tomclarke wrote:I think we have maybe reached a point where further communication will not happen,
Yes it is a waste of time to discuss physics with a person who have a flat earth attitude: You know the persons who still believe the earth is flat and who reject all evidence to the contrary as being “physically irrelevant”?
but I'll answer your questions, I'm always up for such a challenge:
Now just answer the following questions:
(i) Does a clock keep time? Yes or No.
Johan, you are interested in physivcs, which mean the statements you make must in principle be related to a physical experiment.
I'll give one to define keeping time, so that this is answered positively.
A clock keeps time if it agrees with the time measured from counting caesium electronic transition frequency in the same FOR.
In which case good clocks keep time.
You are unnecessarily pedantic and sarcastic since it is assumed when discussing Special Relativity that the clocks are perfect clocks keeping perfect time. How such a clock is physically constructed if it can indeed be constructed, is irrelevant to the discussion. Please at least try and act like a logical being.
Now, you may prefer some less relative definition: but you will have to define the experiment that establishes whether or not two diffeent clocks keep time.
It is in the text books and the called the “twin paradox” and it is claimed in text books that a clock that moves relative to a “stationary clock” keeps time at a slower rate with reference to the reference frame of the “stationary clock”. That this is actually so can be verified by the lifetimes of cosmic ray muons. When you use the Lorentz transformation to derive why the muon coming from the sky has a longer lifetime relative to earth than a stationary muon in a laboratory, you find that the lifetime of the muon IS NOT shorter on a clock travelling with the muon than it is on a clock within a laboratory on earth. This proves that the clock travelling with the muon keeps the exact same time as the clock within the laboratory: Unless you want to argue that the Lorentz transformation is “irrelevant”.
(ii) Do two separate clocks each keep time? Yes or No?
yes. [/quote]
(iii) Do two separate clocks which are both stationary within the same inertial reference frame each keep time? Yes or No?
yes
(iv) Do these clocks keep time at different rates? Yes or No?
We have a problem here. What do you mean by "keeping time at a different rate"? How is that different from the opposite of "keeping the same time". Untill you can give a physical (experimentally defined) meaning to this statement I'll just assume you mean "do they not keep time" as above. In which case no.
Semantics! Semantics and more semantics! You know exactly what is meant by keeping time at the same rate: It means that a second one clock is EXACTLY the same length of time that it is on the other clock. Thus, when two clocks keep time at different rates the interval measured by one clock for a second is different from the interval measured by another clock for a second.
(v) Do two clocks moving relative to one another each keep time within their own inertial reference frames? Yes or No?
yes
(vi) Now since they both must keep time, and since you claim that “keeping different times” is not physically meaningful, it MUST mean that they are keeping time at the same rate. Yes or No?
As above, keeping time at the same rate is not physically meaningful [/quote] Here is the flat earth mentality again
in this case unless you define it by specifying an experiment.
I have outlined above that the cosmic ray muon lifetime proves that it must be so.
"Keeping time" as defined by me above is physically meaningful, but only relative to a given FOR.
Utter BS! If the Lorentz transformation proves that the two time rates within the two inertial reference frames ARE identical then they MUST BE identical: Unless you want to argue that the Lorentz transformation is not “physically meaningful”.
Your question supposes the clocks are in different FORs so comparing their times becomes both experimentally and theoretically problematic.
No it does NOT. I have given a thought experiment in my manuscript where two spaceships pass each other and derived impeccably that the clocks of the two captains MUST keep the same time within their respective spaceships.
If you think not, give me a canonical experiment that gives a well-defined comparison.
I have done so in my manuscript. Furthermore it is so obvious from the Lorentz transformation that it must be so that I just cannot believe that any intelligent being cannot see it directly. The Lorentz transformation is derived by synchronising the two clocks when the origins of their respective inertial reference frames momentarily coincides: After a time interval (delta)t on clock1 the other clock (clock2) is a distance D=v*(delta)t from clock1. After a time (delta)t/ on clock2, the first clock1 is a distance of D/=v*(delta)t/ from clock2. But there is only one distance between the clocks so that at any instant in time on any of the two clocks one must have that D=D/: And consequently one must have that (delta)t MUST be exactly the same as (delta)t/. And this is NOT physically irrelevant AND it states that the two clocks are keeping the exact same time within their respective inertial reference frames. What is problematic with that?
Quote:
You would have to describe an experiment to verify or deny this.
The experiment is in the text books where it is claimed that one twin will age faster than the other. This can ONLY be possible if their respective clocks keep different time rates within their respective inertial reference frames. Yes or no?
No. The textbooks may or may not think the matter through.
Correct! And neither do you.
Most, I think, describe a twin moving away at high speed, changing FOR, returning at high speed. Thus the "stationary" twin has a very different trajectory through Minkowski space than the "moving" twin. The issue is not one of relative movement (the same), but of differently shaped paths.
I have given another three experiments that claim that the clocks within different inertial reference frames must keep time at the same rate since this is mandated by the Lorentz transformation. Although you will not admit it you are agreeing with this since you argue that acceleration plays a role. In my manuscript I also derive the “time-dilation” during acceleration and also prove that two clocks will keep on keeping the exact same time even when one of them accelerates. Thus your argument is wrong, since it violates the Lorentz transformation. If the interpretation of Minkowski-space violates the Lorentz transformation, then the interpretation in terms of Minkowski space MUST BE WRONG. The Lorentz transformation gives the fundamental equations which defines the Special Theory of Relativity. Minkowski space is a mathematical construct which you are interpreting incorrectly when it comes to the twin pradox.
Therefore I cannot give yes or no answers. I've done my best above to indicate why.
Thus the earth is flat!?