Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by chinglu, Aug 18, 2013.
No, that is just pure stupidity.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Hi Chinglu. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am short of time again today, so as briefly as possible...
Consider: When they are boiled down to their essentials, there are 4 essential aspects and logics involved in all such scenarios:-
(1) Logically and effectively, the starting location 'standard' for such a scenario can be derived from whatever cyclic/oscillatory system you choose (whether astronomical Sun-Earth orbitals or atomic vibrations);
(2) Logically and effectively, once the moving clock departs from that starting location/timing standard, it is effectively causally disconnected from its previous co-location/co-timing state which still applies for the stay-put clock;
(3) If the two clocks, by dint of being effectively causally disconnected from each other's 'standards' (see (2) above), then each clock's tick rate is only inherent and not logically 'common' in any sense at all, as either clock's 'present' tick rate is inherently determined by their 'present' instantaneous states (whatever that may be) during the experimental 'run';
(4) Once the moving clock is returned to co-locate/co-standard state with the stay-put clock, then the moving clock MUST BE REST to AGAIN 'causally reconnect' BOTH clocks to each other and to the common standard situation from which they both began.
So you see, Chinglu, to put it simply, if the OTHER clock was moved, then it would be the other clock which would have to be reset upon return. There is no 'causal connection' between the 'moved' clock INHERENT CUMULATIVE COUNT and the Sun-Earth system/other 'standard from which they both began to 'count INHERENTLY ONLY.
The only reason you know which clock is wrong is you have to reset both to the REUNITED location/standard, and when you come to do that 'resetting', you observe that the clock you moved and returned is the ONLY ONE NEEDING 'resetting'.....as the stay-put clock's inherent count never went 'out of synch' with the original starting 'standard'.
Get it? The counts are INHERENT at all stages; only the moving one's counts is causally/logically disconnected during transit from the starting sun-earth orbitals and the stay-put clock's count which has inherently not deviated from its starting states agreeing with the starting sun-earth standard.
That's all the time I have for this, mate. Gotta rush! Nice talking with you/everyone. Good luck! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If they are at the same place they cannot disagree on where they are. If they are both on the earth, the earth has only one position at a time, in which case it will be the same position for both clocks. Therefore it is impossible for two clocks to be at the same place and disagree on where the place is (located, relative to some other reference point).
Yes the clocks agree on their position when they are reunited. Because, time is the increment of a SI second so, when they are reunited they start agreeing on the increment of a second regardless of how many previous seconds have past. We have chosen the increment of a second to move us from the current now frame to the next now frame. The whole problem stems from a defected atomic clock compensation for a change in frequency. And as I've been trying to work out, is a change in frequency a change in times increment? Does time for blue and red stars pass quicker than time for yellow stars?
Now if you program the atomic clock with a logical way to self compensate then the problem disappears.
If frequency = 9,192,631,770 then
tick = tick + 1
If frequency != 9,192,631,770 then
tick = tick + (frequency / 9,192,631,770)
Seconds = tick
Hours = Seconds / 3600
Seconds = Seconds Mod 3600
Minutes = Seconds / 60
Seconds = Seconds Mod 60
Time = "H:" & Hours & " M:" & Minutes & " S:" & Seconds
This is a quick example of a compensation procedure for the atomic clock. There is probably an error in the procedure, but lets ignore any errors and say the procedure works 100% accurate.
THERE IS A MAJOR FLAW IN THE LOGIC OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM, WHAT IS IT?
If your identical twin goes and lives on Mars for the rest of his life and both of you die of old age, who dies first?
Anyway, the point is that you are confusing the history of the development of timekeeping with the actual, current, scientific definition of various units.
However, it does strain credulity to believe someone so convinced of Relativity's error (claiming to be so well versed that he understands the issue and the error) could be so wrong about something so basic about how time works. This is something kids learn in elementary school when first exposed to astronomy (Jupiter's day is 10 hours long, Mars's year 1.5 earth years long, etc.). 6 year-olds who have never even heard of Relativity would not be making such an error.
Also useful to point out is the fact that there are actually TWO different day and year lengths commonly used by scientists. A 6-year old and Chinglu probably aren't aware of that, but everyone else participating here likely is.
I am going to sum up the last few posts because they are all the same.
I have given this example before.
Assume you cruise around the solar system very fast and this is the twins experiment.
The stay at home twin verifies 12 earth years.
On your trip you also verify 12 years through observations. Yet, your SR clock reads 10 years when you re-unite with your twin.
So, you compare the earth's position and you both agree, 12 earth years elapsed.
You then compare clocks.
You claim you lived 10 years based on your clock and 12 years based on your observation data.
That means you lived both 10 years and also 12 years, which is a contradiction.
Now, do you see the crackpottery?
Nope: one twin has lived 10 years (the accelerated one). The other twin (the inertial one) has lived 12 years.
From you: every post.
Uh, you failed to address the issue.
Why did the traveling twin live 12 years by observations and 10 years by a clock?
Are you claiming scientific verification of 12 years is useless?
He didn't, you do not understand the very basics. The traveling twin lives 10 years by his clock. The inertial twin lives 12 years. There are two DIFFERENT twins, capisci?
Uh, you are having a very hard time with this.
Are you claiming scientific verification of 12 years is useless?
Why do you hate scientific verification of facts?
This is considered crackpottery.
I agree with you, you need to stop it.
Yes. Just as useless as the 6 years that passed on Mars. Is that a contradiction too? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes. It is quite simply impossible for someone to be so dense/dumb. You therefore must be doing it on purpose.
You are talking of two FoRs....
Each twins actual age differs because they are in two different FoRs.
If I, as one of the twins actually travelled at 99.999% c for 6 months, then turned around at travelled back to you on Earth at 99.999% c, I will find you long dead and buried and an Earth around 250 years in the future, while I had aged only 12 months.
What you chose to ignore or are ignorant of is the Intertwining relationship between space and time.
Try watching this nice simplistic video
You need to explain this. What is an "SR clock" and where is it located during the trip?
According to which clocks?
Which clocks are compared?
Observation of what?
You don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Indeed we do.
The detectors second increment mechanism that its measuring the frequency over duration in not experiencing TD. If it were then the clock would be self synchronizing.
The detector goes start measuring and starts counting the frequency .......one second increment......... and says stop, what is the frequency count at? 9,192,631,770
frequency = 9,192,631,770
frequency / 9,192,631,770 = 1
The detector goes start measuring and starts counting the frequency .......one second increment......... and says stop, what is the frequency count at? 9,000,000,000
frequency = 9,000,000,000 Now time dilation has occurred because the frequency has changed. Has time changed from the perspective of the atomic clock?
I would say no because the detectors 1 second duration measurement device to measure the frequency over hasn't experienced TD or the clock would self compensate.
9,192,631,770 / 9,000,000,000 = 1.02140353
If the detector was measuring over 1.02140353 instead of 1, which I think it should be because it is experiencing TD.
it would not read 9,000,000,000Hz it would read 9,192,631,770Hz and self calibrate eg. 9,000,000,000 * 1.02140353 = 9,192,631,770
Well, thats my understanding of the issue of time dilation. Probably flawed... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If there was TD the frequency reading and the detector 1 second reading increment would always be harmonic and give a frequency reading of 9,192,631,770.
I wasn't able to follow what you posted, but you can cut to the chase by treating relativity as a projection. By way of analogy, consider the way the sun casts your shadow to scale when it's at an elevation of 45°. This corresponds to being in the same reference frame with no dilation. With the sun at a shallower angle your shadow gets longer. This corresponds to dilation. A higher angle of the sun casts a shorter shadow, which corresponds to contraction.
This serves to illustrate what the rotation in the Lorentz transformation explains about relativity. The angle of the sun corresponds to either of two conditions (1) the relative frame is moving in relation to the reference frame and/or (2) the relative frame has moved into or away from a gravity well. Whether or not the angle of the sun is shallow or obtuse corresponds to whether the relative frame is (1) advancing or receding from the observation frame and/or (b) whether or not it has moved toward or away from the gravity well of the the observer. Additionally, which angle of the sun you choose (the computed angle or its complement) depends on whether you are considering the effects on time or space.
Well, did the traveler twin live 12 years or 10?
That is the question you did not answer.
12 years or 10 for the traveling twin.
Answer the question do we can proceed.
I gave specifics in my post for the traveling twin.
Please indicate where I was not specific.
In other words, I answered all of your questions.
This thread is avoiding the issue.
The traveling twin considered the earth's position along the journey.
That twin concluded 12 earth years elapsed for the journey.
Yet, that twin's clock claimed 10 years.
Now, what do we do with this?
Separate names with a comma.