davidm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pm
As
uwot has explained at least twice, as is explained in his book, and as is explained in the two links I gave you that you refused to read, here is how it works:
The observer on the embankment judges the train’s clock to be ticking slower and his own clock to be ticking normally.
NOT ALL observers make the same judgments.
davidm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pmThe observer on the train judges the clock of the observer on the embankment to be ticking slower than his own, and his own clock to be ticking normally.
Again, NOT ALL observers, on the embankment nor any where, observe what you are proposing here. After all, every thing is relative to the observer. Therefore, it all depends on who the actual observer is to what is actually being observed. I, obviously, do NOT observe what you observe, and vice-versa.
davidm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pmThis is because the observer on the train thinks of himself as at rest and the observer on the embankment as moving with respect to himself.
That MIGHT BE what YOU would think. BUT that is NOT what ALL observers would think. A truly open observer KNOWS who is actually at rest and who is not.
davidm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pmWho’s right? They can’t both be right! (This is your
apparent contradiction.)
But as
uwot has tried to show you, the question of who is right has no meaning
unless the guy on the ground and the guy on the train can meet up again and compare their clocks.
Therefore, the ridiculousness of this whole thing is, hopefully, being showing for what this is.
davidm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pmAnd for THAT to happen, one or both observers are going to have to
get out of their inertial frames. If one or both enters a non-inertial frame (a non-inertial frame is one that is NOT in constant uniform motion in a straight line), then the symmetry of their situations will be broken — the observed mutual relativistic time dilation
will stop applying!
That is the
apparent time dilation
will stop applying.
davidm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pmWhen they meet again, one or the other will definitely have aged less (slower clock).
Another absolute statement of yours proposing that you already KNOW what the truth actually is.
What are you going to base your 'definitely' upon here? The texts that you already believe in and follow?
People of all denominations, including the scientific fraternity, can take a very religious approach to some thing, which is not even religious. The belief in science attracts followers with even more conviction than religious followers.
davidm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pmIn the case of the train thought experiment, if the embankment observer remains in his frame and the train decelerates, turns around, re-accelerates and then comes to a stop before the observer on the ground, and then debarks the train and compares his clock with that of the guy on the ground, the train clock will definitely have ticked slower than the ground clock.
Again, you use the word 'definitely'. Are you 100% absolutely sure of the answer here?
The amount of times people who disembark trains, planes, and automobiles HAVE TO adjust their clocks to fit back in with the ones who did not do any travelling should show how ridiculous this absolute answer may well be.
davidm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pmThe train rider will have aged less than the ground observer.
You do not seem to be laughing now, while other's are, out loud by the way.