On Wednesday, October 23, 2024 at 7:10:36 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
I think it's confusing to introduce "frames" that are spacially extended (although Einstein did). Better to recognize that all physical times are proper times of some clock and they can be set to the same time when they are at the same place and as ideal clock's they are assumed to keep perfect time along their world lines. Brent How do we get time dilation from world lines if both represent the same path in the sense that neither is considered at rest? AG On 10/23/2024 3:46 PM, 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 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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d2870ea8-f2dc-49ff-9aad-3f7feb1e812dn%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d2870ea8-f2dc-49ff-9aad-3f7feb1e812dn%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/b2f0fc92-5616-4f2e-b5dc-59d719e1baeen%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b2f0fc92-5616-4f2e-b5dc-59d719e1baeen%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/CAPCWU3%2BKVsZRW5MBLQCYG_NwXcOgrk%2BEZEW%2BpmtPKpwv%3D%2BqO%2BA%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2BKVsZRW5MBLQCYG_NwXcOgrk%2BEZEW%2BpmtPKpwv%3D%2BqO%2BA%40mail.gmail.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/5ff13d7e-0470-4e84-a86c-70887fab6973n%40googlegroups.com.
