Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Testing time dilation



On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, pvalev wrote:

--- Stephen Speicher <sjs@COMPBIO.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Pentcho Valev wrote:

The time t_C characterizes the movement of C between B and A. The
respective time on A's clock is T_A / 2. Since no frame is more
fundamental than the other, the conclusion is

t_C = T_A / 2


You have confused the issue. First you mistakenly think that t_C
is somehow related to B, when in fact it is related to how C
moves with respect to A. Second, t_C = T_C/2, not T_A/2.

These counterarguments had already appeared in the
sci.physics.relativity group.

You mean that you posted the same "problem" to more than one
list? And, you received similar responses? If that is the case,
perhaps that is a clue to be considered.

Note that T_C is only defined if the
time needed for carrying out the physical processes in C's clock is
zero.


Which is a perfectly valid assumption to make in these sort of
scenarios. I already mentioned one way by which it can be
accomplished, namely the prior exhange of signals. In fact, C
need not even make any adjustments to his clock; all he needs is
to know the reading on the other clock at the time of the event
of their meeting, and such knowledge can be attained based on
prior signal exchange and calculations based on their relative
velocity.

My advice is that you spend more time understanding what the
standard theory is and how it works, rather than perpetually
seeking supposed contradictions or inconsistencies. Special
relativity is internally consistent, and seeking such
contradictions is no different than attempts to square the
circle.

--
Stephen
sjs@compbio.caltech.edu

Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.

Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------