Different events, chinglu. Didn't you read my post? No, a single Lorentz transform calculates a single clock reading at a single event. To get an elapsed time you need two readings. chinglu, the contradictions that you produce are because you are doing it incorrectly. I don't find it at all amazing that I get two different answers to two different questions.
James is right, chinglu. It looks bad for you that you keep pretending to haven't answered him when you have not.
Of course synchronization matters. That's not just SR, that's everyday practical fact. Consider a flight from Hong Kong to Dubai. You take off at 9:15, and land at 11:15. How much time elapsed on the flight? And the simple lorentz transforms we're using in this thread are most definitely about times on clocks. Your repeated insistence otherwise is why you are getting contradictions. You're doing it wrong.
What is this childish game after it has been proven you cannot make the frames agree on Δt' with your silly failed scheme. The space time interval is invariant.
You do not understand relativity. It is assumed the start event is the origins being the same for the standard configuration. So, since the origins being the same is the start event, you get two different answers for Δt' from the start event of the origins being the same. That is a contradiction.
I have answered him as I have you. You 2 get 2 different Δt' values from the time the origins were the same. This means both of you failed.
I certainly can, chinglu. James did it in post #117. It is you who keeps getting it wrong. Your problem is that you are confusing two different spacetime intervals. For the interval beginning at x'=k, t'=0 and ending at x'=k, x=0, all frames agree that the primed clock at x'=k elapses dt' = -k/v For the interval beginning at x'=k, t=0 and ending at x'=k, x=0, all frames agree that the primed clock at x'=k elapses dt' = -k/vγ^2 Wrong. The start event is at x'=k, not at x'=0. You are confusing two different start events: x'=k,t'=0 x'=k,t=0 Which of these events do you choose to be the start event? And yet again you fail to answer the simple question in his last post.
1) You are confused, The Minkowski metric does not tell you about timing, it tells you about the different between the timing and the timing of light. 2) Next, you are taling about events of [x'=k, t'=0], [x'=k, t=0], [x'=k, x=0] and [x'=k, x=0]. This is a garbled mess of confusing space-time and space. The start event is the 2 origins being the same. You do not understand this stuff. I have answered it over and over and provided the correct math as well. All my results agree with LT and are LT invertible. You and James are weak at this and have no idea what you are doing. This is simply about a clock at k moving toward the unprimed origin in the view of the unprimed frame. From the view of the primed frame, it is about the origin moving toward the clock at k. The start is the origins being the same and the end is the unprimed origin begin the same as k. It is that simple and you 2 keep introducing additional events that only get you confused and have nothing to do with the probem. Further, James R argued that time is always time dilated Yet you said, Note your γ^2 differential which is not in any mainstream interpretation. In short, your post is completely false. If you want to understand what is correct, simply read my math. If you deviate from that, you know you are wrong.
You are certainly confused, chinglu. Do you not see how setting x'=k, x=0 (for example) is enough to define a single event? Chinglu, do you understand that an event is a particular time at a particular place? You said that you want to find the elapsed time on the primed clock at x'=k. Therefore the particular place of the start event is at x'=k, not at x'=0. What's so difficult to understand about this? You seem to want to consider this interval instead: Start event: at the two origins coinciding: [x=0,t=0], [x'=0,t'=0] End event: when x'=k meets the x origin: [x=0,t=-vk/γ], [x'=k,t'=-k/v] Do you see that this interval corresponds to an elapsed time on the unprimed clock at x=0, not the primed clock at x'=k? Look: There are two different primed clocks at the start and events of this interval. One at x'=0, one at x'=k. The only clock that is at both the start and end events is the unprimed clock at x=0. If you want to consider the elapsed time on a clock, you need to look at that clock for more than an instant. Is that so hard to understand? Then why are you refusing to look at the primed clock at x'=k at the start? Why are you only looking at the clocks at x=0 and x'=0 at the start? So what's the problem? You said you could do maths, chinglu. Work it through and see what you find.
Sure that is the terminating event. But, I can't see your times. The start event is the origins being the same. That has spacial separation to x'=k. So, x'=k is not an agreed upon start event. That is the source of your confusion. Both frames cannot have 2 different spacially separated start events based on the relativity of simultaneity. This is confusing to the beginner.
So use the lorentz transform to calculate them. x'=k, x=0 ...LT... t'=-kv, t=-vk/γ Is that so hard? Perhaps you'd like to reconsider the post that confused you. Exactly! So, by starting the interval at x'=0, you can't determine the elapsed time on the primed clock at x'=k. Your start and end events are both at x=0, so you can only determine the elapsed time on the unprimed clock at x=0. And all frames agree that the unprimed clock at x=0 elapses dt=-vk/γ between the two specified events.
Chinglu: Since you still haven't answered the question in post #300, I won't be directly replying to anything you've written. A simple question waits for you in post #300. You have not been able to cope with the complexity of posts #117, #118, #165 and #177, so we'll start back at the basics with you.
Sure I have handled your posts. You just type a string of symbols and hope they are true. I produced math over and over such that all frames agreed that the moving clock elapsed more time. You have never been able to refute my math and sit around praying you can do such math. Where is your refutation of my math? You run and hide in fear. Otherwise refute my math. If you try, everyone will laugh at you when I am done. You produced math and I showed you that frames could not agree one way or the other. That means your math is a failure.
Yes, so with your way, you have physical events that cannot be decided meaning your way is a failure. My way, everything is decided and consistent.
Rubbish. You just agreed that the interval you are analysing only tells us the time that elapses on the unprimed clock at x=0. You are explicitly not finding the time elapsed on any primed clock. Rubbish. You've been shown many times how to get the time elapsed on the primed clock, you are simply choosing not to do so. Like I said before: For the interval beginning at x'=k, t'=0 and ending at x'=k, x=0, all frames agree that the primed clock at x'=k elapses dt' = -k/v For the interval beginning at x'=k, t=0 and ending at x'=k, x=0, all frames agree that the primed clock at x'=k elapses dt' = -k/vγ^2 So what's your problem?
chinglu: You can't even answer a simple yes/no question - see post #300, which remains unanswered by you. Well, yes. That's called writing without trolling. A new concept for you, I'm sure. Which one is the moving clock? How can you tell? You seem to know a lot about my religious beliefs. As for refutation, see posts #117, #118, #165 and #177, where you were soundly trounced. You have never gone through those posts line-by-line to point out errors, because there are no errors in them. My refutation is in posts #117, #118, #165 and #177 of the current thread, which remain unaddressed by you. You run and hide in fear. Challenge to chinglu: 1. Respond to the question in post #300 with "yes" or "no". 2. Go through any or all of posts #117, #118, #165 or #177 line-by-line, saying whether you agree with each part and explaining clearly any errors you can find in those posts. Assertion: chinglu will NEVER answer either of the above challenges, especially number 2. He will run away and hide in fear, as usual.
It is not up to me to sort through your failed rantings. I have though but you can't understand my findings. But, is is up to you to refute my thread. Refute #250. You will fail and run and hide in fear. if you chose to attack it, many will laugh at you.
That's your event, chinglu. It's when x'=k meets x=0, remember? And we covered this before, remember? So, once again: For the interval beginning at x'=k, t'=0 and ending at x'=k, x=0, all frames agree that the primed clock at x'=k elapses dt' = -k/v For the interval beginning at x'=k, t=0 and ending at x'=k, x=0, all frames agree that the primed clock at x'=k elapses dt' = -k/vγ^2 So what's your problem?
