- #1

- 229

- 5

## Main Question or Discussion Point

Someone posted this link to a paper I really appreciated.

But doesn’t the author have the wrong sign on the relative velocity in his Lorentz Transform associated with his figure 2b? And if so, doesn’t that reverse his conclusion that “leading clocks lag”? His leading clock is #3 in the figure, and its time would then be LARGER than that of the trailing clock #1? So wouldn’t the correct rule be “trailing clocks lag”?

He never really shows the time phase LT calculation, but he does show a negative relative velocity in the first column on page 3. But the particle is moving to the right along the observer’s positive x’-axis. So it seems to me that the relative velocity should be positive in the LT from the particle’s x-axis frame to the observer’s x’-axis. The LT must approach the Galilean Transform for very small velocities, and that would be (x’=x + vt). This produces a later time in clock #3 than in clock #1, not the earlier time indicated in his figure 2b.

Thanks.

__http://www.hindawi.com/journals/physri/2015/895134/__But doesn’t the author have the wrong sign on the relative velocity in his Lorentz Transform associated with his figure 2b? And if so, doesn’t that reverse his conclusion that “leading clocks lag”? His leading clock is #3 in the figure, and its time would then be LARGER than that of the trailing clock #1? So wouldn’t the correct rule be “trailing clocks lag”?

He never really shows the time phase LT calculation, but he does show a negative relative velocity in the first column on page 3. But the particle is moving to the right along the observer’s positive x’-axis. So it seems to me that the relative velocity should be positive in the LT from the particle’s x-axis frame to the observer’s x’-axis. The LT must approach the Galilean Transform for very small velocities, and that would be (x’=x + vt). This produces a later time in clock #3 than in clock #1, not the earlier time indicated in his figure 2b.

Thanks.