# Stopped Clock Paradox - Analysis
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079
**Category:** Science, Technology, and Math
**Created:** [October 13, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079 "2013-10-13T19:57:04Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 11
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/201 "2013-10-23T15:36:29Z")
> [@](#):
>
> The saying is “seek and ye shall find”.
> Stop wanting for a solution or any particular truth (emotionalism) other than what absolutely must be true.
> … and you will find what absolutely must be true.
I answered the question. I think I moved towards a better understanding of what is happening.
You replied with two more questions and then some cryptic stuff about truth. You seem to like standing still in a veiled mystery. I don’t see any progress.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/202 "2013-10-23T15:58:00Z")
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > The wire might break. It is also an “object”. Bell proposed that it would.
> > But would it… really?
>
> You seem to be living in some ignorant world where nobody has ever tested relativity.
>
> In our world, certain cosmic rays reach the surface of the Earth because of length contraction.
You watched that happen, did you? …independent of the fact that you ARE a part of what you are trying to measure?
> [@](#):
>
> I could keep repeating that same “mathematical description”, but you would just keep ignoring it.
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> Why don’t you try here just once. You have yet to actually assign coordinates to anything in your recent scenario.
Specific numerical coordinates are hardly necessary and you can certainly prove any that you need.
I will state the most relevant part of the current quandary for you one more time. Please pay attention. This is a test, not a course on rational thought (else I would require prerequisites for the course).
The current quandary involves the issue of whether the distance Xs contracts (but remember this is only one small part of the puzzle, and to some wouldn’t even be an issue).
Does Xs contract?
> [@](#):
>
> The premise (the given scenario (“scenario” means that situation being enacted)) is that there is this location, “x1” where an engine is located. Also the quantitative definition of “a” is;
> a = v/t
> and
> v = d/t
> where “d” is the distance obtained.
>
> And since we have two engines and thus two locations;
> a1 = v1/t
> and
> a2 = v2/t
>
> Thus there is a;
> d1 = distance obtained by engine 1
> and
> d2 = distance obtained by engine 2
>
> Do you disagree with that situation?
Presupposing that you actually had the courage to respond with “yes”…
> [@](#):
>
> a1 is the acceleration (of the “center”) of engine 1.
> a2 is the acceleration (of the “center”) of engine 2.
>
> Both as seen from the station.
> [@](#):
>
> A) each engine begins at exactly the same time based upon their own synchronized clocks.
> B) They each apply the exact same thrust to the rails below them.
> C) And thus they each accelerate at exactly the same rate up to the exact same speed.
> [@](#):
>
> Assuming that the station clock does not stop;
> Thought A
> The station knows that the timers were put in sync
> And that nothing happened to get them out of sync
> Therefore, they are still in sync.
>
> Thought B
> The station perceives them out of sync
> Therefore the station knows that they are out of sync.
>
> The paradox is that thought A denies thought B and B denies A.
>
> Assuming that the train clock does not stop;
> Thought A
> The train perceives them out of sync,
> Therefore they are out of sync
>
> Thought B
> The train knows that the timers were put in sync
> And that nothing happened to get them out of sync
> Therefore, they are still in sync.
>
> Again, the paradox is that thought A denies thought B and B denies A.
> [@](#):
>
> Actually at this point, we can state the paradox in another way;
>
> Assuming that the station train clock does not stop;
> Thought A
> The station train knows that the timers were put in sync
> And that nothing happened to get them out of sync
> Therefore, they are still in sync.
>
> Thought B
> The station train perceives them out of sync
> Therefore the station train knows that they are out of sync.
>
> The paradox is that thought A denies thought B and B denies A.
>
> Assuming that the train station clock does not stop;
> Thought A
> The train station perceives them out of sync,
> Therefore they are out of sync
>
> Thought B
> The train station knows that the timers were put in sync
> And that nothing happened to get them out of sync
> Therefore, they are still in sync.
>
> Again, the paradox is that thought A denies thought B and B denies A.
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> x2 = x1 + Xs {definition of the locations of engines 1 and 2}
>
> a1 = v1/t {definition}
> v1 = d1/t {definition}
>
> a2 = v2/t {definition}
> v2 = d2/t {definition}
>
> If a1 = a2 then {hypothesis}
> v1 = v2 {math deduction from prior definition of “a1”}
> and
> d1 = d2 {math deduction from prior definition of “v1” and “v2”}
>
> thus
> x2 + d2 = x1 + d1 + Xs {math conclusion from “x2 = x1 + Xs” and “d1 = d2” above}
> and
> x2 - x1 = Xs {mathematical verification that Xs did not change}
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:01pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/203 "2013-10-23T16:01:56Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > The saying is “seek and ye shall find”.
> > Stop wanting for a solution or any particular truth (emotionalism) other than what absolutely must be true.
> > … and you will find what absolutely must be true.
>
> I answered the question. I think I moved towards a better understanding of what is happening.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@phyllo](#):
> >
> > My conclusion, based on this thought experiment, is that all of space contracts. Therefore, the Xs distance is automatically seen to shrink (by the stationmaster) as soon as the engines accelerate.
>
> Merely a supposition so far - “seems impossible”, but is it really impossible?
Suppositions won’t get you there. So not really a “better understanding”. An under-standing is something immutable (you hope), else you fall.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/204 "2013-10-23T16:12:34Z")
Another ‘you don’t understand’ from the all-knowing James. 
One can never be absolutely certain, but I suspect that you don’t have anything.
After a while, one feels like walking away from the game, because it’s not instructive and it’s not fun any more.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/205 "2013-10-23T16:16:20Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> Another ‘you don’t understand’ from the all-knowing James. 
YOU stated it as a supposition, “seems impossible”.
Don’t go blaming me for your lack of certainty.
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> One can never be absolutely certain, but I suspect that you don’t have anything.
One certainly can be.
Else how could you be certain that they weren’t?
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> After a while, one feels like walking away from the game, because it’s not instructive and it’s not fun any more.
Frustration comes from not watching what you are doing such as to cause yourself to not make progress. Because you are not seeing your own errors, the anger comes out at the only thing that you DO see… the other guy who actually wasn’t doing anything but trying to point you to what you weren’t watching.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/206 "2013-10-23T16:18:36Z")
I even provided you with “the certainty” ==\>\> DEFINITIONS of the concepts involved.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/207 "2013-10-23T16:23:08Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I even provided you with “the certainty” ==\>\> DEFINITIONS of the concepts involved.
Definitions are not reality.
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:25pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/208 "2013-10-23T16:25:29Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> You watched that happen, did you? …independent of the fact that you ARE a part of what you are trying to measure?
You are free to come up with a better explanation. However, you have to show that your explanation will actually account for the observations that we already have. So far, you haven’t come close to even showing that you understand the existing physics.
> [@](#):
>
> Specific numerical coordinates are hardly necessary and you can certainly prove any that you need.
I provided specific coordinates and you could have simply cut and pasted mine and made whatever specific changes you wanted to make clear how you imagined your scenario.
But instead you cried and said you were taking your toys home.
Providing specific coordinates gives us a chance to see how your scenario might actually evolve as a physical system. It keeps your system from being too vague to be meaningful.
> [@](#):
>
> The current quandary involves the issue of whether the distance Xs contracts (but remember this is only one small part of the puzzle, and to some wouldn’t even be an issue).
If Xs is the distance between the trains in the reference frame in which the station is at rest, then no, as I stipulated in the scenario I laid out, this does not change. In the context of your scenarios, Xs seems to be a quantity defined only in the reference frame. Really, you seem to have misunderstood the entire idea of what a transformation is from one system of coordinates to another, something established by Galileo.
The distance between the trains in one reference frame is not the same in all reference frames if we hold the speed of light to be constant in all frames of reference. This requires that when we transform our system of coordinates from one to another, we use the Lorentz Transformations and these introduce length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity – as we see when we take the time to actually assign arbitrary coordinates and work through the transformations.
If one never takes the time to do the math, then one doesn’t see the results.
> [@](#):
>
> The station knows that the timers were put in sync
> And that nothing happened to get them out of sync
> Therefore, they are still in sync.
I don’t think that station’s know anything. Regardless, proper way to transform from coordinates of a frame in which the station is at rest to a frame in which a train is (at least momentarily) at rest require that we abandon the idea that the clocks remain in sync, if left to their own physical evolution as ideal clocks. Someone sitting in the station or moving at any speed relative to the station should know this because it is an objective part of the causal structure of spacetime as laid out in special relativity.
> [@](#):
>
> The station perceives them out of sync
> Therefore the station knows that they are out of sync.
The station, or any observer in it, need not perceive anything: the clocks are out of sync regardless of what is perceived. The transformations lay out what happens at different events and establish what could be perceived if one were looking.
> [@](#):
>
> The paradox is that thought A de Tnies thought B and B denies A.
That is hardly a paradox, these are simply two things that cannot both be true. In this case, A is simply incorrect.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/209 "2013-10-23T16:26:34Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I even provided you with “the certainty” ==\>\> DEFINITIONS of the concepts involved.
>
> Definitions are not reality.
Thought isn’t reality either.
One is used to track the other.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/210 "2013-10-23T16:28:42Z")
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > You watched that happen, did you? …independent of the fact that you ARE a part of what you are trying to measure?
>
> You are free to come up with a better explanation. However, you have to show that your explanation will actually account for the observations that we already have. So far, you haven’t come close to even showing that you understand the existing physics.
That is because you have to be able to think in order to see any evidence that is shown to you.
But you don’t.
You merely profess what others have said so as to escape possible accountability; “blame-shifting” and “false-flagging”.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/211 "2013-10-23T16:35:05Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Frustration comes from not watching what you are doing such as to cause yourself to not make progress. Because you are not seeing your own errors, the anger comes out at the only thing that you DO see… the other guy who actually wasn’t doing anything but trying to point you to what you weren’t watching.
I see what I wasn’t watching, but after looking at it(thought experiment) … it’s not impressive.
I’m only frustrated when spout your Phyble nonsense.
Now, I’m neither frustrated not angry, but I am bored.
You only have a couple of reasonable moves available. Play your move.
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/212 "2013-10-23T16:40:17Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> > [@PhysBang](#):
> >
> > > [@James S Saint](#):
> > >
> > > You watched that happen, did you? …independent of the fact that you ARE a part of what you are trying to measure?
> >
> > You are free to come up with a better explanation. However, you have to show that your explanation will actually account for the observations that we already have. So far, you haven’t come close to even showing that you understand the existing physics.
>
> That is because you have to be able to think in order to see any evidence that is shown to you.
> But you don’t.
> You merely profess what others have said so as to escape possible accountability; “blame-shifting” and “false-flagging”.
Like how you just ignored all the rest of that post.
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/213 "2013-10-23T16:40:59Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> You only have a couple of reasonable moves available. Play your move.
I am beginning to suspect that he is merely ill and has never made a reasonable move.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/214 "2013-10-23T16:45:30Z")
He’s a tease. That can be enjoyable for a while but…
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/215 "2013-10-23T16:49:47Z")
James’ view of what is happening might be raised as a question in a university course. It would probably stump the TA for a while.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/216 "2013-10-23T16:50:29Z")
It isn’t my “move”, phyllo.
I passed this test long ago.
It is your turn.
You have made far more progress than anyone else.
…but still merely slightly beyond the starting gate.
“Boredom” is merely another emotional reaction that prevents problem solving, “intelligence”.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/217 "2013-10-23T16:53:45Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I passed this test long ago.
> It is your turn.
I moved and you didn’t respond.
I don’t feel the need to do anything at this point.
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/218 "2013-10-23T17:12:31Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> James’ view of what is happening might be raised as a question in a university course. It would probably stump the TA for a while.
Only because James is purposefully vague. James just flat out doesn’t accept the Lorentz transformations and he props up some twisted, crackpot version of SR through appealing to selective passages from Einstein’s pop science book.
This is why it’s important to actually work through what the transformations do. James avoids showing exact numbers now because when he has in the past, it was too easy to show that there wasn’t anything going on in his scenarios.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/219 "2013-10-23T17:12:54Z")
Your last “move” was a supposition.
I responded with “suppositions won’t get you there”.
It is your move.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 23, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/220 "2013-10-23T17:14:05Z")
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> This is why it’s important to actually work through what the transformations do. James avoids showing exact numbers now because when he has in the past, it was too easy to show that there wasn’t anything going on in his scenarios.
Just as I said. I showed you once again and you ignored once again. (big surprise)
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079.md?page=10)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079.md?page=12)