*So that one typo, which was correct elsewhere made it muddled for you? *
*In part yes. When I think an author doesn't know what he's expounding
about, I lose interest. Also, although I was a software engineer at JPL, I
don't know LISP, so it would be hard to see what assumptions you made in
generating the plot. And the plot is claimed to establish time dilation,
and I'm not sure how you developed the width of the blue path say, to show
time passes more rapidly compared to the other plots. AG*
*I just assumed a width for the blue path. All that determines is how fast
the light clock ticks. Then the other two light clock world lines were
generated by point-by-point application of the given Lorentz transform. So
I showed the two clocks moving relative to blue ticked more slowly, not the
other way around. Do you not see that the bouncing photon hits the mirror
less often in red's clock as measured in blue's frame. *
*Yes, so that implies tics are less frequent in red's clock, compared to
blue's clock, so the time rate for red is less than blue, which is what I
in effect posted -- that blue clock tics more rapidly than red clock. Why
do you fail to understand what I wrote? AG *
*I understood it, but it read as if you didn't realize red was just the
transform of blue and it is in the clock's own frame it runs fastest. You
wrote as though I "developed the width of the blue path say, to show time
passes more rapidly" whereas I chose it arbitrarily and derived the other
two. Brent*
*Are you saying the red clock is in the same frame as the blue clock? I
missed that point. Why did you model it this way, instead of just using two
frames, one at rest, the other moving? Why does the red clock's photon
cross at right angles, but this isn't so for the blue clock? Were they
arbitrary choices? AG*
*This discussion began with my claim that there could be a clock paradox,
defined by two clocks, each running slower than the other. If such a
paradox existed, it would be impossible to produce a plot which would show
it. So, what exactly does your plot show; that the LT establishes that a
moving clock runs slower than a stationary clock? This is not something I
disputed.** I don't see how your plot resolves a possible paradox. **AG*
*I thought that if I could synchronize clocks in two inertial frames
without the LT, I could establish the paradox. But now I don't think this
is true. What is true, is that the LT causes time dilation, and is, so to
speak, the price we pay to guarantee frame invariance of the SoL. AG*
*For Jesse; I looked up Einstein's method for determining simultaneous
events. IIUC, it involves two clocks and a light source midway between them
to produce simultaneous events, with the conclusion that simultaneity
exists in the rest frame of the clocks, but not in a moving frame. I didn't
use it to establish that clocks in two inertial frames can be synchronized.
Neither did I deny it. I don't see why you think there's something awry
that I didn't use it. 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/65dc6793-fbb1-4bf9-9dad-481ebc8bf4f6n%40googlegroups.com.
