Stopped Clock Paradox - Analysis

Fixed_Cross · January 15, 2014, 8:09pm

That’s what I got out of the paradox resolution. Do you think it’s sufficiently resolved?

James_S_Saint · January 15, 2014, 9:43pm

For those who actually wanted to know, I think so.
It would be nice to see MM’s explanation also, just to “verify”.

I’m sure the answer to “What is really going on” could use a little practice for everyone involved, although it isn’t really all that difficult. It takes a while for a fundamental mindset to soak in, regardless of how right it might be. They went for many years and a lot of trouble to convince everyone of Relativity and against strong resistance. I’m sure they wouldn’t be looking forward to having to repeat it yet again to correct their mistake.

The more serious question is whether you can follow all the way through that RM:AO Fundamentals thread.

Fixed_Cross · January 15, 2014, 10:54pm

Gotcha. It’ll take some effort though.

Arminius · March 28, 2014, 8:51pm

Einstein was wrong - that is what I have been thinking since my first doubt about Einstein’s general and special relativity theory.

James_S_Saint · March 29, 2014, 5:40am

But the question is, “Can you answer the question posed in this, Stopped Clock Paradox” and explain why.

And to explain what is really happening would require a greater understanding of RM:AO.

Arminius · March 31, 2014, 8:52am

I found two questions in that text:
1.) The answers to “Why?”
2.) Already a member?

My answers are:
1.) Yes, the answers to why.
2.) No, I am not yet a member.

All jokes aside.

There are really no more questions on that side, James.

I should read your “RM:AO”, maybe here, James?

James_S_Saint · March 31, 2014, 10:34am

The question is “Which clock will stop?” and “Why?”

First try to answer that question using special relativity concepts (no actual math required). In special relativity, the speed of light must always remain constant relative to each and every observer regardless of his own speed or the speed of the light source. So the train observer must observe light traveling toward him at exactly the same speed as the station observer sees any light traveling to the station. The paradox is that in the provided situation and according to special relativity, the light must reach both observers at the same time, but obviously cannot… and does not. So which clock stops, if either?

This thread, toward the end, answers the question (if you can sort through the argumentation).

If you are interested in RM:AO, a Unified Field Theory, you can read from several sites, one of which you mentioned;

Or another RM:AO Fundamentals.

Or in another thread here, A New Theory for a Quantum World, p14. But that one has a great deal of argumentation to skim through.

Arminius · March 31, 2014, 5:43pm

I know Einstein’s relativity theory very well, James. So that’s not the problem.

The solution of your stopped clock paradox has to do with your rational metaphysics resp. your affectance ontology. In your theory the first or most fundamental force in nature is not the gravity, but the elctromagnetic force (especially the elctrostatic), as you said here and here . So your stopped clock paradox must have to do with photons, with speed of light, with motion (in this case: slowing), and with directions.

That is right, isn’t it?

If I will have enough time, I will read it.

Arminius · March 31, 2014, 8:12pm

I have just read your offered post.

James S Saint:

There is one frame within the infinite number of possible frames of reference that is unique. I prefer to call it the “metaframe of absolute vacuum”. It is not a frame that can physically exist but is rather merely a reference much like absolute zero and infinity in mathematics. It can be approached but never reached. It is purely conceptual.

Within that metaframe, any potential to affect has one specific propagation speed based strictly upon the logic of an infinitely rapid change in potential traversing each infinitesimal point on a line in sequence. And because each point requires an infinitesimal amount of time and there are an infinite number of such points from zero to one, the propagation speed must be finite, and in RM:AO is defined as 1 propagation speed unit, “c00”. There is nothing else in existence with which to proclaim another relative motion reference frame so relativity and Lorentz equations cannot apply. The speed is only in reference to total non-existence.

That singular speed can never be anything but what it is simply because there is nothing with which to change it. It has no variables. But if one propagating affect crosses the path of another, the speed of each becomes affected, specifically slowed. And since any physically existent universe must have affects traveling in all direction all of the time (absolute zero being impossible), every region of real space is slowing every affect traveling through it. If one thinks about deep space between the galaxies, one must realize that all of the stars can be seen from every point and thus every point is always flooded by light. Deep space is at least an ocean of photons. And each photon, being a traveling affect, slows the others. The resultant rate of propagation is referred to as “c0” in physics.

But unlike c00, c0 has variables that can alter it; the density of affectance as well as any motion of one region compared to another. So c0 can actually change for each region of space relative to c00, which cannot change.

This ability for c0 to be different from region to region is what allows the appearance of the speed of light to be the same for each observer even when an observer is moving relative to the others. The observer’s measured speed of light, c0, is not exactly the same for every observer, but can be extremely close.

In the physical universe, each object carries with it, its own small region of space. The object, being made merely of the affectance within a small region constitutes a “moving region of space”. And as light travels through such a region, the speed of that light is altered. If the light is opposite to the moving region (“object” or “observer”), the light will slow more than if headed in the same direction. If the light has the same vector as the object and the object were to be traveling at the speed of light, obviously the light speed would not be affected. And if the light’s vector is opposite to that of the object, its propagation rate is severely affected by the oncoming object even to the point of being stopped, “hitting the object”.

In early physics, this effect was thought to be an “aether drag” affect (introduced by Augustin Fresnel circa 1800). Through an incomplete understanding of their “aether”, they presumptuously attributed properties to aether which are not the actual behavior of a region of affectance and thus ended up disproving their own “aether”'s existence. In reality, they merely disproved their presumptions about it which had become its definition.

When an affect travels through a region of affectance orthogonally to the region’s motion, the motion of the region has very little “drag” consequence upon the propagation of the affect (none in the case of a simple affect). Light is not dragged sideways even though slowed from head on. This is an issue with which they were not aware in the 19th century and thus had defined aether as a substance with impossible properties.

With that one concept realized, the observer effects become mathematically coherent and the Stopped Clock paradox disappears. The light entering the region of each observer is altered to better match the speed of that region. And with any two observers, there is always a third in between having an in between consequence.

Augustin Fresnel and Hendrik Lorentz and I’m sure other members of the Royal Society actually had it very close to exactly right. But it only takes one non-logic presumption to establish eschatology (Nullius in verba).

So the resolution to the real situation proposed by the scenario is that in a “perfect vacuum” between the observers, neither clock would stop because both clocks are moving from center. And the reason experiments indicate an observer dependent speed of light, is simply because the speed of light in a real region adjusts to closely match that region, but not perfectly. More exact measurements will show that difference (unless they presume pure relativity when recording data, in which case, they only get the data they presumed into existence).

James, do you want to reintroduce the theory of aether - at least partially?

MechanicalMonster · March 31, 2014, 8:55pm

Aether theory assumes an aether which is separate from matter/forms that is suspended in that aether. RM:AO proposes that aether and the things in it are all the same thing – “it’s all aether”, just various concentrations and organizations of it.

James_S_Saint · March 31, 2014, 9:20pm

Correct. Lorentz and James Maxwell were seriously on track. They apparently just couldn’t understand why light seemed to always be observed to be traveling the same speed. So they gave up on their “aether” theory and Minkowski introduced Einstein’s relativity.

Affectance Ontology doesn’t presume the existence of anything other than what has no choice but to exist, “affect”. But the logic based upon that one fact leads to an aether-like substance that necessarily fills all space. And as MM stated, that substance isn’t merely the medium in which other things travel called “aether”, but rather it is the actual substance of all things, period. And with close investigation, the reason for light appearing to travel at a constant speed relative to every observer can be realized without having to bend spacetime or play with extra dimensions or reversing time.

It is actually all pretty simple, just different than people have been taught.

Arminius · March 31, 2014, 10:49pm

Especially since Einstein’s relativity theory became dominant.

James_S_Saint · November 28, 2014, 5:47am

Here, Hatingme, prove your genius with this thread.

James_S_Saint · February 1, 2016, 7:03pm

This is the proof against Special Relativity and also the explanation as to what was happening with the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Ultimate_Philosophy · February 2, 2016, 2:59am

Im fairly sure nothing was happening in the the Michelson and Morley experiment. The retards of the $cience industry thought aether was a magical wind that did not move with the earth. They were retards for believing this, aether actually is a pervading substance that moves with the Earth, as it is made up of the same material as anything else (though it is too low density to reflect light or stop our motion, and thus we can’t see it.) However, though it cannot stop our motion, without aether, nothing would be able to move (because how can an object move without pushing a pulling a medium through friction? You cannot move on ice that has no friction.

If me and James die as the only ones believing the Truth of Aether, then I die happy because I died knowing the Truth even though the $cience industry tried to make me die with a lie. It is as Jesus said, the Way of Truth is small, and the path of deceit is many.

James_S_Saint · February 3, 2016, 10:43pm

The Michelson and Morley days version of aether was that it was a fundamental substance within which mass particles and waves of light traveled, like boats on water. What they didn’t realize is that the aether, the light, and the mass are all the same thing; “Affectance”.

Affectance has been proven to exist at every point in space. There is no option. Without affectance, there would be no “points in space”. Even distance is formed by the behavior of affectance (which is why Einstein’s relativity seems to work so well in the right situations).

Amorphos · February 4, 2016, 4:44pm

You speak as if affectance theory exists as a mainstream theory of physics or known and accepted et al. Particles which make effect upon one another has been proven at every point in space, which is known as {relativistic} ‘observing’. Background radiation theory is not affectance theory ether, or at least I have never heard it be called that and my brother is a physicist.

note the red lines underneath the term affectance when posting!

James_S_Saint · February 4, 2016, 5:49pm

Affectance isn’t a theory. It is a word. And there is no red line when I post it. Google “Effectance”.
Affect = to Act upon
Effect = End result

One refers to what is acting upon something (in psychology, usually upon children).
The other refers to the end result that the affect had, the effect.
From Google:

Regardless, it is proven merely by the thought that if you go anywhere in the universe, no matter what direction you look, you can see stars. But the only thing you can actually ever see is the light that is coming into your eyes. That means that everywhere throughout space is filled with at very least light photons, never mind the CMB and every other frequency range of EMR and gravity. It cannot be escaped. In combination, all of the things constitute the affectance. Or I should say that affectance forms those things.

Flannel_Jesus · February 3, 2024, 8:44pm

I’ve been reading a bit more about relativity and I remembered this thread. Went to dig it up and look for what people said about it and… you got it. First response, on the mark. What a dude, go you.

You win the prize of everlasting glory for all history of this thread.

obsrvr524 · February 4, 2024, 1:12am

Flannel Jesus:

phyllo:

I’ll go with the obvious answer.

One clock with stop and the other will not. Which one stops depends on how you set up the triggers. You can either set the triggers so the flash is simultaneous in the train frame of reference or you can set the triggers so that the flash is simultaneous in the station frame of reference. But you can’t do both.

Basically, you are trying to place the triggers to compensate for relativity of simultaneity issues. But you can’t beat the universe.

Do I win a prize?

I’ve been reading a bit more about relativity and I remembered this thread. Went to dig it up and look for what people said about it and… you got it. First response, on the mark. What a dude, go you.

You win the prize of everlasting glory for all history of this thread.

I’m no expert but - I don’t think so.

It looks to me that the triggers haven’t anything to do with time - but rather position. When the train is in a specific position - regardless of time - the triggers fire - both sets - train perspective and station perspective.

After the triggers fire - the question becomes about speed of light traveling in opposing directions from the perspective of train verses station. And it appears that both cannot be the true case.