Den 28.02.2023 20:21, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 26.02.2023 19:28, skrev Trevor Lange:
>> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 6:12:16 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> As I said and you snipped: He can OTOH measure that the coordinate
>>
>>> the hub clock will appear to jump 3/4 seconds forward, so at
>>
>> The hub clock never "appears" to jump, i.e., if it was transmitting
>> it's time readings to the traveler they will not contain any jumps,
>> obviously.  Every time you type the word "appear" or "appears", you
>> should backspace through it, and try to type the actual objective facts.
>
> And the objective facts are:
>
> According to the definition of the scenario:
> Observed in the traveller's co-moving inertial frame
> will the hub clock advance 1 second between each time
> the traveller is at the beginning of a section.
>
> You know of course that "to observe the hub clock"
> means to compare the proper time of the hub clock
> to the coordinate times of the co-moving frame.
>
> (Hard to do in reality, but well defined in theory.)
>
> When I in the following say "is observed to", I mean
> "is observed in the traveller's co-moving inertial frame."
>
> If we for simplicity say that the hub clock is
> observed to show 0 when the traveller is at the beginning
> of a section, we know that it will be observed to show
> 1/4 second when the traveller is at the end of the section.
> When the traveller abruptly changes the direction of his
> velocity, and the traveller is at the beginning of
> the next section, the hub clock is observed to show 1 second.
> The reason is obviously that it is a different co-moving
> inertial frame.
>
> The _observed_ reading of the hub clock will really change
> abruptly from 1 second to one second.

.... from 1/4 second to 1 second.

>
> But the reading of the clock never changes abruptly. Obviously.
>
> So the the reading of the clock appear to change abruptly.
>
>
>> For example, at each vertex, the traveler is simultaneous with a hub
>> event in terms of the incoming inertial coordinate system, and it is
>> simultaneous with a different hub event in terms of the outgoing
>> inertial coordinate system, and those two hub events are 3/4 sec apart.
>
> Quite.
> At one instant the hub clock simultaneously shows 1/4 second,
> at the next instant it simultaneously shows 1 second.
>
> No apparent jump there, is it?
>
> Must be a real jump, then.
>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 20:21:34 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 26.02.2023 19:28, skrev Trevor Lange:
> > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 6:12:16 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> As I said and you snipped: He can OTOH measure that the coordinate
> >
> >> the hub clock will appear to jump 3/4 seconds forward, so at
> >
> > The hub clock never "appears" to jump, i.e., if it was transmitting it's time readings to the traveler they will not contain any jumps, obviously. Every time you type the word "appear" or "appears", you should backspace through it, and try to type the actual objective facts.
> And the objective facts are:

that your gedanken scenarios have nothing
in common with the reality

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:21:34 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> The objective facts are:
> Observed in the traveller's co-moving inertial frame ...

The word "observed" is hopelessly ambiguous. Say: In terms of the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest...

> will the hub clock advance 1 second between each time
> the traveller is at the beginning of a section.

That's ambiguous, because it is referring to "between each time" with references to the "times" of different skewed systems of coordinates. See the correct statement of the objective facts in the previous message.

> You know of course that "to observe the hub clock"
> means to compare the proper time of the hub clock
> to the coordinate times of the co-moving frame.

If you just say what you mean, rather than something else, you won't then have to explain that the something else is supposed to mean what you meant. If you are trying to say the hub clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates of the traveler on any of the segments, then say that. Actual observations of the hub clock are subject to aberration and Doppler, etc. You should talk about "observations" only when you really intend to talk about observations.

> When I in the following say "is observed to", I mean
> "is observed in the traveller's co-moving inertial frame."

Again you repeat the totally wrong statement. Every object is IN every "frame", and "observations" are not really what you are talking about. You are talking about descriptions of the events in terms of specific systems of coordinates.

[Snip further examples of your misconceptions, and your inability to stop using the words "observer" and "observed" even though those are not what you are trying to talk about.]

> So the the reading of the clock appear to change abruptly.

Nope, see above. Every time you type the word "appear" or "observe", stop and replace it with a statement of what you are actually trying to say. You're not talking about appearances or observing, you are trying to describe objective facts.

> > For example, at each vertex, the traveler is simultaneous with a hub event in terms of the incoming inertial coordinate system, and it is simultaneous with a different hub event in terms of the outgoing inertial coordinate system, and those two hub events are 3/4 sec apart.
> Quite. At one instant the hub clock simultaneously shows 1/4 second,
> at the next instant it simultaneously shows 1 second.

No. The fact that you can't distinguish between the correct statement and your garbled paraphrase exemplifies the whole problem. Focus on the phrase "next instant", by which you are referring to time slices from two different foliations, which are skewed and hence not unambiguously ordered, so you can't say "next". For the correct statement, see the previous messages. Again, there are no jumps. Your belief that there are jumps just comes from your inability or refusal to think and then speak accurately.

On Wednesday, 1 March 2023 at 05:34:09 UTC+1, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:21:34 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > The objective facts are:
> > Observed in the traveller's co-moving inertial frame ...
>
> The word "observed" is hopelessly ambiguous. Say: In terms of the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest...

It's not ambiguous enough to fit your mad concepts,
however. No, your wonders are not observed, they're
only gedanken.

Den 01.03.2023 05:34, skrev Trevor Lange:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:21:34 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> And the objective facts are:
>>
>> According to the definition of the scenario:
>> Observed in the traveller's co-moving inertial frame
>> will the hub clock advance 1 second between each time
>> the traveller is at the beginning of a section.
>
> That's ambiguous, because it is referring to "between each time" with references to the "times" of different skewed systems of coordinates.

>> Den 24.02.2023 01:34, skrev sepp623@yahoo.com:
>>> At the center of the polygon, there is a light source that sends
>>> a pulse of light each second. That pulse arrives at the starting
>>> point of each segment of the polygon just as the traveler happens
>>> to start traveling across that segment and the next pulse arrives
>>> at the end point of that segment and the starting point of
>>> the next segment just as the traveler gets there.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/