On Wednesday, October 23, 2024 at 6:03:58 PM UTC-6 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 7:10 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2024 at 4:47:13 PM UTC-6 Jesse Mazer wrote: On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 6:31 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2024 at 1:55:13 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: The fact that you never specify whether "synchronized" means "set to the same time" or "caused to run at the same rate" or both, makes me think you don't understand your own question. Brent I meant when juxtaposted, to set at the two clocks at the same time, and then synchronized throughout each frame. Then I expect, but am not certain, that the rates in the two frames will be the same. AG "Synchronized" only has meaning relative to a particular frame's definition of simultaneity--since the frames disagree on simulataneity, you can momentarily set all clocks so that they read the same time at the same moment relative to one frame, but you can't do this in both frames. And whichever frame you pick, unless you artificially adjust the ticking rate of the clocks moving relative to that frame to "correct" for time dilation, the moving clocks won't stay synchronized with the clocks at rest in that frame. Jesse As I see it, when the clocks are juxtaposed, a comparison of any clock in one frame, will read the same time as the corresponding clock in the other frame, that is, corresponding with position as they pass each other. And since the frames are moving with the same velocity wrt each other, I don't see the role of simultaneity in changing the rate of any clock in any frame. What I think this scenario shows, is that time dilation doesn't exist. AG But that's wrong according to relativity, and the Lorentz coordinate transformation is mathematically/logically consistent, and the prediction that the laws of physics work symmetrically in these different frames (so that readings on natural physical clocks at different locations will align with coordinate time in their rest frame, assuming they are synchronized according to the Einstein convention at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation ) has held up experimentally. I once made a diagram showing two rows of clocks in motion relative to each other, synchronized according to Einstein's convention, so people can see how it works--see https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/155016/59406 Jesse Jesse; I'll check out your links, for sure. I will just say now that time dilation can be established using a rest frame and moving frame, but in my model there is no rest frame; both frames are moving. AG On 10/23/2024 6:00 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: In this scenario, is there any contradition with the principles of SR? Suppose there exist two inertial frames, moving in opposite directions with velocity v < c along the x-axis, where one clock of each frame is initially located one unit, positively and negatively respectively from the origin, and when these clocks are juxtaposed at the origin, the multiple set of clocks in both frames can be synchronized? Does this scenario imply an unwarranted affirmation of simultaneity? TY, AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/94d4ca7b-5d36-46f7-9e89-5081357e9383n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/94d4ca7b-5d36-46f7-9e89-5081357e9383n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38d2f44c-22f1-40d6-9a6a-7992d3c33d53n%40googlegroups.com.
