Einstein's clock

[chinglu]

Here is the math. Indicate why there is an error or confess you are a troll.

One clock moves in a circle and returns to the other clock.

Here is Einstein's statement.

If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be second slow.

Next, since the y-axis is perpendicular to the line of travel, it is not length contracted. So, assume both frames the distance the pulse traveled is d.

Also, assume the time on the clock with the stationary observer is t.

By SR, c = d/t.

However, since the moving clock moves in a circle, then there exists some very very small time differential from the stationary clock, say t'.

Then, we must apply Einstein reasoning, the moving clock shows a time of t/γ.

So, the actual time on the moving clock is t' + t/γ.

According to Einstein, c is a constant between the frames and time dilation is a result of this assumption.

Now, since t' is absolute, we can remove t' from the calculations and all we have left is what Einstein claimed as the time on the moving clocks as t/γ.

But, that means, c' = d/(t/γ) for the moving clock.

We also have c = d/t for the stationary clock. But, under SR all observers must measure c as the speed of light.

Hence, c = d/t = c' = d/(t/γ). This means γ=1.

But, if γ=1, then v = 0, which is a contradiction.

There is no error here. I have said over and over, the two frames measure the same distance along the y-axis for the location of the light sphere. That common distance is d.

So, again, you demonstrate you can't follow the simple argument.

 

[chinglu]

But Einstein implies a Taylor expansion (although he doesn't explicitly state it), he uses the phrase "ignoring higher order terms" which, to anyone who has done calculus means "use a Taylor expansion and leave out everything with degree > 2".
Taylor series are ubiquitous in math and physics, but by no means the only type of expansion. In short, you're pointing out to everyone that you don't really understand Einstein's paper let alone the math in it.

So you're looking a bit simpleton-ish.

And you are required to define what "lack of length contraction" means, in terms of the stationary and moving (frames of reference for the) clocks. However, it seems all you are able to do is repeat yourself and repeat the same basic errors each time. Are you expecting something different, or are you convinced you aren't capable of making mistakes?

Since, here we are, n pages later and you haven't admitted any. Intelligent people make mistakes, but usually man up and admit they did.

I have no interest in your silly comments.

Post #238, which has not been posted 4 times, has all the specific math and conclusions.

Now, exactly what statement is false?

 

[arfa brane]

There is no error here. I have said over and over, the two frames measure the same distance along the y-axis for the location of the light sphere. That common distance is d.

Yes there is an error. A moving frame doesn't measure the same distance along any axis of a stationary frame when moving in a closed curve.
Plus you've substituted your own version of a formula for time intervals, which is different to what Einstein uses. And he obviously means a Taylor expansion to get the approximation v[sup]2[/sup]/2c[sup]2[/sup] for the difference between the two times.

I have no interest in your silly comments.

You mean you have no interest in actually understanding the theory or the math.
You keep asking repeatedly for someone to show which statement is false, but if someone does that you ignore it and repost the same errors.
So therefore, you must not be asking anyone to find errors in your posts, you're only pretending to. You have no intention of taking anything anyone else has to say on board, or of admitting any errors.

You don't want to learn anything, you want to reassure yourself that you know something nobody else does, hence the need to keep repeating the mantra: "here is the specific math".
What you have is crap; it doesn't work because it's got mistakes in it, mistakes you don't want to know about.

So this whole thread is pointless; trying to discuss anything with you is pointless.

 

[chinglu]

Yes there is an error. A moving frame doesn't measure the same distance along any axis of a stationary frame when moving in a closed curve.
Plus you've substituted your own version of a formula for time intervals, which is different to what Einstein uses. And he obviously means a Taylor expansion to get the approximation v[sup]2[/sup]/2c[sup]2[/sup] for the difference between the two times.
You mean you have no interest in actually understanding the theory or the math.
You keep asking repeatedly for someone to show which statement is false, but if someone does that you ignore it and repost the same errors.
So therefore, you must not be asking anyone to find errors in your posts, you're only pretending to. You have no intention of taking anything anyone else has to say on board, or of admitting any errors.

You don't want to learn anything, you want to reassure yourself that you know something nobody else does, hence the need to keep repeating the mantra: "here is the specific math".
What you have is crap; it doesn't work because it's got mistakes in it, mistakes you don't want to know about.

So this whole thread is pointless; trying to discuss anything with you is pointless.

A moving frame doesn't measure the same distance along any axis of a stationary frame when moving in a closed curve.

Show me your link or find it in this document your assertion.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

If you can't, then you should be banned as a troll.

 

[machaon]

http://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second.html