Austin0
- 1,160
- 1
Quote by Austin0
Pervect has here given a series of events. Or at least relationships as there seems to be no determinable velocities or explicit spatial coordinates to be derived from this information.
DaleSpam said:I assumed that the distance to the Tortoise was the spatial coordinate for Achilles, but it is true that we never actually introduced a method to assign spatial coordinates elsewhere. That would require the introduction of a simultaneity convention and a spatial metric elsewhere. It could be done, but would require some more work.
However, since the only thing of interest in the scenario is Achilles I don't see the need. If you want to do more complicated scenarios which are still analogous to the SC horizon then I would recommend going to Rindler coordinates. There the analogy is even closer.
It is not a matter of spatial coordinates not being assigned elsewhere, because there is no means ,with the given information, to assign coordinates to Achilles himself after the initial instant either, is there?
Quote by Austin0
SO we have these times and relative distances and the premise that both Achilles and the tortoise are inertial with which to synthesize a coordinate system and metric.
You have asserted that the Zeno frame is non-inertial so the question is what possible state of motion of that frame could make possible those observed distances between two bodies in uniform motion.
Please take note of what I actually said . I didn't say coordinates (Which we don't actually have) but distances between the two bodies in inertial motion.which is all that is actually given to work with.DaleSpam said:For coordinates non-inertial just means that the metric is not the Minkowski metric, as demonstrated. There is no requirement that a coordinate system correspond with some observer's state of motion.
The point was not about coordinates but about inferring a state of motion from the observations.
As far as that goes is there necessarily any rigid constraint besides the signs of the signature and the Pythagorean theorem for a valid inertial metric?
Quote by Austin0
If the observations in the Zeno frame supported a picture of linear decrease in distance between Achilles and the tortoise this would indicate a constant motion of the Zeno frame also , agreed?
yes and if Achilles is defined as inertial and has zero coordinate acceleration in the Zeno frame then it would follow that the Zeno frame was also inertial (in uniform motion)YES?? Which is what I said.Quote by Austin0DaleSpam said:Constant motion relative to Achilles, yes. In other words, the coordinate acceleration of Achilles would be 0.
If the observed decrease in distance, itself increased in rate , this would support a conclusion of positive parallel acceleration of the Zeno frame.I.e. Zeno frame increasing it's velocity relative to A and the tortoise.
But according to Pervect the decrease in relative distance between Achilles and the tortoise is decreasing over time non-linearly.
SO what possible motion (acceleration) of the Zeno frame could make this possible?
DaleSpam said:I am not sure, but it sounds like you want the coordinate acceleration of Achilles, which is easy enough to solve. From post 393 we already found that Achilles' worldline in the Zeno coordinates is given by , so Achilles' coordinate acceleration is the second derivative wrt n which is .
If this is not what you had intended, then could you be more explicit about what you want calculated?
No I am not talking about the coordinate acceleration of Achilles in the Zeno frame which is indeterminable as far as I can see.
If you disagree please explain.
I am talking about what possible motion of the Zeno frame could make the observed relationship between Achilles and the tortoise occur.
Explicitly,, the decreasing rate of the decrease of the distance between them or comparably,, the decrease in the relative velocity between them..
Another perspective is; what possible state of motion of the Zeno frame as charted from the Achilles frame could accomplish this.
It is clear that if the Zeno frame is actually inertial in motion (constant) then an arbitrary clock rate could easily effectuate those observations. Yes?
That this is a state of motion and condition that would be consistent with the Zeno observations. Agreed?
Quote by Austin0
My conclusion is that there is no possible acceleration that could do this alone and therefore the observations in the Zeno frame could only be possible if the Zeno time rate was increasing at a rate not possible through the effects of motion ( Lorentz effects..)
Quote by Austin0DaleSpam said:I agree, the same thing happens in SC. The SC coordinate time is increasing at a rate which is not possible through the effects of motion for any local observer. It is only by the use of a simultaneity convention and a distant observer that SC time is related to any observer's proper time. We haven't defined either of those for Zeno coordinates, but we certainly could do so.
Put simply:
Achilles is passing a stream of Zeno clocks and observers. Do you think Achilles sees everything in the Zeno frame speed up exponentially or only the clocks?
DaleSpam said:Only the coordinate time speeds up exponentially, physical clocks do not. Similarly with a free faller passing a stream of shell observers in SC.
IMO you are incorrect here. In this scenarion we are talking about a system of arbitrarily scaled clocks. Equivalent to the clocks in the GPS system which are artificially calibrated for synch purposes. A physical mechanism.
In the GPS case the artificial rate is constant. In the Zeno case the rate is increasing but the principle is the same.
In the Sc case the static clocks are natural but incrementally decreasing in rate towards the center but that isn't relevant. In the Zeno case we can assume that either all system clocks are identical and exponentially increasing in rate or that the system clocks have increasing rates along the path of Achilles but in either case they must be mechanically operating at different rates , yes?
Quote by Austin0
If you think it is only the clocks, an arbitrary coordinate choice, then you are talking about a mechanism to accomplish this radical increase in rate in actual physical clocks correct?
DaleSpam said:Clocks measure proper time, not coordinate time. There is no mechanism for coordinates. Coordinates are a mathematical mapping from events in the manifold to R4. They are not physical. That is the whole point.
So you think the calibrated GPS clocks are measuring proper time??
I am not following you here.
If the sole definition of time is that which clocks measure then time has no existence or meaning independent of clocks yes? Coordinates are measured and assigned by physical clocks yes?? All coordinates to events in the manifold are determined and assigned by actual clocks at the actual locations.
All calculations of coordinate times at specific locations are related to actual or hypothetical physical clocks and what they would indicate for proper time at hypothetical events at those locations, yes?
I understand the difference between proper time intervals as measured by a single clock and calculated time intervals between clocks at disparate locations but any such calculated coordinate time interval, in the end corresponds to the times read on physical clocks (even if hypothetical), agreed??
Last edited: