On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 9:03 PM Alan Grayson
<[email protected]> wrote:
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
In relativity "rest frame" is only used in a relative sense,
there is no objective truth about which frame is called the "rest
frame" and which frame is "moving". For example if you have two
clocks A and B in relative motion, you can calculate things from
the perspective of the coordinate system where A's coordinate
position doesn't change with time which is called "A's rest
frame", but you can equally well calculate things from the
perspective of the coordinate system where B's coordinate
position doesn't change with time which is called "B's rest
frame", and both calculations should agree in their predictions
about all local events eg what readings show on both clocks at
the moment they pass next to each other (I illustrated this with
a few clocks in the diagrams from my link).
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
