I Shouldn't a moving clock appear to be ticking faster instead of slower?

[Mentospech]

He never discusses simultaneity in the inertial frame K'

He doesn't need to, there is no disparity in simultaneity involved at all. All the observations are made on objects at distance 0. There can be no difference in simultaneity.

He never makes the claim that by A stopping the time in the K frame would become the time in the other frame (K').

I don't know what you mean by "A stopping the time in the K frame" but I didnt talk about stopping time, but stopping the train. My point is that by stopping the train instanteniously in B you get the same reading as by just passing through B. So the frame of reference does not affect the reading. That is the essence of this thought experiment.

I have demonstrated it twice now. You have failed to address the math at all. Relativity of simultaneity means what I wrote down, you are fooling yourself thinking it doesn't apply.

Your logic here is this: effect X applies , therefore these equations hold ... and these equations hold because effect X applies. This doesn't make any sense. First you have to show why relativity of simultaneity should apply.
I have a very strong argument why it should not : relativity of simultaneity concerns only two spatially separated events. This is the point i contest.

 

[Mentospech]

This is another good approach. The spacetime interval of a clock moving arbitrarily in any inertial frame is given by $d\tau^2=dt^2-(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)/c^2$. Note, while $d\tau$ is invariant $dt$ is not. Continuing with the brief derivation:$$\frac{d\tau}{dt}=\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{dx^2}{dt^2}+\frac{dy^2}{dt^2}+\frac{dz^2}{dt^2}\right)}=\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}=\frac{1}{\gamma}$$So again, any moving clock runs slow relative to any inertial frame by the $\gamma$ factor.

That pesky inconvenient math just keeps proving you wrong over and over again. Best just ignore it yet again, otherwise you might learn something.

Equations by themselves are not proof of anything.

As was said in the paper and quoted here in one of the posts according to Einstein you can put points A = B, then put the rails in a circle and do this and each time A will lag more and more behind B. You can also have the circle arbitrarily short so you can watch the same clock at infinite number of instances lag more and more.

So either Einstein is wrong or you and your 'proof' is wrong and the equations you put forward do not actually relate to this experiment.

 

[Dale]

He doesn't need to, there is no disparity in simultaneity involved at all. All the observations are made on objects at distance 0. There can be no difference in simultaneity.

He doesn't claim that, and the math doesn't support that.

I don't know what you mean by "A stopping the time in the K frame" but I didnt talk about stopping time, but stopping the train.

Oops, that should have been "by A stopping, the time in the K frame". Forgot the comma.

Your logic here is this: effect X applies , therefore these equations hold ... and these equations hold because effect X applies. This doesn't make any sense. First you have to show why relativity of simultaneity should apply.
I have a very strong argument why it should not : relativity of simultaneity concerns only two spatially separated events. This is the point i contest.

The Lorentz transform ALWAYS applies in special relativity. The equations hold, not because effect X applies but because they always hold. From the equations you can derived that effect X applies. My logic is sound and the derivation from the Lorentz transform shows it clearly.

Your assertion that the relativity of simultaneity concerns only two spatially separated events is incorrect as derived form the Lorentz transform and shown above.

So either Einstein is wrong or you and your 'proof' is wrong and the equations you put forward do not actually relate to this experiment.

So find the mistake. Use the Lorentz transform and do the math yourself. Show a full derivation directly from the Lorentz transform or point out in my first derivation exactly where I used it wrong.

I have pointed out explicitly where you are making your mistake and why it gives you the wrong answer, and I have backed it up with math three times three different ways. Once with the Lorentz transform, once with general considerations of the relativity of simultaneity, and once with the spacetime interval.

 

[Mentospech]

So find the mistake.

I assume the mistake is that the original quoted formula holds true for all motion with constant velocity, it does not need to be in one inertial frame. Also it seems to describe an actual difference in time experienced. While the time dilation formula describes only observed difference in the speed of clock. I assume both of these effects take place, but only the one discussed here has actual casual impact on everyone. But I am not sure yet i have to look more into this.

 

[Dale]

I assume the mistake is that the original quoted formula holds true for all motion with constant velocity, it does not need to be in one inertial frame. Also it seems to describe an actual difference in time experienced. While the time dilation formula describes only observed difference in the speed of clock. I assume both of these effects take place, but only the one discussed here has actual casual impact on everyone. But I am not sure yet i have to look more into this.

Sorry, I cross posted with you. Please see my revised response, I will try to avoid doing that in the future. However, instead of assuming the mistake, you need to show it explicitly as I showed explicitly yours. Use the Lorentz transform since it always applies in SR.

 

[Mentospech]

This is very similar to the twin paradox, and while the effect of time dilation is symmetrical to both of them, there is also the objective fact that one is aging faster, that fact is objective fact to all observers so it seems logical it would be propotional to the invariant- spacetime interval, and i believe that while time dilation occurs, this aging might be actualyl speeding up the clock for one of the observers

 

[Mentospech]

All the observations are made on objects at distance 0. There can be no difference in simultaneity.

He doesn't claim that, and the math doesn't support that.

The underlined portion implies distance 0 when comparing clocks.

Your assertion that the relativity of simultaneity concerns only two spatially separated events is incorrect

This is the exact opposite of what I found on the subject. Please consider the possibility that you are wrong and look it up. The terms concerning time of distant events always contain distance.

So find the mistake. Use the Lorentz transform and do the math yourself. Show a full derivation directly from the Lorentz transform or point out in my first derivation exactly where I used it wrong.

I cant. I don't have the capacity to do this well enough to be confident in the result yet. But contrary to what you seem to think, it doesn't mean that i cannot arrive at the right conclusions or spot the problems in your assessment.

 

[George Jones]

Summary: Moving objects time dilation
View attachment 247722

Given the scenario of the attachment in the original post, the answer to the question of the thread's title is "Yes, according to B, the clock that moves from A to B appears to tick faster."

 

[Mentospech]

Given the scenario of the attachment in the original post, the answer to the question of the thread's title is "Yes, according to B, the clock that moves from A to B appears to tick faster."

Hi.
Thanks for responding to this question. But i think you reversed the order here. The moved clock (A) is lagging behind upon arrival according to the quote. So to me it seems that the clock B appears to tick faster according to the moving clock A. (disregading the doppler effect speeding it up, and despite the time dilation effect which is slowing it down).

 

[George Jones]

Thanks for responding to this question. But i think you reversed the order here. The moved clock (A) is lagging behind upon arrival according to the quote. So to me it seems that the clock B appears to tick faster according to the moving clock A. (disregading the doppler effect speeding it up, and despite the time dilation effect which is slowing it down).

Then, it seems that we differ on the definition of the term "appear" in the question "Shouldn't a moving clock appear to be ticking faster instead of slower?"

Edits: 1) I have applied the question the to scenario in the attachment; 2) I do not question the validity of time dilation.

 

[Mentospech]

the answer to the question of the thread's title is "Yes, according to B, the clock that moves from A to B appears to tick faster."

But clock at B will have more time on it upon A's arrival, according to the
How could then A appear to tick faster, if then upon its arrival it is showing less time passed?

I do not question the validity of time dilation.

Me neither.

 

[Dale]

The underlined portion implies distance 0 when comparing clocks.

Clearly. That doesn't imply what you want it to imply though.

I cant. I don't have the capacity to do this well enough to be confident in the result yet.

Then maybe pay attention to people who do have that capacity.

Since you are unwilling to listen to others, this thread is pointless. Please come back when you either:
a) can work through the math yourself
b) are willing to listen to those who can

The Lorentz transform always applies in SR, and I used it in my first derivation to show not only that you were wrong but exactly in careful detail why you were wrong. Until you can either accept that analysis or do the analysis on your own, this topic is closed.