Dingle's Paradoxes

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
<br />In the clock paradox which clock is the clock which runs slow.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This question is based on a premise contrary to SR -- that time is somehow universal or absolute. SR says both clocks run normal to observers within the same frame, and both run slow to an observer in another frame.

Check the link on the Twins paradox in the other active thread on this subject. -|Tom|-

<i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />

SR says both clocks run normal to observers within the same frame, and both run slow to an observer in another frame.

This is a very confused point. In 1905 Einstein said the moving clock runs slow. Then in 1907 he retracted this statement. The clock paradox arises from the 1905 statement not the revised statement in 1907. The 1907 statement was further revised in 1910 but not significantly changed. The above statement is the 1907 revision. Problems arise because textbooks and physicists continue to promote the retracted 1905 statement, which is the basis of the clock paradox. The paradox doesn't arise in the 1907 version because the proper time is the same in all reference frames. So the clock paradox is based on a mistake.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
<br />This is a very confused point. In 1905 Einstein said the moving clock runs slow.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The confusion is in your choice of words. The relativity principle says there is no such thing as "the moving clock". Each clock is equally entitled to regard the other as moving. Once you grasp this essence of relativity, understanding the papers of Einstein and Lorentz will get a lot easier. -|Tom|-

The idea of a moving clock is clear when we have an absolute reference frame and a clear definition of motion. The problem seems to be that both clocks in two relatively moving reference frames can't both run slow relative to each other. The problem arises because in 1907 Einstein tried to correct a mistake in his 1905 paper. In 1905 Einstein clearly claims that the clock in the moving frame runs slow relative to the stationary one. In 1907 he discovered that his 1905 theory didnt predict the redshift for fast moving canal rays. He changed the theory so that the clock in the moving frame only appears to run slow. The resulting confusion still exists. But if the slowing of the clock is apparent only, then why do experiments show that the dilation of time is a real effect?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
<br />The problem seems to be that both clocks in two relatively moving reference frames can't both run slow relative to each other.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In SR, they can and do both run slow relative to each other. This is possible because of the other term in the Lorentz time transformation equations that I call "time slippage". See my paper that explains this: www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep6/ep6-vanfl.htm

In SR, time dilation is a real effect, not an illusion. -|Tom|-

Real clocks that use atomic spectra to measure time must not slow do to speed or else spectra from sources billions of light years away would be effected in ways not observed. The Lyman Alpha Forrest lines would be effected in some way that is not observed or at least not accounted for in current literature.