# 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:** 8
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/141 "2013-10-22T15:11:15Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> You have not been giving me arguments. You have been making an assertion, with no argument other than "The Holy Physble says…"
And all you have been giving us is lies about how physics in general and how SR works. If you want to make an argument against SR, you at least have to get SR right.
I say, “lying,” because at this point you have purposefully dodged trying to get specific about anything, especially since with a little research one can see that you have failed to be able to produce reasonable numbers for any physics scenario in the past.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/142 "2013-10-22T15:50:05Z")
x2 = x1 + Xs
a1 = v1/t
v1 = d1/t
a2 = v2/t
v2 = d2/t
If a1 = a2 then
v1 = v2
and
d1 = d2
thus
x2 + d2 = x1 + d1 + Xs
and
x2 - x1 = Xs
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/143 "2013-10-22T15:58:31Z")
> [@](#):
>
> You may shrink each engine if you like.
> Xs is between the objects. The space between the engines is not in motion.
Let’s say you have a 100 meter string joining engine 1 and engine 2 as measured by the trains.
An external observer must view the sting as being less than 100 meters long.
Now remove the string. The external observer must view the distance between the engines as less than 100 meters. Although it still appears to be 100 meters in the train frame of reference.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 4:01pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/144 "2013-10-22T16:01:25Z")
From the BOTH/EITHER perspectives;
x2 = x1 + Xs
a1 = v1/t
v1 = d1/t
a2 = v2/t
v2 = d2/t
If a1 = a2 then
v1 = v2
and
d1 = d2
thus
x2 + d2 = x1 + d1 + Xs
and
x2 - x1 = Xs
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/145 "2013-10-22T16:04:15Z")
You don’t define a1,v1,d1,x1,x2,…
What can one say?
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/146 "2013-10-22T16:22:40Z")
One could say what atheists tell Christians all the time;
“Pay more attention to the obvious and less to what someone wrote in a book.”
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/147 "2013-10-22T16:36:54Z")
As Einstein might say to Aristotle : Pay attention to the measured speed of light rather than to your own ‘logic’.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/148 "2013-10-22T16:40:13Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> As Einstein might say to Aristotle : Pay attention to the measured speed of light rather than to your own ‘logic’.
“Pay more attention to what 500 people on the beach saw Jesus do and less to what scientists tell you they did.”
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/149 "2013-10-22T16:45:33Z")
> [@](#):
>
> “Pay more attention to what 500 people on the beach saw Jesus do and less to what scientists tell you they did.”
And on that note, I think I will abandon this thread. 
I expect that you will cut&paste one of your original posts and again claim that ‘The Stopped Clock Paradox is unsolved’.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/150 "2013-10-22T17:18:58Z")
Obviously you prefer to join those who abandon reasoning so as to win an argument.
… and so it is…
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> I expect that you will cut&paste one of your original posts and again claim that ‘The Stopped Clock Paradox is unsolved’.
Might as well.
Someone has to tell the truth around here.
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/151 "2013-10-22T17:44:49Z")
For shits and giggles, let’s post some rough numbers, something that James is too scared to do.
Let’s say that the trains happen to carry timers that happen to stay synchronizes with the clock on the station. That’s OK, but it doesn’t necessarily represent the time as we would assign it to a frame co-moving with the trains.
We will identify a frame co-moving with the station and call that frame, O. We will identify a frame co-moving with the middle train (MT) and call that frame, O’. We will say that the final speed of the trains is, in O, 0.5 (in units where c = 1). We will pick our origins for O and O’ such that O(0,0) is the same spacetime event as O’(0,0).
We will stipulate that at time t=10, when the timers happen to reach the count of 10, flashers go off on the leading train (LT) and the trailing train (TT). We will stipulate that in O, the trains are 10 always units apart and are going the same speed.
Let MT(x) = 0.5t - 5; LT(x) = 0.5t + 5; TT(x) = 0.5t - 15; and Station(x) = 0. In this way, the flashers go off when MT is at the origin and LT is at 10 and TT is at -10. The light from the flashers reaches the station at t=20, at which point a sensor in the station, primed to go off if it receives two flashes of light at once, registers the light.
If one wants to do the SR calculations (standard Lorentz transforms), then I suggest one go to the following website and work through them. [hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb … trans.html](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/ltrans.html)
When the timers go off, where and when are the trains in O’? (NB: I will limit the numbers to three significant digits.)
MT x’(0,10) = (1 - (1-(0.5)^2)^(1/2)_(-0.5_10 + 0) = -5.77
MT t’(0,10) = 11.5
LT x’(10,10) = 5.73
LT t’(10,10) = 5.73
TT x’(-10,10) = -17.3
TT t’(-10,10) = 17.3
Since the trains do not move in O’, we know that, in O’, the distance between MT and LT is 5.73 - (-5.77) = 11.5 and that the distance between MT and TT is -5.77 - (-17.3) = 11.5. This is what we expect from length contraction.
When and where does the clock stop in O’?
Stop x’(0,20) = -11.5
Stop t’(0,20) = 23.1
Where is the midpoint of the flashes in O’? It would be at (-17.3 + 5.73)/2 = -5.78 (right where we expect it to be, given the error introduced by significant digits). And when does the light reach that midpoint? The light from LT reaches it at 5.73 + |(5.73-(-5.78))| = 17.2. The light from TT reaches it at 17.3 + |(-17.3 - (-5.78))| = 28.8. So the light from the two flashers reaches the middle train at different times, not triggering the sensor on that train that is similar to the one on the station.
Adding acceleration should not appreciably change the results. The frame O’ assigns these times to events whether or not the trains were accelerating up to the point where they reached their speed when the flashes were released. Only the distance between the trains is different (less) before the flashes were emitted.
ETA: It is important to remember that no experiment has been performed here. All that is being laid out is the description of this scenario in SR. Many observations have found concordance with SR, none, save those which go beyond SR to establish GR, have been found to contradict SR.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/152 "2013-10-22T17:50:42Z")
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> For shits and giggles, let’s post some rough numbers, something that James is too scared to do.
>
> Let’s say that the trains happen to carry timers that happen to stay synchronizes with the clock on the station. That’s OK, but it doesn’t necessarily represent the time as we would assign it to a frame co-moving with the trains.
That would require broken clocks and has nothing to do with any of this.
But nice to see you changing from your normal “All mouth, no math” stance.
So now try using the scenario presented rather than your strawman.
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/153 "2013-10-22T17:55:28Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> > [@PhysBang](#):
> >
> > For shits and giggles, let’s post some rough numbers, something that James is too scared to do.
> >
> > Let’s say that the trains happen to carry timers that happen to stay synchronizes with the clock on the station. That’s OK, but it doesn’t necessarily represent the time as we would assign it to a frame co-moving with the trains.
>
> That would require broken clocks and has nothing to do with any of this.
That’s some high-quality whinging.
You never fail to fail to meet a challenge, James. Congratulations on once again proving to the internet that you are too incompetent to do physics.
> [@](#):
>
> So now try using the scenario presented rather than your strawman.
If you can do better, you are welcome to try.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/154 "2013-10-22T17:57:17Z")
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> If you can do better, you are welcome to try.
I already did.
That is what drove phyllo away.
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> From BOTH/EITHER perspectives;
>
> x2 = x1 + Xs
>
> a1 = v1/t
> v1 = d1/t
>
> a2 = v2/t
> v2 = d2/t
>
> If a1 = a2 then
> v1 = v2
> and
> d1 = d2
>
> thus
> x2 + d2 = x1 + d1 + Xs
> and
> x2 - x1 = Xs
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/155 "2013-10-22T18:19:18Z")
So, when asked to do better, you repeat the almost-primary-school physics you already offered us? When asked to define your terms for that muddle, you dodged that request.
It is not an ad hominem to point out that you are doing nothing but offering a bunch of text that mimics, badly, what one might expect from a presentation of physics but that clearly fails all the time.
The stopped clock paradox remains unresolved because the “paradox” lies in your dishonest behavior, not in physics.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/156 "2013-10-22T18:22:55Z")
> [@](#):
>
> x2 = x1 + Xs
> .
> .
> .
> x2 - x1 = Xs
Your first line is the same as your last line. You could have skipped all the stuff in the middle. 🕶
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 6:35pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/157 "2013-10-22T18:35:34Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > x2 = x1 + Xs
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > x2 - x1 = Xs
>
> Your first line is the same as your last line. You could have skipped all the stuff in the middle. 🕶
YOU skipped all of the math in the middle.
The last line was the verification of the hypothesis that Xs didn’t change.
That is why the first and the last are the same.
It’s called “logic”.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/158 "2013-10-22T18:37:53Z")
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> So, when asked to do better, you repeat the almost-primary-school physics you already offered us? When asked to define your terms for that muddle, you dodged that request.
Since all it took was that “primary school” physics. Why did it take you so very long to address it?
And more importantly, once presented, why haven’t you shown the error in it?
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/159 "2013-10-22T18:40:51Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> > [@PhysBang](#):
> >
> > So, when asked to do better, you repeat the almost-primary-school physics you already offered us? When asked to define your terms for that muddle, you dodged that request.
>
> Since all it took was that “primary school” physics. Why did it take you so very long to address it?
> And more importantly, once presented, why haven’t you shown the error in it?
Because you haven’t actually presented anything because you haven’t identified your terms. phyllo asked you to define your terms and you avoided doing that. You like to stay as vague as possible. I can understand why, given that every time you have put numbers to this scenario, people identify your basic mathematical errors or your obvious conceptual errors.
And I said, “almost-primary-school physics,” because you have not yet actually done enough to present something that we might roughly identify as physics.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/160 "2013-10-22T18:50:53Z")
> [@](#):
>
> YOU skipped all of the math in the middle.
> The last line was the verification of the hypothesis that Xs didn’t change.
> That is why the first and the last are the same.
You didn’t define your variables. You didn’t state what you were doing in each step. None of your equations change x1 and x2. The only other place where they appear is in what seems to be a conclusion : ‘thus x2 + d2 = x1 + d1 + Xs’ and the last line which repeats the first line.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079.md?page=7)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079.md?page=9)