Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

Ditto on the "more of the same". Anyone argueing that one must use
relavistic mathematic to evaluate Relativity is simply geing outright
foolish. Obviously if one applies the mathematical rules of the theory one
will get the same result.

This is a more fundlemental issue. One that requires you step out of your
"Guardian of the Faith" uniform and think physical reality. It seems few
here have that capacity.

The link you request is here:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

Don' let the lead throw you off. Scroll down to Time-Dilation. There are talking Einstein's Relativity.

You are incorrect.

No it isn't.

Denying "Simulatneity" is entirely different than rendering it moot i.e. = "0" for the purpose of the demonstration.

This is simply to offset the anticipated responses that FTL doesn't exist. It does just ask any entangled particle pair. But that does not mean I am claiming it use. I claimed simulation of the consequence of the instantaneous communication in the evaluation process.

Well at least we are in partial agreement. In fact almost in total agreement. Which is strange considering how many and you continue to rant and rave about the concept being totally invalid. The point where we disagree is that you seem to think the simulation of such communication is the cause of the disparity. It is not. It merely exposes it. Big difference. If you can come to understand and accept that then you have no choice but to come to the same conclusion that I have. Relativity has a roblem.

Fair point. But the problem with this position is you are setting up an arbitraty defense for the theory. If the theory does not fit realistic evaluation of physical principles, as in no impossibilities in the real world, exclusive of the theory's application of it's own unique mathematics, then you are simply claiming it is valid because its mathematics says so. You are back pedaling on common sense physics and physical realities in favor of the theory you are attempting to evaluate. It cannot be done in that fashion. It is simply false to conclude that rendering a mathematical component to zero alters the basic concept of the theory. It is nothing more than operating at the extremes where "Simultaneoity = 0". F = ma. Making a = "0" doesn't mean F = ma is no longer a valid theory it simply means there is no F or F = 0. Same principle.

But you claim because of "Simultaneity" they don't stop at the same time in absolute time and we have shown that they do. You don't acknowledge that but continue to talk about simultaneity when it is no longer affective.

This is not a flip-flop but it is an entirely different subject. It just happens that the cause of the "apparent" invanriance it isn't truely physically invariant. You simply draw the wrong conclusion based on that observation. I'll have to leave it there unless you want to open a topic about it.

It is not a new arguement. It is fact. different sets of algothritums are collectively applied to form the mathematical circle (make it consistant).

Not setting on the fence. Come to a conclusion where you conceed time dilation does not exist (or doesn't exist as per Relativity as you currently have it) and then and only then can one begin to assess the postulates and what might be their mis-interpretation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Indeed you are correct. I was getting it right for some time. Funny my Webster 3rd College Edition doesn't have either spelling, so for now I will take your word for it. Just as many other word it may well be that their are two spellings but I'll be checking that out.

In closing let me just say this discussion could be concluded if you were to simply openly agree (which you have somewhat done twice now) that the tests I have proposed, should they be possible to perform in reality (not just simulate) would mean that Relativity is either false or in need of signifigant modification.

Can you do that? Yes or No.

Now I hope you say yes so that we can shut this down. While I will not be content because it is my personal opinion that to simulate the instant communication affect carries the exact same weight in terms of evaluation but that can wait for another day if need be.

Thanks for your time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Frankly therein lies your down fall. You lack the capacity to think outside the pages you memorized in school. I'm not trying to be personally derogatory, it seems just to be fact.

PS: Glad you finally figured out 6,840 seconds was a valid view.

What you roved is far from what you claim to have proved. You only proved my assessment above. You are incapable of thinking for yourself and rely onthe Relvistic mathematics as proof of Relativity. That frankly is having the fox guard the hen house and is absolutely worthless as a tool of evaluaton.

Goes to show only your abiity to distort the facts and your limited vision. It has always been the case that you cannot prove a theory using the principles of the theory. What about that do you find "Stupid". Of course I have not applied Relavistic mathematics. that would be absolutely futile for the purpose of the evalulation. What nonsense. And you presume to call me stupid. What a joke.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Frankly therein lies your down fall. You lack the capacity to think outside the pages you memorized in school. I'm not trying to be personally derogatory, it seems just to be fact.

PS: Glad you finally figured out 6,840 seconds was a valid view.

What you proved is far from what you claim to have proved. You only proved my assessment above. You are incapable of thinking for yourself and rely on the Relvistic mathematics as proof of Relativity. That frankly is having the fox guard the hen house and is absolutely worthless as a tool of evaluaton.

Goes to show only your abiity to distort the facts and your limited vision. It has always been the case that you cannot prove a theory using the principles of the theory. What about that do you find "Stupid". Of course I have not applied Relavistic mathematics. that would be absolutely futile for the purpose of the evalulation. What nonsense. And you presume to call me stupid. What a joke.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First Welcome to SciFi, Opps, SciForums.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your comments are actually a bit premature. Not claiming the test and conclusions are valid here (although I believe they are) but your commentary does nothing to address the issues raised.

Do you have any constructive commentary that you can apply directly to the issue or do you choose to pick what appears to you to be a front runner and hide behind their skirts?

 

Agreed: I have nothing substantive to add. I think I understand relativity fairly well and will defend it against the usual pot shots, ie. against those who merely misinterpret it. Frankly, I cannot find a meaningful point of entry into the current debate, as it has been long and involved, and because James is seemingly doing fine. I've heard of the "entangled pair" twist and admit that I cannot address it specifically. A lot of folks find Relativity to be "counter intuitive" (is the usual phrase), but I think it makes beautiful and elegant sense.

Yeah I was just hangin' around with nothing better to do and I sought an arena to quibble about relativity... but I uh, well I uh, well James is doing great so I'll just give it a rest. No biggie.

Thanks for the words of welcome!

 

Hahaha, the usual MacM. Why must shut down the discussion only if everybody agree to your BS, not the other way round...you stop the BS and admit your mistake?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's still good I memorized them, unlike you who don't even have something correct to memorize.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not see it as valid. Starting from 15,692 seconds and gamma of 2.294... you have two choices:

Devide 15,692 with gamma which gives = 6,840 or​

Multiply 15,692 with gamma which gives = 36,000 ​

You have picked the first choice, the wrong one. The second choice is what fit with SR's LT result. The problem lies to your usage of incomplete SR's formulae.

Since you like to feel important as the one finding SR's flaw, I suggest you to keep your wrong choice.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Other than that, I think I have said enough.

 

This debate has not advanced noticeably in at least a year. I myself spent a great deal of my time explaining the exact same things to MacM a very long time ago. I find it quite entertaining (though not surprising) that he's now parading the same sad ponies all over again as if nothing happened. Trust me on this one: nothing you say to MacM will ever affect him.

Here is a summary of the arguments:

1. MacM doesn't believe in relative simultaneity. He feels it is intuitively wrong, and thus just discards it altogether. MacM does not seem to recognize that he is doing nothing more than constructing a strawman by discarding bits of relativty theory in this fashion.

2. MacM believes in absolute time. He believes that causing clocks to stop simultaneously in the frame of reference of one observer must stop them in every simultaneously in every frame of reference. He provides no reasoning as to why this should be true, except that he feels it makes more sense to him.

3. MacM has dreamt up thought experiments that depend on instantaneous communication. Though no mechanism of instantaneous communication has ever been found, MacM has no trouble at all believing on faith that it's just a matter of time until someone discovers one.

4. MacM chooses to believe that quantum entanglement is such a method of instantaneous communication. He simply doesn't understand quantum entanglement well enough to see his own error. While everyone else on the planet is telling him he's not understanding the situation, he's more than happy to just stick his fingers in his ears and keep repeating his belief.

5. MacM is delighted to know that instantaneous communication itself would be an indication of the failure of relativity. Since he believes instantaneous communication is possible, he thus believes relativty is flawed.

6. MacM does not seem to recognize that everyone already knows that relativity is not compatible with instantaneous communication, and somehow feels that he is showing everyone something new and worthy of praise by pointing it out.

- Warren

 

Not a problem. You responded well to my goad, I hope others can learn from your lead.

 

If it were true I would. It may be true but you certainly haven't shown it.

 

Correction. I believe James R., explained to you it was the right one and you were wrong.

Talk about hard headed. You don't use relavisitic formulas when comparing common sense to Relativity as a test. What are you testing when you use such formulas as proof of Relativity. They are Relativity. You are hopless indeed.

You have more than enough since you have said nothing useful. Your lableing is getting boring. At what point do you see me saying I am important. The issue however is. You might try addressing the issue. You might learn something.

 

That smirk doesn't serve you well. James R. has already agreed as much twice in this thread. I was simply trying to get a clear and concise response so that it would not be questioned in the future.

He has twice stated that "IF" a system of instant communication were developed then Relativity would have to be rethought".

So your smart remark goes against you and not me. At least James R., has the intelligence to think through and come to reasonable conclusions. I haven't seen you do that.

 

Hi chroot,

Actually you are in error. I have presented slightly different situations than back then. It was your refusal to address the question on grounds of impossible test specifications that has jprompted me to restructure the case.

It isn't therefor the same sad ponies. The responses however have been. And they miss the point as usual.

Just where do you see me state I do not believe in "Simultaneity"? ou are as usual fabricating your own case to argue. I have stated that in absence of simultaneity where the affects of relavistic mathematics are being evaluated there is a problem exposed with relativity.

The elimination of the information delay in these cases does not create the problem. The problem is the generation of the relavistic data which becomes exposed by making it so that it can be directly compared with physical reality.

Now everyone can see what I mean. I have not claimed that at all. Perhaps you should go back and read the material rather than me repeated the arguement here.

I frankly think it is possible but that really isn't at issue. If it isn't or doesn't happen it doesn't alter the question at hand. The issue is what happens to relavistic mathemaics when one assumes it.

If you want to attack me at least do it truthfully. I most certainly understand the limitations of using particle entanglement. That is that either party testing their particle breaks the link and you have no way of knowing if you caused it or it was the result of a message.

The two issues are entirely seperate. While possible, I would further qualify it as higly improbable, at lest as of today. Don't tell me what I believe and what I think because you simply do not know.

Oh. glad you told me that. Suppose that is why it hasn't been mentioned from the outset starting over a year ago, even with you.

Not a strong point on your part ch. But glad you agree at least, just as James R has and Pete even concluded that (which from his post, it doesn't seem he had even considered before this).

What I did find interesting (and telling) is how aggressively Relativitist defended against the assertion that Relativity is a function of a delayed information communication system. And then just a aggressively assert that it cannot survive in an instantaneous communication enviornment, that it must have delayed information to function. Hmmm.

And the after over a year and many, many post to claim, "Oh we all knew that all along". I am not convienced.

So for my part I consider this issue closed.

 

Unfortunately yes. It doesn't seem to matter about any alternate possibilities. Nothing but absolutely nothing will be done to consider or look for alternatives until the failure of Relativity is indisputable.

I take exception to this. I have made mention more than once here on this issue. It hasn't just arisen.

Perhaps but then again this only applies if you accept time to be the 4th dimension which I do not. Time reversal is another nonsense of current physics and pure mathematics.

I admit that I mistakenly only looked for (1) "n" in innuendo. It is indeed in the dictionary.

As to this and perhaps some of these secondary issues. I see no point in even responding. You are not prone to even consider the possibilities.

Shame but so be it.

 

1 - Sorry to dissapoint again but due to your carfefully qualified statement "... to current physical knowledge", makes it a valid statement, with the priviso "that we have properly investigated".

2 - There are issue which are not beinginvestigated which should be.

3 - I never started this thread.

 

1 - Relavistic mass concept.

2 - v = c absolute limit, which is based on nothing but math and relative velocity energy inputs vs an accelerated frame carrying its own energy source.

I'm sure there are others

 

Here are MacM's sad ponies, one at a time:

1. MacM doesn't believe in relative simultaneity.
He feels it is intuitively wrong, and thus just discards it altogether. MacM does not seem to recognize that he is doing nothing more than constructing a strawman by discarding bits of relativty theory in this fashion.

Evidence, nineteen months ago:

MacM: "Do the computations and make the clocks all agree with every observers view of reality after the clocks are stopped and returned to earth to read elapsed time during the test."

MacM: "The requirement here is for you to make the clocks provide all observer views as reality simultaneously."

MacM: "So if your answer is that the analysis fails because you don't have the technology to achieve the theoretical test then your answer falls short."

He was corrected:

chroot: "I have the feeling that you don't grasp the failure of simultaneity that is inherent in relativity."

chroot: "Just because some events (the stopping of your clocks) are simultaneous in one reference frame (C's, for example) does not mean they are simultaneous in any other reference frame. To A and B, for example, the clocks do not appear to stop simultaneously."

chroot: "If you stop the clocks when they read 10, 9.798, and 9.539 hours, they will stop simultaneously -- according to clock C. Any other observer will disagree on that simultaneity. The failure of simultaneity is bit of the "paradox" that I believe you missed."

Evidence, recent:

MacM: "But by using Relativity to preset a timer on board to stop the clock in accordance to the time that "A" claims clock "B" has accumulated, you insure that all clocks are in fact stopped "Simultaneous and you have eliminated the affect of Simultaneity."

MacM: "the property of Simultaneity was dealt with by using Relativity so as to actually stop the clocks at the same time without simultaneity delay"

MacM: "At that point in time no clock is continuing to run and no times are changing any further because I used Relativity to shut them down "Simultaneously". That is the meaning of the term "Simultaneity" and "Simultaneous"."

MacM: "Wrong. That only occurs if Simultaneity is involved. It isn't, that is the reason for using Relativity to "Simultaneously" stop the clocks."

MacM: "Simple. the fact is I should be allowed to simply for thought experimental purposes stipulate it [the absence of the relativity of simultaneity]."

MacM: "Simultaneity has been eliminated by the use of precalculated relavistic values to control the clocks. If the clocks do not shut down "Simultaneously" and "Instantaneously" with clock "A" then Relativity has failed."

MacM: "I also repeat that it is you that repeatedly ignore the point that "Simultaneity of Relativity" in this case is no answer what-so-ever since it does not and cannot enter the data stream being considered."

MacM: "There is no "Relativity of Simultaneity"."

MacM: "Everything will have shut down and there simply is no simultaneity to contend with."

MacM: "How many times do I have to illustrate from a very simple construct that there simply is no simultenity issue affective in this test."

MacM: "Although in your arguements you contiue to claim they are stopped in one view but not another which is re-inserting simultaneity in to the process which is not allowed in my tests."

He was corrected:

Pete: "OK, so you are stipulating that all the clocks are stopped simultaneously in A's reference frame when A reads ten hours... The most important point is that SR suggests that in B's reference frame and C's reference frame, clock C stops first, then clock B, then clock A."

Pete: "Your final method of stopping the clocks is fine. All clocks will be stopped simultaneously in A's reference frame. In B's frame and C's frame, clock C will stop first, then clock B, then clock A, ie they don't stop simultaneously in any frame except A's."

Pete: "We really seem to be stuck on the universal instant problem. You appear to be insisting that if the clocks stop simultaneously per clock A, then they must also stop simultaneously per clock B."

James R: "All that is happening here is that you are claiming that what is simultaneous in one frame must be simultaneous in all frames. You are ignoring the verified results of relativity which say it isn't so. You are trying to reinstate some kind of Newtonian world with universal time. Such a thing doesn't exist, and wishing doesn't make it so."

James R: "Look, it's a simple point: What is simultaneous for one observer is not simultaneous for another observer in relative motion."

James R: "Your problem is that you fudge the simultaneity issue by assuming that any events which occur simultaneously in one frame must be simultaneous in all frames, which is not true."

Pete: "You have no idea what you're talking about. All the precalculated values do is ensure that the clocks stop simultaneously in A's frame - not in any other frame. The simultaneity implications of SR are in no way eliminated."

James R: "You can only ensure that the clocks stop simultaneously in one reference frame, since different frames have different concepts of what is simultaneous."

James R: "Once again, your continued pig-headed refusal to acknowledge the existence of the relativity of simultaneity has led you astray."

James R: "In your latest post you say "I have not denied the relativity of simultaneity". Yet that is what you have done all along in this thread."

James R: "Without the relativity of simultaneity, you're not simulating relativity."