Re: Train gedanken pitfall

"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:83b8315f-0929-4851-89b8-558ed624715d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 21, 12:50 am, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:0b0daff6-d28f-4f2c-97fd-202b1790ee93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[snip distractions]

Ok .. now please address the points you made that were WRONG .. you've
played the distraction game long enough

In the context of at the time of setting up two remote clocks that are
stationary and apart and in sync wrt an inertial (lab) frame (in order to
measure OWLS)

BRUCE> BTW, your sync by slow transport assumes that moving the clock does
not affect its setting.

That is incorrect .. it make no such assumption. Please demonstrate why
such an assumption must be made.

You or someone else here proposed that you could sync two clocks at
the same location and then seperate them as a way to have two
seperated clocks in sync without resorting to light signals. That
contains the assumption that the clocks stay in sync when moved. It
was not *my* assumption, so ask whoever made it to demonstrate why
they did.

You are avoiding your mistake again. To repeat

BRUCE> BTW, your sync by slow transport assumes that moving the clock does
not affect its setting.

That assertion is incorrect. Please show WHY you assert that slow clock transport must assume that moving the clock does not affect its setting.

BRUCE> It is generally accepted that SR agrees with that assumption.

That is incorrect .. it does not. Please demonstrate where it is generally
agreed that motion has no effect on clocks in SR. SR says that there will
be a small difference if the speed of transport is relatively slow, and
larger when faster

Look in most any text book. It is also probably in the faq. If you
transport slowly enough then the effect becomes smaller than the
resolution of the clocks. Keep pushing this point and it's just going
to make you look stupid.

They are not in sync .. you can reduce the error but not eliminate it.

BRUCE> but I can show otherwise. Put the clock on a moving
train Next to the clock at A' and sync it with that clock. Slowly
transport it along the train and place it next to the clock at B'.
According to SR the transported clock must now be in sync with the
clock at B'.

That is incorrect .. SR does not say that. Please show the SR formula that
says they must be in sync.

In the train frame A', B' and C' are all in sync, and moving C' by
slow transport doesn't change that.

Yes .. is does. Please show the SR formula that says they must be in sync.

When C' is with B' it is no
longer in sync with A' when viewed from the track frame. If you don't
believe me read chapters 8 and 9 in Einstein's "Relativity".

BRUCE>From the tracks we see that the clock at B' is out of
sync with the clock at A', so the setting of the transported clock had
to change as it was transported to be in sync at its new location.

Of course it does .. as viewed from the track .. and its quite a noticeable
change due to the high velocity of the clock motion in the track frame
(assuming a train travelling relatively fast). So this result would have no
bearing on slow clock transport, the point you were trying to disprove

And you have completely missed the point about the time difference due
to position as demonstrated by the x in t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

I ignored nothing

BRUCE> We are not talking about time dialation here. Transport the clock
back to A' and the setting reverts back so that it is in sync with the clock
at A'.

That is incorrect .. see the Twins paradox.

Not the same situation. No slow transport and no mention of position,
just speed.

It is exactly that situation. You obviously do not know the twins paradox

I also later said, in the same context of setting up two remote clocks so
that they are in sync in a given inertial frame (not the clocks in train
example) .. that SR says that moving a clock DOES affect its setting though.
Even though in its own frame, where it is not moving, it ticks as it should.
The trick is to move the two clocks in opposite directions at the same speed
over the same distance and then stop them at the same time.

BRUCE> Nope.

That is incorrect .. please show why and how such a scenario would result in
the two clocks being out of sync for the purpose of the experiment (ie in
the inertial frame in which we described there speed as the same but
opposite directions)

Why should their sync be considered any more correct in one frame than
another?

Irrelevant. Please show why and how such a scenario would result in the two clocks being out of sync for the purpose of the experiment (ie in the inertial frame in which we described there speed as the same but opposite directions)

You wouldn't be making another assumption would you ;
)

Now .. please .. rather then make up new scenarios with clocks and trains,
address each of the incorrect statement you made.

You need to provide an incorrect statement that I made before I can do
that :)

I have .. Several. You simply avoid addressing them. Here they are again

1) You claim that sync by slow transport assumes that moving the clock does not affect its setting.
INCORRECT. Please show why sync by slow transport must assume that moving the clock does not affect its setting.

2) You claim that slowly moving a clock from A to B does not affect its sync.
INCORRECT. SR says that moving the clock will put it out of sync. You can only reduce how much out of sync it is by moving it slower

3) You claim transporting a clock back to its original position will make its setting reverts back so that it is in sync with the clock at the position
INCORRECT. This is the same situation as the twins paradox. The clocks will not be in sync. You can only reduce how much out of sync it is by moving it slower

4) You said that if two clocks move in opposite directions at the same speed and then stop them both (in a given frame of reference), that they will not be in sync with each other.
INCORRECT. They will be, whether moved slowly or not.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Train gedanken pitfall
    ... your sync by slow transport assumes that moving the clock does ... In the train frame A', B' and C' are all in sync, and moving C' by ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Error Code 13: Guide Info Will Not Download
    ... austin, tx ... Also I had the time sync issue resolved yesterday, ... The internet connection and firewall can be ruled out as suspects. ... internet connectivity and system clock can be ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.mediacenter)
  • Re: WTF with my computer clock?
    ... You may need to build a real LF antenna, ... ethernet port on one end for NTP sync and a 60kHz transmitter to sync a ... clock on the other. ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)
  • Re: Why SR? (was: Source Independency of Light Speed Without an Aether???????)
    ... >>> If the coordinate system is constructed using light ... > Well you could defer to the sync of another frame. ... And if you DID adjsut the tick rate (which is not really what is covered by clock sync) .. ... Would comparing wavelengh of light in each direction and seeing that they are the same, show isotropy of light, without and clock being required ?? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Train gedanken pitfall
    ... Put the clock on a>>> moving ... >>> train Next to the clock at A' and sync it with that clock. ... >>> transport it along the train and place it next to the clock at B'. ... as measured in the track frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)