Re: A mixture of time dilations and constrictions

[pvalev <pvalev@BAS.BG>]

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

> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >
> > > I do not know what you have been told on other lists, but
special
> > > relativity is a geometric theory with the notion of a point-like
> > > event as a fundamental concept.  Clocks are idealized to be
> > > present at any given event, not as an extended object but as a
> > > point-like particle. One can deal with a clock as an extended
> > > object in relativity, but such techniques are _vastly_ more
> > > complex than standard analysis.
> >
> > Still let us try.
>
> No, let us not. There is no point to complex analysis when there
> is a lack of understanding and agreement of basic principles upon
> which such an analysis is based.


Just a question. When a clock is idealized as a point-like particle,
the analysis is standard and simple, as you say above. When one deals
with a clock as an extended object (i.e. with a real clock), the
analysis is vastly more complex and we should not discuss it since
there is a lack of understanding between us. But something is amiss.
The lack of understanding has nothing to do with the existence or
nonexistence of techniques dealing with a clock as an extended
object. So please describe these techniques in simple terms and give
references where it is proved that results for a clock as an extended
object are essentially the same as results for a "point-like clock".
I wonder why the comparison between "extended clocks" and "point-like
clocks" is not even mentioned in the literature I have had access to.
Sometimes idealizations prove wrong and a lot of investigation is
needed to show they are not.

Pentcho