Re: last? blow to SR dead horse

["RAUBER, JOEL" <JOEL_RAUBER@SDSTATE.EDU>]

> >
> Thank you Mike for finally bringing up the issue that continually
> confuses begining students precisely because it is so obvious to us
> professionals that we can't even see it.  Michael Edmiston gave a
> wonderfully clear explanation of the importance of thinking
> in terms of
> events and the intervals between them.  But even he says:
>
> > ...see what Jane records for this event.  She
> > records x=-6.19x10^8 meters and t=2.29 minutes.
>
> No she doesn't.  She isn't at x=-6.19e-8 meters where the flash occurs
> (using Michael's clarifying strobes).  It takes time for the flash to
> reach her.  Bright students immediately see this and get (rightly!)
> confused.
>
> I always told my students to imagine each reference frame to be
> absolutely packed with observers.

It may be a confusing aspect of nomenclature in SR to the uninitiated, but
when I read phrases like "Jane records", or "Jane observes", I find the
usual intepretation to be "the reading that the network of rods and clocks"
at rest relative to the actual person *Jane* indicates; so interpreted there
is no problem with Mike Edmiston stating "see what Jane records . . ."

Consequently I offered in a previous post the thought that the original
question fairly clearly indicated the time as measured by "Jane's" constant
time lines.  The words "Jane records" is merely shorthand for the longer
description of networks of rods and synchronized clocks . . .