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?
Me neither.
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...
The underlined portion implies distance 0 when comparing clocks.
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.
I cant. I don't have the capacity...
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...
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...
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...
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.
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...
Not true.
The Einstein's formula i quoted clearly applies to that. Do you disagree with that ?
You still haven't demonstrated why you should not read different clocks. "relativity of simultaneity " applies to observing distant objects, this does not happen here at all. Introducing it here only...
Yes, but by being invariant doesn't this mean that both the stationary observer and the traveller on train will agree that it was the train who was moving and not the earth, or do I understand the concept of invariant wrongly?
I found how to tell for which body the time runs faster - as Nugatory said it is given by the spacetime interval, which is invariant and therefore not relative value.
Could you elaborate why such measurement would not tell anything about the rate of clock in the stationary time frame?
If you were to stop at that given point, all the clock would tell you exactly the same time, is that not the definition of time in the other time frame?
No. According to everything said here and also according to the twin paradox. The less time experienced is not an illusion or a matter of perspective. One HAS to be older and one HAS to be younger. If the asteroid hits the Earth it would have been of different age -> therefore the universe must...
Yes it does, but look I can find this stuff on my own. What still bothers me is that the moving clock still appears to be going faster for one observer according to my logic.. oh well nevermind
Thats not possible as your ##t/\gamma## could approach zero, whereas in the quoted equation the time perceived by the traveller could only go to about half of its original time