# 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:** 9
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/161 "2013-10-22T18:57:53Z")
James is asking the fundamental question : why don’t Newtonian mechanics work in this case?
or rather he is saying:
Newtonian mechanics works here.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/162 "2013-10-22T18:58:23Z")
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> > [@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 have not yet actually done enough to present something that we might roughly identify as physics.
Wow… talk about primary-school.
In primary school, the children have to be told that “x” refers to a location, “a” refers to acceleration, “v” refers to velocity, and that a post-number refers to an item or instance of each.
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?
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/163 "2013-10-22T19:10:14Z")
> [@](#):
>
> And since we have two engines and thus two locations;
> a1 = v1/t
> and
> a2 = v2/t
The acceleration of the center of mass of the train as seen from the station will match the acceleration of the center of mass of the station as seen from the train. Accelerations of other parts of the train will be different because it’s not a rigid body. It’s a contracting body. A contracting body is required to maintain constant speed of light measurements.
a1 does not equal a2
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/164 "2013-10-22T19:17:01Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > And since we have two engines and thus two locations;
> > a1 = v1/t
> > and
> > a2 = v2/t
>
> The acceleration of the center of mass of the train as seen from the station will match the acceleration of the center of mass of the station as seen from the train. Accelerations of other parts of the train will be different because it’s not a rigid body. It’s a contracting body. A contracting body is required to maintain constant speed of light measurements.
>
> a1 does not equal a2
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.
And I guess now is the time to say;
> [@](#):
>
> I feel like I am talking to Eugene.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/165 "2013-10-22T19:23:18Z")
And none of this has to do with Newtonian physics.
It is the very definitions of the concepts and trivial math.
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/166 "2013-10-22T19:43:09Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> And none of this has to do with Newtonian physics.
> It is the very definitions of the concepts and trivial math.
Indeed. You have demonstrated that you didn’t even know what a system of coordinates was. I think, though perhaps I am being too hopeful, that you understand what that is now.
So, please, give us your fullest description of this scenario, with your terms/variables defined, in the system of coordinates in which the station is at rest.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/167 "2013-10-22T19:52:01Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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?
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/168 "2013-10-22T19:53:09Z")
Wow.
I’ve seen some dumb stuff on the internet, but that certainly takes the cake.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 7:54pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/169 "2013-10-22T19:54:24Z")
Yeah, Logic is “dumb” to children and women.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/170 "2013-10-22T19:56:14Z")
Translation of JSS: Each engine is considered separately. Each engine contracts separately. The space between engines does not contract.
Start v=0: [##+##]…[##+##]
at speed: [#+#]…[#+#]
Therefore he expects distance between centers of mass to be constant Xs.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/171 "2013-10-22T19:58:44Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> Translation of JSS: Each engine is considered separately. Each engine contracts separately. The space between engines does not contract.
> Start v=0: [##+##]…[##+##]
> at speed: [#+#]…[#+#]
> Therefore he expects distance between centers of mass to be constant Xs.
I wasn’t “expecting it”. I calculated it.
The question is, “why can’t you”?
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/172 "2013-10-22T20:00:20Z")
And far more importantly to this thread is, “Why can’t you answer such questions as this one?”
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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?
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/173 "2013-10-22T20:01:28Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> I wasn’t “expecting it”. I calculated it.
> The question is, “why can’t you”?
Actually, no, you didn’t do any calculations.
I asked you to provide actual numbers and definitions. You merely stated your conclusions again as if stating them were an argument other than begging the question.
So, please, if you can, assign starting values to your trains, and velocities, and describe the situation as best you can in the system of coordinates in which the station is at rest.
We can worry about other systems of coordinates after you learn how to describe your toy physics scenario in the easiest system.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/174 "2013-10-22T20:03:58Z")
And far more importantly to this thread, PhysBang, is, “Why can’t you answer such questions as this one?”
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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?
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/175 "2013-10-22T20:07:49Z")
> [@](#):
>
> wasn’t “expecting it”. I calculated it.
> The question is, “why can’t you”?
Because I don’t expect empty space not to contract. I expect the entire moving frame to be affected. That seems logical. If you have a boxcar which is 99.9% empty and only the mass of the walls contracts, then what happens to the emptiness between the walls? And the emptiness outside the walls? Do you end up with a ‘space crunch’ and a ‘space gap’?
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/176 "2013-10-22T20:08:57Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> And far more importantly to this thread, PhysBang, is, “Why can’t you answer such questions as this one?”
I answered the question: because you haven’t given enough information to make that an actual question.
It is obvious that you are confused about your own scenario: your only comment on the details I provided was that the clocks that worked the way that you wanted were “broken”. I agree that you have a broken understanding of time in physics, but it would be nice if you would take the time to actually do physics.
I know that you are scared. I know that you want desperately to be right.
But wouldn’t it be better to actually learn physics? Wouldn’t that help you develop your so-called rational metaphysics?
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/177 "2013-10-22T20:45:02Z")
PhysBang, if you would learn simple algebra, you wouldn’t be too scared to answer simple questions with simple answers. And then maybe, just maybe, you could actually learn the physics that you so desperately want people to believe that you know so well (despite the obvious).
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 9:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/178 "2013-10-22T21:26:35Z")
James, I know that you are afraid of being a doddering old man. So why act like one?
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/179 "2013-10-22T21:30:54Z")
> [@PhysBang](#):
>
> James, I know that you are afraid of being a doddering old man. So why act like one?
And I know that you are afraid of screwing up, so why do you speak at all?
---
### Author:  [@PhysBang](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PhysBang)
#### Post date: [October 22, 2013, 9:34pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079/180 "2013-10-22T21:34:31Z")
Look, you asked me for formulas and exact numbers, I gave them to you.
You could do the right thing and try to put as much effort into your own thread as other do.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079.md?page=8)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079.md?page=10)