a fixed (i.e. depending only on the one variable in question) > retardation (or advancement?) of the distant clock that is dependent > on relative velocity? No. The rate changes. It is not a "fixed" retardation. Is it poor comprehension on your part, or are you deliberately trying to not understand? So many things get explained to you so many times, yet you never seem to understand them.
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 08:13
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:6305349b-3cdb-49b7-b4dd-a5e6e48a46f4(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 7:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:2213c7c5-6855-426c-97d7-a61c6cfd44ee(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 6:43 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> >>news:fa4dab9f-c41d-4c72-abf4-82f764e88070(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 1:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(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. >> >> >> > I am as baffled as Ste. >> >> >> Not surprising >> >> >> > We have a constant length >> >> > path to the master clock (dynamo) that never looses >> >> > a tick. >> >> >> What master clock.. That is not in the scenario being discussed. We >> >> have >> >> two clocks in sync a fixed distance apart .. then they move toward >> >> each >> >> other, and finnally meet each other and remain in sync. >> >> > If you don't understand the *process* by which >> >> You are off topic again > > It is not off topic to inquire about the > clock mechanism. Yes it is .. in a gedanken like this e assume clock mechanism keep correct time .. we don't need to know how the clock is made > It may be *unfair* because > I already know you are using a mechanism > based on a non existent particle. Wrong > But it > is not off topic. Yes .. it is off topic. |