Wondering about clock transport

It does. It means that you can't do this:

Slow separation means that you can't impart arbitrary speed to the clocks - the clocks' velocities must remain very close to their initial velocity.

Here's an example I made for MotorDaddy [post=2753794]earlier this year[/post]:

Now this is a specific case, but I'm sure you're capable of generalising it. I am as well, but my effort would be much clunkier.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know that's what you claim, but I don't see it.
Can you step me through the formalism?
The document linked in post 54 is what I'm asking about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This was the first post in this thread,

The technical level implied by that post should be the limiting factor in the terminology involved in the explanation, of the questions that followed. At least until it is certain that the original poster received an answer they both understand and are comfortable with.

That is where this discussion was. That is not where it has gone or is going.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, big sidetrack since post 42. My bad.

 

Unfortunately you often have a hard time seeing your errors.

The math is pretty simple, it shows the calculation of the proper time accumulated on two clocks , A and B. According to you, those two clocks travel a common distance (L) with the same speed (v), after which one of the clocks has an increase in speed (dv). You outlined two scenarios and you claimed that there is a difference between the two scenarios when \(dv->0\). The writeup proves your claim false by showing the details of how the proper times \(\tau_A\) and \(\tau_B\) are calculated when taking the limits for \(dv->0\).

 

Here you go, Tach. This is what I'm talking about.

Two clocks, A and B, synchronized and colocated at \(t=0\).

A moves at speed \(v + \Delta u\).

B moves at speed \(v - \Delta v\).

\(\Delta u\) and \(\Delta v\) are very small compared to \(v\) and to c, but are not necessarily equal.
The clock velocities are parallel.

Now, at \(t = \frac{L}{\Delta u + \Delta v}\),

• the separation between A to B is \(L\).
• \(\tau_A\) has elapsed on clock A
• \(\tau_B\) has elapsed on clock B
• The difference in synchronization is \(\Delta \tau = \tau_B - \tau_A \)

The quantity in question is this:
\(\lim_{\Delta v \rightarrow 0 \\ \Delta u \rightarrow 0} \left (\Delta \tau\right )\)

I maintain that the answer is a function of v and L, and equals zero if and only if either v or L is equal to zero.

 

Don't talk down to me. This is not the scenario that you described in post 47. Here are the two scenarios you described in post 47, the ones that I proved that are indistinguishable, contrary to your claims:

You can use the blueprint I gave you for calculation of elapsed proper time to get the answers for the new scenario you are describing in this post.

You have moved the goalposts, do the calculations for the new scenario and see what you get. What you maintain is irrelevant, what you can prove mathematically is interesting, so go ahead, calculate \(\tau_A\) and \(\tau_B\) for the new case. You might be right....do the calculations and we'll talk.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't we all?

No, that's not what I said.
I said the clocks are slowly separated until the distance between them is L.

 

Please don't read condescension into my posts. This isn't supposed to be a fight. I don't care who was right or wrong - I just want us to mutually find out what is right.

Yes, it is. Just a little more general. In both cases, Delta v is zero. In case 1, v=0.

No, but it does seem that my intention was not previously clearly communicated to you.

It is relevant in that you now understand what I'm claiming.

 

No, it is not. I took the trouble of putting your words into math and I showed your claim wrong, now why don't you put your new scenario into math, you'll find out the differences. I gave you the blueprint.

 

See here:

See the difference between your post 47 and your post 66?

 

You are trolling this thread. If you have any scientific contribution, please let us see it.

 

Hi Pete,
I think you misunderstood me.
I always try to put the problem with minimal information.
If the informations aren't enough then lead to erroneous results.
If the informations are more than necessary then their processing is more complicated.

If we consider only the information given in the OP, then you find my response at post no.4.
Clocks synchronization problem was outlined later as provided in SR.

I tried again to put the question with the minimum necessary information.
There are two clocks.
No matter which accelerates. No matter which is on earth. No matter which is greater.
There are just two clocks.

Now we need to determine speed.
According to SR, time dilation is only on the speed direction.
(From my point of view is an error because there is a velocity, which is a vector.
That we can determine the relative speed between the two clocks, we need to make a vector decomposition and to find vector value, which is oriented in the direction between the two clocks.)
But let's assume that the direction of speed is as required by SR and move on.

So we have two clocks that were in the same place and functioned synchronously.
Over 100 s we have two clocks and a relative speed between them.(No matter which accelerates. No matter which is on earth. No matter which is greater.)

The question is:at what clock Lorentz transformation is applied so that the two clocks to be in sicron.

The clock 1 (clock 1 at rest) "says": I have 100 s but you must have 99.9 s.
The clock 2 (clock 2 at rest) "says": No, I have 100 s but you must have 99.9 s.
This situation is absurd.

Method "reductio ad absurdum" is: something is supposed to be true, and if this truth leads to an absurdity, the initial assumption is false.

So the need to synchronize clocks, because of SR is fals.

 

You re-discovered "Dingle's paradox.

Nope, your understanding of SR is what "fals" .

 

In reality there is no paradox.

Yep, assumption required for SR, is contradicted by CERN.

Dark rumblings.

 

Tach, you are a smart fella. You have to know that most of what Emil posts runs through a translator. English is not his native language.

Responses like the one above are way out of line, even if Emil seems to try and ignore them.

Maybe, it is just me but you seem to be especially argumentative recently and not always polite about it.

I am not referring to your interpretation of Emil's statement here. I am referring to zeroing in on a misspelled word, which you obviously understood and could have been a mistake anyone might have made.

What gives?

 

His problem isn't language, it is the rabid anti-relativity, anti-mainstream.

It is not about any misspelled word.

 

What does any of the above have to do with your misinterpretation of clock synch in SR?