On Saturday, October 26, 2024 at 8:05:45 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2024 at 2:38:23 AM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/26/2024 12:06 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: *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. * No, it's obviously moving relative to the blue clock. *Not obvious since your first sentence above is unintelligible. AG* *Why did you model it this way, instead of just using two frames, one at rest, the other moving? * Because I was addressing a different question. I didn't create it just for you. *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* *All the photon lines are at 45deg because the speed of light is invariant; its 1.0c in the diagram for blue. If I transformed to red's frame then red would look just like blue does in this diagram. Brent * *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* *A failure of imagination. * *Best to avoid the snark. AG* | *As drawn in blues frame, red is obviously running slower than blue.* *But you replied above that red is not in blue's frame. When you refer to a frame transformation, you're in a different frame AFAIK. It's hard to see how this resolves the issue of a possible clock paradox. You're just using the LT and its inverse, and this ust shows what we already know from the LT. AG* * But suppose we transform to red's frame. Then red would go straight up the diagram taking the place of blue. We know this because red was generated from blue by the inverse transform. Then blue will be transformed to black. And in that picture blue will obviously be slower than red. Brent * *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/cae1e867-797f-4b91-854c-c450303d1684n%40googlegroups.com.
