Stopped Clock Paradox; Relativity Down for the Count

[Fixed_Cross]

I don’t believe that SR has anything to disallow both frames from accepting that the train is centered on the station clock at the moment of flash.

Are you sure about that though? Because this is what I’ve seen everywhere I look - that there is no objective time frame wherein a moment of simultaneity that applies to both frames can be established.

The relativity of simultaneity will state that the observer clocks will report/perceive that the flashes were not simultaneous due to the photon flight time.

I get the impression that relativity of simultaneity is not about that. From 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, such as a car crash in London and another in New York. The question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in other frames (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still other frames the New York crash may occur first.”

Note the bolded part. What is described to cause the non-simultaneity is not the distance and the longer distance light has to travel, but the different states of motion relative to the event.

[James_S_Saint]

Wiki is often presumptuous and erroneous. Read Einstein’s words;

IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity

UP to now our considerations have been referred to a particular body of reference, which we have styled a “railway embankment.” We suppose a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig. 1. People travelling in this train will with advantage use the train as a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system); they regard all events in reference to the train. Then every event which takes place along the line also takes place at a particular point of the train. Also the definition of simultaneity can be given relative to the train in exactly the same way as with respect to the embankment. As a natural consequence, however, the following question arises: 1
Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative.

FIG. 1.

   2

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. 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 that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result: 3
Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. 4
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears. 5
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section VI, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment. 6
Moreover, the considerations of Section VI are based on yet a second assumption, which, in the light of a strict consideration, appears to be arbitrary, although it was always tacitly made even before the introduction of the theory of relativity. 7

Note 1. As judged from the embankment.

He is REDEFINING the word “simultaneous” to mean “perceived by an observer to be simultaneous”.

He admits that the moving observer will move out from what he already defined as the center between the actual simultaneous strikes. So he defines the scenario in the same way that I define mine, with a couple of important differences.

1) I do not redefine what a word means.
2) I make it physically impossible for the “lightening strikes” to occur separately in time from anyone’s perspective (the trigger arms, although there are other methods).
3) I arrange for a record to serve as testimony of what actually took place (the stopped clocks).

Thus unlike Einstein’s version wherein no one has any way to know for sure what really took place due to the light travel time involved and having no remaining evidence of simultaneity, thus forced to make subjective guesses, my scenario arranges that there can be no doubt as to whether the flashes (lightening strikes) actually did occur together.

In effect, he was redefining what it means to say, “simultaneous”, and other words throughout the paper so that each was to mean ONLY “relative my subjective perspective”, thus seemingly removing the need for knowing any actuality, any absolute frame. But as reality would have it, words do not dictate the truth. Truth dictates the situation and if you want to hide the situation with your words, then you simply don’t know the truth (The Matrix). But the real situation cannot be hidden from ALL perspectives.

“You can fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time. But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

The Stopped Clock Paradox reveals the truth that the redefined words attempt to hide.

And I bet that you thought Science was above such mind games of manipulation.

And in case you haven’t caught on, this all relates to;
Clarify, VERIFY, Remember/Instill/Record/Document…

[PhysBang]

@James S Saint

He is REDEFINING the word “simultaneous” to mean “perceived by an observer to be simultaneous”.

Sadly, no he is not. He requires that an ideal observer be in a specific place, half-way between the two spacetime events in question. In the example he is using, these events correspond to things that can be observed. It is not the judgment of the observer that matters, but the relationship of the events.

bartleby.com/173/8.html

He admits that the moving observer will move out from what he already defined as the center between the actual simultaneous strikes. So he defines the scenario in the same way that I define mine, with a couple of important differences.

Hardly. For one thing, he does not use the word “actual”. What he does is clearly indicate that when we use one specific way of determining lengths (the rails), then we get a specific definition of simultaneity. Using a different means of determining lengths (the train), we get another definition of simultaneity. Ignoring this means ignoring the text and the actual physics.

Thus unlike Einstein’s version wherein no one has any way to know for sure what really took place due to the light travel time involved and having no remaining evidence of simultaneity, thus forced to make subjective guesses, my scenario arranges that there can be no doubt as to whether the flashes (lightening strikes) actually did occur together.

Unfortunately, your scenario does not seem to be physically possible, since it is inconsistent.

The Stopped Clock Paradox reveals the truth that the redefined words attempt to hide.

It certainly reveals that you don’t know how to take the relativity of simultaneity into account so you constantly perform straw man arguments against relativity theory.

[James_S_Saint]

Yes,… ALL discussions are ALL about James, James, James. What else could possibly important or relevant.

[PhysBang]

@James S Saint

Yes,… ALL discussions are ALL about James, James, James. What else could possibly important or relevant.

Well, you are the one presenting a theory here. You like to claim that it is Einstein’s but you are clearly wrong. You also like to play the victim and distract from the fact that you often ignore cogent points and questions. Like you just did.