No, it does not. This is exactly the twin paradox, and a good explanation of it can be found here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html In particular: "SR does not declare that all frames of reference are equivalent, only so-called inertial frames. Stella's frame is not inertial while she is accelerating. And this is observationally detectable: Stella had to fire her thrusters midway through her trip; Terence did nothing of the sort." So, again, you're correct about the underlying physics, but completely off-base about what SR does or doesn't say. SR, and relativity in general, *agree* with most of what you're saying, regardless of what you think they do or don't say. Not that I expect you to take this to heart, or even consider it seriously; on the contrary, it's become abundantly clear that your crusade against relativity is more important to you than your actual understanding of relativity, and as such you have developed psychological defenses of astounding pathology. But I thought I'd try one more time anyway, if only to point lurkers towards what is a very complete discussion of these issues. At any rate, I eagerly await your ironically-condescending, vacuous response.
>> SR does not declare that all frames of reference are equivalent, only so-called inertial frames. What is a SR inertial frame of reference ? And why are all "inertial frames" equivalent ? What is the SR definition of 'inertia' ?
It's only an impossibility if you think that there's such a thing as absolute time. Nature doesn't agree. Subsequent comparison how? Simultaneity is relative, so you must bring the clocks into the same reference frame: Otherwise they will not agree that the comparison happened simultaneously; otherwise such a comparison is generally nonsensical! When you do that, then of course it's unambiguous what each clock reads and which has accumulated more proper time. This is entirely consistent with what str predicts, because it IS what str predicts! IF you are measuring the distance between two objects at relative rest, THEN the distance between them is time (though not frame) invariant, and can then be viewed as the length of some object. This object has a proper (rest) length. Its apparent length changes if it has a velocity relative to the measurer. Is this what you mean? If so, I couldn't agree more. But that has absolutely nothing to do with who accelerated and who didn't! If I accelerated, the object will appear shorter to me. If the object accelerated, the object will still appear shorter to me. See the A & B discussion below. Accelerated more relative to what? How do you decide which one ticks slower? What if A and B start at relative rest, then B accelerates mightily to near c, and then accelerates mightily again, but this time in the opposite direction, bringing A and B to relative rest again. Will B tick slower than A? B definitely has far more "historical acceleration" than A, no? If they tick synchronously, why does the historical acceleration of B not matter in this case? If B does tick slower than A when we bring them together, then your theory leads to the complete breakdown of time, and is also contrary to experiment (The atomic clock flown round the world ended up ticking synchronously with its Earth counterpart when it landed.) If it doesn't (even though it will have accumulated less time), then only relative velocity matters, in which case the "historical acceleration" isn't important. Game, set and match. Who's being dogmatic now? What arrogance. But you don't know, and can't know your "historical acceleration" (as shown above). If I want to measure, right now, right here, the length of some object, which gamma should I use? 1? 1/2? Btw, this is a serious question - please answer it, and argue the case. You mean, since I don't agree with you, I don't know what I'm talking about. Great stuff. If you are capable, please comment relevantly on the following statement: "As I've stated many times str is just a 4D spacetime with the Minkowski metric. The Minkowski metric is easily verified to be an actual metric and we model spacetime by R<sup>4</sup>. You may not know much about metric or vector spaces, but the strange term "internal construct conflicts" simply doesn't apply." Then why does predictions using the equations of relativity theory match what nature does? I'm not talking about what you think relativity predicts, such as your confused ideas on reciprocity, but actual numbers. When actual physicists use the theory, they get good predictions. I have a suggestion: Write a "letter to the editor" and send it to PRL, detailing what you see as shortcomings in the experiments corroborating str, and outlining experiments which you think have yet to be done (such as your conflict with reciprocity) and which can prove it wrong. Use math. Considering how many hours you've put into attacking relativity theory, this should be a short and fruitful endeavour. After all, if something so succesful turns out to be fundamentally wrong at a very basic level, we need to know why it actually still works, and what we've done wrongfully right, so to speak.
What words in the english language do you not understand? *************** From Extract Posted above **************** ........ reciprocity, meaning that for any two systems S1 and S2 of inertial coordinates, if the spatial origin of S1 has velocity v with respect to S2, then the spatial origin of S2 has velocity -v with respect to S1. ****************************************************** Special Relativity is based on relative velocity remember? If S1 clock is dilated with respect to S2 then S2 clock must be dilated by the same amount with respect to S1. End of discussion, no arguement, no acceleration, no GR or Twin Paradox or any other off topic, misleading subject.
The reciprocity stuff is true, but I think unless you introduce acceleration somewhere their worldlines can never meet, so there's no paradox.
Funkstar, Simple. Talk is cheap. You can assault what I say but you cannot post any description of just how a physical clock can, has or does record time to satisfy multiple observers in motion at different velocities to the clock at the sime time. To make it simple for you I will give you the situation. Clocks A, B and C are all at inertial rest. Now B accelerates away going east and achieves a velocity of 0.5c with respect to A and then begins to coast and is once again inertial. C accelerates away going west and achieves a velocity with respect to A of 0.866c and then becomes inertial. Now you not only have two relative distinct velocities with respect to A but you also have a compound velocity between B and C of 0.953c (velocity addition considered). To avoid all the confusion about acceleration, decelleration and simultaneity you need only recognize that the accumulated time by a clock is a direct function of its respective tick rate. Now please post the respective tick rates of all clocks with respect to the primary clock: Primary vs secondary clocks: A vs B A vs C B vs C Then explain to us just how your clocks tick at different rates during the same relative velocity period. No problem here. I have shown how that is done many times. Right and whenever clocks are returned to a common rest frame it has been shown that ONLY the clock which had the greater acceleration is dilated. Relative velocity had no bearing. For example in the case above B and C accelerate as before but to a common vector to a 0.866c velocity with respect to A. Now each has a tick rate of 0.5 ticks per tick of A, as before when they had a relative velocity to each other of 0.9897c (velocity addition considerred) but now they are at relative rest to each other. So it doesn't matter if they are at relative rest to each other or have a 0.9897c relative velocity. Hmmmmmm. Time for relativists to re-think. And it is invalid as shown above. No. I mean Einstein and you are screwed up to suggest that it is distance that changed. The variable here is time and hence what the pilot of such a moving rocket would see physically is not a distance change but the same number of meters with normal spacing between him and some point in space, but more meter markers would appear to be passing him per second than the observer at rest says they are. HINT: It is "Velocity" which changes, NOT distance. Remember it is time that has altered. Time alters the apparent flow rate of information, not distance. Faulty assumption. See above. The universe. Hmmmmm. That wasn't so difficult was it. No it now ticks at the same rate but will have accumulated slightly less time due to dilation during the round trip than was accumulated by A which remained inertial. NO. You are hung uup on "Relative" values. The net acceleration in a universal sense is "Zero". Not basing my position on this fact but just to keep this discussion honest H & K was a fraud: ************************* Extracts ************************* http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm The trend shown in Figure 2 was derived from the average of the four clocks. The results from the individual clocks was not disclosed; they are published here for the first time in Columns 2 and 5 of Table 3. Taking the mathematical average of Columns 2 or 5 is meaningless; on the Eastward trip, clock 408 gained 166ns, while the theory forecast a loss of 40ns; on the Westward trip clock 361 lost 44ns, while the theory forecast a gain of 275ns! 7. Conclusions The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests. (((Note by MacM: "And this by the experimenter himself in a secret memo to the US Navy before publishing the massaged data."))) ************** Extract from following Link ******************** http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/16133.htm "Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything .... the difference between theory and experiment is disturbing." - Hafele, Secret United States Naval Observatory internal report, 1971. Obtained by A G Kelly two decades later under the Freedom of Information Act. ********************************************************** It is not arrogant to insist others use common sense or that their arguements match physical reality. Yep. Things are not so easy and obvious as you might like them but that happens to be the reality. You don't apply gamma to length. Rembember, your velocity has become enhanced, not distance foreshortened. There is no conflict. You still make the trip in the correct amount of time for the velocity you measure. Hmmmm. Amazing isn't it. No I mean your use of time as a measure of distance and not velocity is bizzar. I have made this point repeatedly. You have not predicted reciprocity. You have only predicted the affect (i.e. aprticle accelerator) on the particle which has accelerated. The one way gamma has been demonstrated emperically but that is not a function of relative velocity which includes the inherent reciprocity. No data in one hundred years has done anything but predict the affect on acclerated objects. No data has ever been shown to match Special Relativity. Or do you have data showing that the pilots of the H&K airplanes found the earth based clocks to have accumulated less time than theirs? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your assaults on my knowledge does not alter my knowledge nor properly address the issue of reciprocity for which you seem totally lost. You are in error. Go read and learn. Come back when you actually understand relativity and physics.
This thread is rapidly degenerating into another conventional science v MacM discussion. However, I would like to go back to the Bremsstrahlung discussion for a minute. I think that I do not have a firm grasp on exactly what situations produce the Bremsstrahlung radiation. For example, consider a current in a circular loop of superconducting material. The electrons in this material are in uniform circular motion and therefore they are continuously undergoing centripetal acceleration. They should therefore be continuously emitting photons and thereby losing energy. However, this is not actually observed. Superconductors conduct with absolutely no measurable energy loss whatsoever. So obviously Bremstrahlung radiation does not happen in all cases of accelerating charges. Perhaps it requires a change in KE or something else. Does anyone know the limitations on Bremstrahlung? -Thanks Dale
I of course do not have an official answer to your question. However, it is a valid question and I think your assumption is sound. That is only acceleration which results in a change in energy causes Bremsstrahlung. That would be consistant with the question I raise regarding GR and static charges entraped in a gravity acceleration field.
So far, so good... But tick rate wrt. what? If two clocks I and J have relative velocity, then it doesn't make sense to speak of a universal tick rate between them (say, 2 ticks on I to 1 tick of J). Because such a ratio will in general not be universal. Anyway, I'll just assume that clocks are clocks... I'll assume this to mean: As seen from the frame of clock A. 1 : γ(0.866c) 1 : γ(0.866c) γ(0.866c) : γ(0.866c) = 1 : 1 Of course, these ratios only make sense in A's reference frame. E.g., from the frame of clock B, the ratio of B vs. C will be 1 : γ(0.953c) (provided your number is correct.) Say what, now? The ratios, of course, depend on the frame. But you already know that. Don't you? It decides the amount of dilation. In any case this seems just to be the twin "paradox". Nothing new in that. As seen from the frame of A, of course. I'm sorry, are you seeing a problem here? There's, of course, a large range of velocities (relative to A) that will make the B and C clocks tick in synch as seen from the frame of A. What you showed is trivial. No inconsistencies there. Yes, because the pilot and the man on the ground no longer agree on the length of a second: They both see the the other's second as longer than their own. And with that follows that the distance between the markers appears shorter than a meter to the pilot. You can't have one without the other. What's that you got there? Absolute space, is it? Great. 19th century, is it? Oh, 17th. Beatiful specimen. Worthless, of course, but quite nice. Pity about the inconcistencies with reality, but there you have it. Oh, not absolute space, you say? We'll see about that... Good, so we agree on that. Fine. Now, the kicker (that I sneakily kept from you) is that A and B was in fact accelerated up to a very large speed, relative to "the universe", and their clocks reset before this experiment. When we then accelerated B, we in fact brought it to rest, wrt. "the universe". So, in fact, A is the more "historically accelerated" of the two, and when we bring them together, A should be the one with the least accumulated time, in your argument: After all, it spent the entire time of the experiment in "historically accelerated" frame, whereas B spent part of it in "the universe" frame, and whichever was more historically accelerated wrt. the universe would accumulate least time. Of course, you just admitted that B would accumulate less time than A. That is, we have a surefire proof that your view involves an absolute space: If A and B start at rest wrt. the universe, then sending him out and back means that he accumulates less time than A. If A and B start "historically accelerated", i.e. with velocity wrt. the universe, then sending B to rest wrt. the universe and back means that he accumulates more time than A. If it doesn't, i.e. if you insist that B accumulates less time than A in this case too, then only relative accelerations can matter, not "historical" ones. So which is it? Absolute space, or not absolute space? The ancient greeks thought that they could find the true physics of nature by virtue of reasoning alone. But it just doesn't work. As you said, talk is cheap. You do so yourself: d = v*t*γ. Or is distance somehow no longer analogous to length? Yes, it is: You basically just said that d = v*t, afterall. Make up your mind. Why? A meter is the distance light can traverse in approx. 1/3E8 seconds. The speed of light is constant, and propagation isotropic, so length and time are connected. If gamma is one way then find me the absolute reference frame. Sadly, I know that you're not joking, when you put forth this ludicrous claim... One last time: Special relativity predicts no such thing! It's in your mind, and a foolish misunderstanding, analogous to the twin "paradox". Only one of the two clocks will accumulate the least time. Special relativity predicts exactly that. If you would, just once in your life, sit down with the Lorentz transformations and rigourously do the minute bit of arithmetic necessary to simulate a twin trip, you could verify this yourself. It's not even hard. Hell, just drawing a few spacetime diagrams would do. You seem adamant to cling to the bizarre belief that reciprocity (as defined above) leads to symmetrical results for the accumulated time (twin A younger than twin B and vice versa) but it simply doesn't. For once, do the fucking math. This childish rant merely covers up the fact that you won't let actual physicists examine your claims. I understand - you're scared that your long standing belief will be shot down. That's only human. Doesn't make for good science, though.
I wonder if being trapped in the superconductor is similar to being trapped in the gravitational field for some reason. If so then it may not be an issue that impacts on relativity at all, simply on the nature of bremsstrahlung radiation (BSR). I guess my point is that there is obviously something besides simple acceleration required to produce BSR, but I don't know what that might be. If it requires a change in KE then even though a charge at rest on earth is in an accelerated frame and therefore accelerating it is not changing KE so would not be expected to produce BSR. I looked at the Wikipedia entry on BSR but it was insufficient for me to figure out the key. -Dale
>> there is obviously something besides simple acceleration required to produce BSR, you are (I think) on the right track, DS inertial acceleration does not change the velocity or KE if you like non inertial acceleration changes velocity Any acceleration is relative to absolute space Absolute space of course, is referring to the properties of space in the identified spin system. These properties (direction and velocity) are different in another spin system. Do not discount the ancient ideas, simply because they never defined/described their thoughts accurately enough for modern workers to understand. IMO
None that have appeared in this thread. Also, the correct way to write that sentence would have been: "Which words in the English language do you not understand?" Relative velocity is an important part of SRT, it's true. But all your reference does is *define* relative velocity; it does not address how it is to be used in the context of relativity theory. SRT is explicit that these effects apply only to inertial reference frames; since any scenario capable of determining which clock accumulates more time would require accelerating one of the clocks, there will have to be a period in which one or both of the frames are not inertial. The details vary depending on the exact experiment, but the end result is that the "paradox" gets washed out, and the accelerated object is the one that ends up running slowly. You can insist that SRT ignores everything except relative velocity, in all situations, but that doesn't make it true. Again, please provide a reference or two supporting this, rather than just repeating your silly assertion that "SRT is based on relative velocity." It's quite ironic that, for all of your outwardly directed bluster and name-calling, what you're really attacking is your own flawed understanding of relativity. It may shock you to learn that one cannot unilaterally end a discussion by fiat. The only way for you to force an end to this discussion is to stop replying yourself. Do you seriously imagine yourself to be so authoritative that you can order strangers about in an online forum? What a joke... At any rate, you long ago introduced acceleration and GR into this thread, and the Twin Paradox is exactly what you're talking about (two clocks with relative velocity both see the other as running slow). So to try to label them as off-topic in a pathetic attempt to avoid addressing the issues is pretty sad. Far from cowing anyone into submission, these tactics serve only to portray you as ignorant and immature. By all means, though, post another one of your "Nuh-uh!! Shut up!!" replies if you want to; it's not like you have any credibility left to lose.
MacM: Really, aren't you getting sick of repeating this tripe by now? I notice you're repeating discussions you've had with me and several other people, as if the previous discussions never happened at all. Is your memory really that bad, or is there some other reason? A lack of imagination and originality, perhaps? You've even gone back to misspelling "relativistic" as "relavistic". If you can't even get the name of the theory right, what hope do you have of getting anything else right about it?
Funkstar, What? Nobody said anything about a universal standard tick rate. We have only made referance to SR's claim of time dialtion between two clocks which is a tick ratio between clocks. Assume away and while you are at it make note that no clock known to man measures time perse. All clocks merely mark the time interval at some frequency based on some process. Processes can vary tick rate but time has not changed what-so-ever. False. The stated velocity was 0.5c. Actually you have responded before I got a change posted. The desired ratio was B vs C from either the B or C FOR. Since you choose to not post the results in a way for easy comparison let me do it for you. A vs B: A = 1,000 ticks, B = 866 Ticks A vs C: A = 1,000 ticks, C = 500 ticks B vs C: Based on same ticks compared to A. B = 866 ticks, C = 262 C vs B: Based on same ticks compared to A. C = 500, B = 152 B vs C: B = 1,000, C = 303 C vs B: C = 1,000, B = 303 Now please indicate for the readers just how you propose to have these physical clocks accumulate these various ticks such that all observers are satisfied. You can pretend to have responded but you actually have avoided the question and issue. Try again. Trying to interject off topic material doesn't save you. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Twin Paradox. It has stictly to do with Relative Velocity and SR. Does repeating what has been posted somehow add authority to your posts? I'm sorry you chose to babble and ignore the issue. Now tell the readers just how you have these physical clocks have the same tick rate relative to A regardless if they are at rest to each other or have a relative velocity in excess of 0.9c. How are you explaining that their tick rates are unrelated to their relative velocity in this case? No wonder you believe in Relativity. You can't read or think. Try again double talker. What happened to your above comments about reciprocity not being what I claimed? Also justify claiming that the clock running slow means distance got shorter. As I have meticuously demonstated to you according to physics distance did not change what changed was the apparent velocity. Also nothing can change if you want to repeat what you just said which is both see the other clock as running slow. In such case both distances would be foreshortened equally. Hence no change between them. Hmmmmm, Take a cold shower and come back when you are thinking straight. You assert reciprocity doesn't exist then you restate precisely what I have said. :bugeye: What? You are babbeling again. You can't have increased velocity without length contraction?????? Where are you getting this stuff? It doesn't stick to the wall, even though it smells and is brown. From your posts I see you have no real physics rebuttal to offer. You have obviously donot comprehend the issue. The historical acceleration is between clocks. In the above case B under went additional acceleration compared to A and hence B accumulated less time. Yes but you don't seem to have words which answer the issues raised here. That proceedure merely shows the physically unchanged distance when you acknowledge the fact that yo have changed units of measure. To compute correctly you merely compute v = d / t, such that when gamma = 2, t = 0.5 hence v = 2 and d stays = 1. Rewritten d = v * t = 2 * 0.5 = 1. All is well in the world of physics. My mind is made up. "d" doesn't change apparent velocity does. You have absolutely no justification to claim otherwise and logic is on my side not yours. According to SR but even so changing the clock changes measured velocity not alter distance. Not necessary and likely not possible. You show us reciprocity of time dilation. You just admitted above that each observer has the others clocks ticking slower than his. Come on post one case of such reciprocity in the one hundred years of relativity. Seems my view is not only more realistic but is all that is supported by emperical data. Hmmmmm.. The sadness is that we don't see you posting any such emperical data to back up your view. All such data backs my view. So now what do you do? Not only is your memory failing since you just posted above that each observer has the others clock running slower than his but I have posted a "Primer on Relativity" which spells it out. Your denials do not make the problem go away. Really show us. You are in error sir. You either do not undestand relativity or you are deliberately trying to be obtuse. Here you go trying to mix GR and SR and confuse the issue. The SR gamma function and calculation have absolutely nothing to do with GR. I can and have proposed scenarios and tests which test the SR mathematics of inertial relative velocity. They prove it is false. Remember SR was published in 1905. GR I believe was 1916. SR must stand alone for its predictions. Your right for once do the fucking math and forget GR and the Twins. Just do the relative inertial veloicty comparisons and predictions. Start by telling lus how you are going to have these physical clocks tick at multiple rates to satisfy all observers at various and different velocites at the same time. Come on. Stop double talking and write down this bit of SR magic. You know what you are absolutely mistaken. In fact I will e-mail a NASA Physicist and post his reply here. Glad you asked. You are the one being childish. Every time you find you don't have the answer you attempt to change the subject or merely make some off the cuff negative comment. That doesn't cut it. Stick to the physics and respond with physics. ******************************************************* Well I guess you lose another round. The folloiwng is by a Phd, Physicist at NASA: ******************* My e-mail and his response ************* Hello Dan: My answers in red. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan K. McCoin To: Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 10:47 PM Subject: Spatial Length Contraction Dear Dr Dowdye, I have been thinking about something and would appreciate your input. According to Special Relativity clocks in motion run slower (time dilation). That assumption was then used to claim that a rocket making a trip would arrive in less time than expected such that distance had contracted. They claim a differential in tick rates but then declare them equal. I find this to be not only bizzar but totally absurd. So do I. If we do not ignore the fact of time dilation in the case, we find that the time differential of the trip is accounted for by the altered tick rate of the clock. Distance did not change. What happens according to the relativists, the observer in the other frame cannot notice a change in the distance or a shortening of the meter stick. He "can't" even notice a slow down of his own clock. Relativity says his clock ticks slower to us, if he moves with velocity v approaching c. Further, it stands to reason if my clock ticks slower and I am looking at meter markers along side the path I am moving, the consequence of that time dilation, assuming the same physical velocity universally and the same physical distance, is that these meters are passing more per second according to my clock. Correct. But, you can't tell if your clock runs slower in your own frame. Einstein says the laws of Physics remains unchanged in all the frames. See, this is how the Relativity theory gets away with it. That is the consequence of time dilation between frames should be an apparent increase in velocity not a foreshortening of distance. The other observer see your clock slowing down, You see his clock slowing down. Also, the other guy sees your length getting shorter, while you see his length getting shorter. This is how Relativity explains away the apparent constancy of the velocity of light. They MUST dilate the time and contract the lengths in order to force the theory to agree with the reality. The MISTAKE; they assumed everything is measurable. The primary photon velocity and wavelength is assumed measurable. No distinction between primary and secondary photons. Physics made NO distinction between the primary and secondary, etc. A bit of arrogance in it sort of speek. The Relativity is a gimmick! A trick! Thanks for your thoughts. Dan ************************************************ Not all physicists buy into your relativity BS.
I chose to not waste time on those that refuse to respond in physics terms and use rhetoric as a crutch. Anyone that wishes to review the facts will find that SR was published in 1905. GR wasn't published until 1916. The Twin Paradox became an issue long before GR ever came into existance. Your refusal to address SR on SR grounds is most telling. It fails and you damn well know it. Shame you lack the courage to admit it or maybe you really don't understand it, which is it. Any reading of SR will stipulate the reciprocity issue. If not directly (most do) it will point out the recipocal nature of relative velocity and velocity affects in relativity. Have a nice night.
So you emailed the guy at http://www.extinctionshift.com/ - if you wanted to discuss his theory, why didn't you start a thread about that instead? The main question I'd have for anyone with a new theory: where do your predictions differ from relativity and how does this match up to experiment? This guy's main claim seems to be that re-emission 'resets' the velocity of light as c in the reference frame of the object doing the emitting, i.e. gas or mirror, and that's why experiments using mirrors found the speed of light to be the same in all directions.
I have. My point however was simply that Funkstar asserted that I couldn't get any physicists to agree with me when in fact there are many that do. If you read you will find that all relativistic affects are accounted for without any use of relativity but only classical physics. Amazing actually. Basically correct. Makes much more sense than relative velocity with reciprocity or length contraction based on a tick rate change of a clock. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I suppose you can interpret it that way, but you still seem to avoid mentioning that such a ratio is frame specific. Please explain how the processes moving at relative velocity, when feeling no new forces, know how to time-dilate, if it isn't time that dilates. Right. I didn't actually read it very closely. The correct ratios as seen from the frame of A are A : B = 1 : γ(0.5c) A : C = 1 : γ(0.866c) B : C = γ(0.5c) : γ(0.866c) C : B = γ(0.866c) : γ(0.5c) Again, these ratio are only correct in the frame of clock A. Agreed, from A's frame. From B's frame, yes. From A's frame it'll be 866 ticks to 500 ticks. From C's frame. From B's frame. From C's frame. You'll have to be far more specific with what "satisfied" means. You seem to think that there's some obvious contradiction here, but I can't see it. If you think that there's some moment in which all of these situation must occur simultaneously, then you're simply wrong: Simultaneity is frame dependent. You'll have to pose a question, then. If they have equal relative speed wrt. A, then they can have any relative velocity wrt. each other and A will see them as equally time dilated: Since time dilation is decided only by relative speed, A will see them as equally dilated whether they are at rest wrt. each other, or are, say, moving in opposite directions. Of course, their view of each other is not unrelated to their relative velocity. Have you ever done any exercises in special relativity? University grade? This is very, very basic stuff... This is such a classic result that I won't repeat it. Go here., instead. You've demonstrated exactly nothing. *buzzzz* Wrong. Reason: Frame dependence. From either frame, only the other is time dilated and length contracted. Not both. You've just admitted that only the frame changes matter. Ponder a bit on what that means for the dependence on historical acceleration: You can't ever know by experiment whether you've undergone historical acceleration or not! Hence, when you want to compute the "real" length of something via the infamous d = vtγ you advocate, you can't know the γ. Great theory you have there. You have issues, alright... How do you find out whether you've changed units of measure? Oh, right: You can't. Kinda moot, then. Eh? The fact that the clock on the rocket ticks slower than my own, doesn't change the way I measure it's velocity or length. To be clear: time dilation and length contraction happens to things in the other frame, from my viewpoint. Not my own. Do your own research, MacM. It does nothing of the kind. Here is what you posted above: Now, what about "Special relativity doesn't predict this" are you having problems with? Here's an explanation of the twin paradox. Note that it doesn't require GR. See above: I have not brought gtr into it, and it is not necessary. Oh, really: Where did you publish? Can I review your experimental data? There's no such thing as a "same time" when multiple reference frames are involved. You claim that str predicts something that it manifestly does not. You know, I had an inkling that you'd pull him out. Here's the thing: I don't care. Finding another crackpot doesn't strengthen your case. I'll have to conclude that you are not interested in getting your idea out. Probably best, for all involved. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Just because you consistently ignore the physics in my posts doesn't mean it isn't there. At any rate, where exactly is the physics in your post? If you want to claim the upper hand in terms of technical content, you'll need to refrain from the name-calling and actually respond with technical content. Had you read my latest posts, you'd find no mention of GR. I made a minor semantic error earlier in this thread by assuming that GR was required to handle non-inertial reference frames, but this has long since been clarified, both directly by Funkstar and in repeated posted references by myself and Funkstar. And, again, the Twin Paradox is easily resolved without using GR, as has been illustrated repeatedly in this thread. Thanks for finally admitting that the Twin Paradox is what we're talking about, by the way. On the contrary, my previous posts have adressed exactly this. Do you have any reply other than "Nuh-uh!! Shut up!!"?? It's really kind of hilarious that that you think these posts have any persuasive value... Yes, and any reading of SR will then follow this immediately with a discussion of the Twin Paradox, explaining how counterintuitive reciprocitive effects such as time dilation are reconciled in SR. It seems, however, that you have never read past the first few pages of any SR text. Or perhaps you choose to ignore them; which is it?
