# 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:** 6
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 3:17am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/101 "2013-10-20T03:17:34Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> > [@PhysBang](#):
> >
> > when the end of a train passes a part of the track is different in different frames of reference.
>
> When the center engine clock passes the station clock, is when the flashers are Xs distance from the station clock. The engines did not get closer together.
“relativity of simultaneity”
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 5:29am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/102 "2013-10-20T05:29:35Z")
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > > [@PhysBang](#):
> > >
> > > when the end of a train passes a part of the track is different in different frames of reference.
> >
> > When the center engine clock passes the station clock, is when the flashers are Xs distance from the station clock. The engines did not get closer together.
>
> “relativity of simultaneity”
Irrelevant since all parties already know that the flashes happened at the same moment.
Relativity of simultaneity only applies when the parties cannot know if events are simultaneous. The man on the embankment in Einstein’s scenario hears two thunder claps and can calculate the distance of each lightening strike via their thunder timing. The man on the train hears only one. So in reality they can both know that the events were simultaneous.
In this scenario, the flashers are triggered by actually touching fixed trigger arms and also by identically reading timers. So both parties already know that the events were simultaneous.
Back to the original question;
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> The three engines constitute one frame of reference because they are moving together and the station constitutes a another. Both the train observer and the station observer know that the flashes occur together because the timers will be reading the same, regardless of what that reading might be. And regardless of that, simple side track arms set at Xs can trigger the flashers without being concerned with any length contraction issues.
>
> So you are back with the original proposal;
> 
>
> Since they both know the flashes occur together and SR states that they must both experience light traveling at c0, the station must experience the upper portion of that pic and the center engine (the “train”) must experience the lower of the pic. But at most only one of those perspectives could actually occur.
>
> So the question is;
> A) Station clock stops only
> B) Train clock stops only
> C) Both clocks stop
> D) Neither clock stops.
>
> Which is it?
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 10:31am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/103 "2013-10-20T10:31:52Z")
An updated view of the scenario…
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 1:15pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/104 "2013-10-20T13:15:28Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> “relativity of simultaneity”
Irrelevant since all parties already know that the flashes happened at the same moment.
[/quote]
This is merely the claim of your fantasy physics.
If you would ever try to work through the numbers (as you have on other sites) you would see (as you have) that this paradox fails (as it did).
> [@](#):
>
> Relativity of simultaneity only applies when the parties cannot know if events are simultaneous. The man on the embankment in Einstein’s scenario hears two thunder claps and can calculate the distance of each lightening strike via their thunder timing. The man on the train hears only one. So in reality they can both know that the events were simultaneous.
Why do you try to lie like that? I can think of no reason why you would write the above except in a desperate attempt to lie. You know very well that it is not the speed of sound that is used to determine simultaneity, but the speed of light, because the speed of light has a very special property that can be relied upon by everyone who wishes to calculate with space and time.
> [@](#):
>
> In this scenario, the flashers are triggered by actually touching fixed trigger arms and also by identically reading timers. So both parties already know that the events were simultaneous.
We also know that what a specific clock reads is not necessarily what we associate with the time in a reference frame, since any clock will have the same face in all reference frames at a given spacetime event.
Back to the original question;
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> The three engines constitute one frame of reference because they are moving together and the station constitutes a another. Both the train observer and the station observer know that the flashes occur together because the timers will be reading the same, regardless of what that reading might be.
So do the sync. Work through the scenario and show us that, taking the trains to be unmoving, we also find that there is simultaneity between the strikes, given the constant speed of light.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/105 "2013-10-20T13:56:18Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Irrelevant since all parties already know that the flashes happened at the same moment.
>
> Relativity of simultaneity only applies when the parties cannot know if events are simultaneous.
So, the stationmaster knows that the flashes are arranged to be simultaneous in the train frame of reference…but he does not see them as simultaneous. Therefore he has just done an experiment which demonstrates the relativity of simultaneity.
> [@](#):
>
> The man on the embankment in Einstein’s scenario hears two thunder claps and can calculate the distance of each lightening strike via their thunder timing. The man on the train hears only one.
I wonder what you could hear on the train…probably nothing. You could not even construct a train which moves that fast through air without burning up. Even the equations dealing with hypersonic flow don’t apply at these speeds.
> [@](#):
>
> So both parties already know that the events were simultaneous.
Clocks don’t ‘know’ anything. Clocks only run and detect the photons hitting them.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/106 "2013-10-20T18:37:48Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> So, the stationmaster knows that the flashes are arranged to be simultaneous in the train frame of reference…but he does not see them as simultaneous. Therefore he has just done an experiment which demonstrates the relativity of simultaneity.
He has just proven that the perception of simultaneity is not the reality of simultaneity.
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > The man on the embankment in Einstein’s scenario hears two thunder claps and can calculate the distance of each lightening strike via their thunder timing. The man on the train hears only one.
>
> I wonder what you could hear on the train…probably nothing. You could not even construct a train which moves that fast through air without burning up. Even the equations dealing with hypersonic flow don’t apply at these speeds.
Actually, I see that I stated the “clap of thunder” issue backwards. It is the man on the embankment that would hear only one clap. He is talking about the difference between a man (on the embankment) and centered vs a man (on the train) not centered. He then proposes that because they each cannot know the truth of it, “simultaneity can only be taken to mean the appearance of simultaneous”. Except “real men” actually could know.
And if deaf, could merely go measure the distances between the strike points against their location when they saw the flashes, and thus deduce with simple geometry whether the flashes were simultaneous or not.
> [@Wiki](#):
>
> According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space
Yet we have just proven that one can certainly “say with absolute certainty”.
> [@Albert Einstein](#):
>
> When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —\> B of the embankment. [which is a redefinition of “simultaneous”]. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M’ be the mid-point of the distance A —\> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M’ naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M’ in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion [if they don’t do that math] that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result: Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa
Note that he redefined “simultaneous” to mean what appeared to be simultaneous and then declared it as a FACT - “ARE NOT simultaneous”.
He just conflated appearance with fact even though he stated that the appearance is merely due to the time of light travel.
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > So both parties already know that the events were simultaneous.
>
> Clocks don’t ‘know’ anything. Clocks only run and detect the photons hitting them.
Yes, and that is why they must display the real truth, not what someone theorized that they have to believe. They don’t know the word “simultaneous” so they can’t get it conflated with appearances versus reality.
The whole point of the scenario is that the clocks display the appearance of simultaneity by stopping. But according to Einstein’s own words, they must not stop if they are moving and stop if the are not moving.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/107 "2013-10-20T19:02:49Z")
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> If you would ever try to work through the numbers (as you have on other sites) you would see (as you have) that this paradox fails (as it did).
It has never “failed” anywhere.
And if that was the case, why aren’t you giving us those “numbers”?
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> Why do you try to lie like that? I can think of no reason why you would write the above except in a desperate attempt to lie. You know very well that it is not the speed of sound that is used to determine simultaneity, but the speed of light, because the speed of light has a very special property that can be relied upon by everyone who wishes to calculate with space and time.
Gyahd…
The speed of the sound was to determine the distance, not the simultaneity. 
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> We also know that what a specific clock reads is not necessarily what we associate with the time in a reference frame, since any clock will have the same face in all reference frames at a given spacetime event.
And we also don’t care what you pedantically want to call it.
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> So do the sync. Work through the scenario and show us that, taking the trains to be unmoving, we also find that there is simultaneity between the strikes, given the constant speed of light.
I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/108 "2013-10-20T19:49:07Z")
> [@](#):
>
> He has just proven that the perception of simultaneity is not the reality of simultaneity.
Perception of simultaneity is what will be experienced. You cannot design a device for ‘reality of simultaneity’ (R of S) because it won’t work. You cannot predict based on R of S, because you will predict the wrong thing. You can’t even deduce what happened based on R of S, because you don’t know the reality of simultaneity unless you had prearranged it as in all these scenarios that you propose. The stationmaster only knows (at the time) that the flashes were simultaneous because he knows the machinery was set up to behave that way ahead of time. Or he is told later about the setup and gains some knowledge after the fact.
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/109 "2013-10-20T19:55:42Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> He has just proven that the perception of simultaneity is not the reality of simultaneity.
Exactly. However, as far as physics is concerned the question is whether or not there is a definition of simultaneity that has more to offer than that given by SR. So far, the answer is only by going to GR, which expands upon SR.
> [@](#):
>
> Yet we have just proven that one can certainly “say with absolute certainty”.
On the contrary. All you have done is avoid the question; in part because you have avoided committing yourself to an exact description of your own scenario. You certainly have dodged every question about the evidence in favor of SR and what evidence you have for making claims that there is observational evidence against SR.
> [@](#):
>
> Note that he redefined “simultaneous” to mean what appeared to be simultaneous and then declared it as a FACT - “ARE NOT simultaneous”.
Again, through malice or incompetence, you are saying false things about a passage you have cut and pasted. Perception and appearance are not involved here, what matters is, “would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is situated.” This criterion does not depend on any conscious observer, but it is something that could possibly be observed.
> [@](#):
>
> He just conflated appearance with fact even though he stated that the appearance is merely due to the time of light travel.
Again, you have said false things about SR and attacked it on that basis.
> [@](#):
>
> It has never “failed” anywhere.
> And if that was the case, why aren’t you giving us those “numbers”?
Because 1) I don’t yet have the time, and 2) I suspect that you would weasel your way out of any numbers I gave, just in the same way you are telling us falsehoods now that you did not fail on that link I posted.
> [@](#):
>
> The speed of the sound was to determine the distance, not the simultaneity.
No, you have yet again tried to mislead your readers, in this case, through deliberate deception rather than mere incompetence.
> [@](#):
>
> I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean.
Exactly, despite your claims to be familiar with SR, you apparently cannot do the basics of trying to figure out whether or not the clocks on the train are in sync with one another or whether or not they are in sync with the clock on the station.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/110 "2013-10-20T21:10:39Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > He has just proven that the perception of simultaneity is not the reality of simultaneity.
>
> Perception of simultaneity is what will be experienced.
What you “experience” is the simultaneous contact upon you that resulted from distant events. You must then deduce what the reality of the distant events was. You have to do that with literally everything. Every notion concerning an event distant from you is merely a deduction of what seemingly must be there due to the nature of what contacted you because of it. Your eyes do not see objects. Your mind deduces that they are objects because of the placement of the light.
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> You cannot design a device for ‘reality of simultaneity’ (R of S) because it won’t work.
I am a bit famous for doing those things that can be done.
And it does work.
It cannot not work.
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> You cannot predict based on R of S, because you will predict the wrong thing.
And yet I don’t.
The whole point to “relativity of simultaneity” is that you will predict the wrong thing if you don’t think about it, so don’t presume to know what is going on “out there”. I agree. One should not presume. One should very carefully logically deduce, not presume from perceptions. Verify them.
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> You can’t even deduce what happened based on R of S, because you don’t know the reality of simultaneity unless you had prearranged it as in all these scenarios that you propose. The stationmaster only knows (at the time) that the flashes were simultaneous because he knows the machinery was set up to behave that way ahead of time. Or he is told later about the setup and gains some knowledge after the fact.
You can either prearrange it, or you can merely go back and investigate it. The same is true of all thoughts of reality. The man on the train or embankment could merely go check where the lightening struck and then they would both agree as to whether they were simultaneous.
Valid thought requires investigation or preparation. Since when did that become a sin?
“Let’s not investigate anything. Let’s just jump to conclusions.”
Yeah, that’s Science… Ehmm huh.
Sounds like Religion to me.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 9:19pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/111 "2013-10-20T21:19:40Z")
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > He has just proven that the perception of simultaneity is not the reality of simultaneity.
>
> Exactly. However, as far as physics is concerned the question is whether or not there is a definition of simultaneity that has more to offer than that given by SR. So far, the answer is only by going to GR, which expands upon SR.
“So far” meaning that until THEY tell you what to think, “nobody knows” what might be true.
Consider me to be “Nobody”.
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Yet we have just proven that one can certainly “say with absolute certainty”.
>
> On the contrary. All you have done is avoid the question; in part because you have avoided committing yourself to an exact description of your own scenario. You certainly have dodged every question about the evidence in favor of SR and what evidence you have for making claims that there is observational evidence against SR.
That is just pure bullshit.
If lying and ad hom attacking is all you “have time to do” to try to defend your church, PB, don’t bother.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 9:41pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/112 "2013-10-20T21:41:15Z")
Since apparently some of you aren’t familiar with how to synchronize clocks in relativity…
You precalculate the time required for light to get to a distant timer and set that timer to that time, but don’t start it. You then start a clock and let it send a light out to the distant timer which begins as the light strikes it.
The timers then stay in time with the clock. But that doesn’t mean that if gazed upon from a distance, they would be seen to read identically. The light from one takes longer to get to the observer and thus he always sees a reading that has already changed.
Relativity proposes that one must calculate what is “really happening” and disregard intuitive perception. Yet at the same time, it demands that one must use only what is perceived when declaring simultaneity.
Relativity forbids its own logic.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/113 "2013-10-20T21:56:27Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I am a bit famous for doing those things that can be done.
> And it does work.
> It cannot not work.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > phyllo wrote:You cannot predict based on R of S, because you will predict the wrong thing.
>
> And yet I don’t.
> [@](#):
>
> “So far” meaning that until THEY tell you what to think, “nobody knows” what might be true.
> Consider me to be “Nobody”.
You claim to do, to know and to predict a lot of things.
Now, you claim to be able to handle high speed interactions without using SR.
Going purely by your posts, you have not predicted anything.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/114 "2013-10-20T22:09:59Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> Going purely by your posts, you have not predicted anything.
The video speaks for itself, and me.
I predicted that Relativity is going to demand a contradiction (else why make the video).
It DOES demand a contradiction.
It forbids its own principles.
The scenario (especially with 3 engines) makes it clear that if one consistently uses what relativity preaches, one runs across a paradox. None of you have validly pointed out anything that violates relativity theory, and yet none of you can deny the paradox other than pull a Eugene and claim that something wasn’t explained.
If you believe in relativity, then start from that point when the engines are at a standstill and explain how the scenario “really” works without breaking a relativity or accepted physics principle.
It is you who can’t make sense of things.
In my world, everything works out just fine, because I don’t depend on relativity.
Relativity isn’t my religion, but yours.
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 21, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/115 "2013-10-21T01:15:31Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> “So far” meaning that until THEY tell you what to think, “nobody knows” what might be true.
> Consider me to be “Nobody”.
So far, all we have seen is your lies that you have found flaws in SR and that you can demonstrate disparities between SR and observations. You have made grand claims without any support whatsoever.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@PhysBang](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > Yet we have just proven that one can certainly “say with absolute certainty”.
> >
> > On the contrary. All you have done is avoid the question; in part because you have avoided committing yourself to an exact description of your own scenario. You certainly have dodged every question about the evidence in favor of SR and what evidence you have for making claims that there is observational evidence against SR.
>
> That is just pure bullshit.
>
> If lying and ad hom attacking is all you “have time to do” to try to defend your church, PB, don’t bother.
Kettle, thou art black.
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 21, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/116 "2013-10-21T01:24:52Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> Since apparently some of you aren’t familiar with how to synchronize clocks in relativity…
Indeed. And one member of that “some” is James S Saint.
> [@](#):
>
> You precalculate the time required for light to get to a distant timer and set that timer to that time, but don’t start it. You then start a clock and let it send a light out to the distant timer which begins as the light strikes it.
That is one way to synchronize clocks.
> [@](#):
>
> The timers then stay in time with the clock.
No. Clocks stay synchronized if, for all times in question, if one were to passes a beam of light from one to the other and then back, the time that has expanded as measured by the second clock minus the first for the first transit equals the time as measured by the first clock minus the second.
(See [fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/](http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) ).
If this condition fails, then the clocks are not synchronized.
> [@](#):
>
> Relativity proposes that one must calculate what is “really happening” and disregard intuitive perception.
As physicists have realized for centuries must be done.
> [@](#):
>
> Yet at the same time, it demands that one must use only what is perceived when declaring simultaneity.
Only what it is in principle possible to perceive. For what else are we to use to begin our calculations?
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 21, 2013, 5:49am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/117 "2013-10-21T05:49:24Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> If you believe in relativity, then start from that point when the engines are at a standstill and explain how the scenario “really” works without breaking a relativity or accepted physics principle.
I take it that you cannot explain the scenario step by step (big surprise).
Your efforts to distract are pointless.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 21, 2013, 12:34pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/118 "2013-10-21T12:34:19Z")
I’ll give one last clue to this puzzle.
After you have synchronized the timers thusly;
Imagine that instead of the engines traveling to the station, the Earth started moving beneath the engines. Relativity proclaims that one cannot declare an absolute inertial frame, thus either frame may be declared as the observer’s inertial frame. So if the engines are to be the inertial frame of reference, then the tracks beneath the engines move until the station passes by.
And when the station passes by, you have this;
So once again, which is it?
A) Only the station clock stops
B) Only the engine clock stops
C) Both clocks stop
D) Neither clock stops
There is only one logically valid answer.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 21, 2013, 1:12pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/119 "2013-10-21T13:12:02Z")
The answer is B) Only the engine clock stops. It has been the answer since the OP.
Your trigger gets detected by train, which then produces a synchronized flash in the train frame of reference. The station detects two flashes which do not occur at the same time. Therefore, the station clock does not stop.
Note:
Three engines are irrelevant. It works the same with one car.
Clock synchronizing is irrelevant. The flash mechanism does not require it.
Use of multiple triggers won’t work precisely because of relativity of simultaneously. It can only work with one trigger setting off a flash mechanism.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 21, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/120 "2013-10-21T13:31:52Z")
From the station’s perspective, what is the trigger?
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079.md?page=5)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079.md?page=7)