Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[James R]

MacM:

I was right, wasn't I? You actually can't understand the argument, even when it is clearly set out for you, step by step. There's really little point in continuing this exercise; you're intellectually just not up to it. I have done enough to convince any person with an ability to follow logical reasoning that your process doesn't work, so I guess my work here is done.

On the off-chance that I might be able to get through to you, I will respond to your latest post, though I am confident it will be a complete waste of my time. I don't think you're capable of taking in new information.

I point out in advance that my refutation of your process does not rely on relativity in any way. Relativity could be completely false and it would not change anything. The only thing which would make your process work would be if universal time existed, and even then your process would only work by accident, since, as I said, no actual information about A's clock rate is transmitted to B.

Most of your post is irrelevant padding, so I'll ignore that and address only those points where you have once again demonstrated your inability to accept simple reasoning. I will highlight the most important point of my argument in bold, and repeat it at least three times, in the hope that the point might somehow, one day, sink in to your addled brain.

First, I point out a strawman you have raised. I wrote:

A doesn't send to B ANY meaningful information about the actual rate at which A's clock is ticking. All A has sent is a message saying how fast A's clock appears to be ticking, as far as A is concerned. "Mary had a little lamb" could be translated by B to mean "A sees his clock ticking at 1 tick per second".

You replied:

Unbelieveable. Simply unbelievable. You now want to claim we can't say "A's" tick rate is what "A" says it is. HeHeHe. You are desperate. You have just managed to destroy your own SRT. No clock actually keeps time. HeHeHe.

Once you finish your smug, misplaced chortling, I suggest you read what I wrote once again. I did not say we cannot say A's tick rate is what A says it is. I said that is ONLY true for A. A's tick rate may be different for B. (Relativity says it is, but that is not important for this argument. The point is that your procedure simply assumes it without proof.)

To remind you again: my point is that no actual information about A's clock rate is transmitted to B. The only information transferred to B is A's own perception of A's clock rate, as measured by A's clock. What we need is A's clock rate relative to B's clock.

Here's the killer blow:

Me: Step 4 can only be achieved by B referencing his own clock. B does not have A's clock at hand, so to set B's monitor to 1 tick per second, as specified in the message sent from A, B must use a local time standard. The only one he has available is his own clock.

And you admit it!

Absolutely. Neat isn't it. Both clocks have 1 MHz carrier beams. Neither beam is altered at the local proper time (according to Relativity). Hence "B's" local 1 MHz signal must equate to "A's" 1 MHz local signal since neither have changed at the local level.

1 MHz means "1 million cycles per second". To know what a MHz is, you have to know how long a second is. You are assuming that B's measure of a second is the same as A's, even though they are now in relative motion, and therefore that 1 MHz for B is the same as 1 MHz for A. That is an assumption which is without proof. It is, in fact, false, but that is another argument.

Your post is desperation to save face. But if what you now want to claim were true then no clock keeps time, even proper time and anything SRT might have to say about such a clock is meaningless. Either your clocks keep time or they don't which is it. If they do I'm right.

The issue here, which seems to continually escape your feeble mind, is whether the two clocks are synchronised by your procedure. As I have shown, they are not.

Once again, you are trying to raise a straw man. For the record, I will correct you again. Both clocks A and B keep accurate time. Your procedure does not synchronise the clocks because no actual information about A's rate is transmitted from A to B.

What are the readings upon return and direct comparison of clocks and monitors in the same inertial system?

Discussing that would be a complete waste of time, since we have failed to agree on whether the clocks are synchronised to start off with. This is exactly why I was so careful to step through your procedure, when you suggested it. I knew I had to avoid your stupid assumptions, or at least catch them where they occurred, before they had flow-on effects further down the line.

And you continue to assume SRT is valid and attempt to use SRT as its own proof. Stick with the issue.

My refutation, as I said, does not rely on relativity in any way. We haven't even got to the point where we can start to test relativity against some other option, because we don't have a system of sychronised clocks yet. Your suggested procedure does not transmit any information about A's rate from A to B.

 

[Persol]

I will continue to say so until you or anybody provides an explanation that is acceptable of just how clock "A' records more than one tick rate.

This has been done over and over. Your answer every time is 'but that is not reality'... which is an incredibly stupid statement. You are defining your 'reality' with no evidence what so ever. You feel that it isn't reality... that's the crux of the issue. You 'feel' it is wrong. You 'fell' that it goes "against common sense".

That doesn't make it wrong.

To suimmarize for you:
1) Relativity matches what has been observed. Accept it and deal with it.
2) Your 'reality' argument is about as empty as your head. Drop it unless you have something to support your 'reality'.
3) The only way for you to disprove time dilation is to
-a) create a simpler and more complete theory which predicts the same things (you seem to have failed)
-b) find experiments which poke holes in the theory (pasta bowl gravity experiments do not count)

I think you'll most likely choose option 4 though.... post poor arguments, change topics when challenged, and then claim victory.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

I was right, wasn't I? You actually can't understand the argument, even when it is clearly set out for you, step by step. There's really little point in continuing this exercise; you're intellectually just not up to it. I have done enough to convince any person with an ability to follow logical reasoning that your process doesn't work, so I guess my work here is done.

You would like to believe and would like all others to believe your are right and that it is I that can't follow logic. Unfortunately you seem to have it backwards. Your solution does not work nor does it answer the multiple tick rate of clocks issue. Until you do that you have failed, not me.

On the off-chance that I might be able to get through to you, I will respond to your latest post, though I am confident it will be a complete waste of my time. I don't think you're capable of taking in new information.

False. I take to new information quite readily but only if it isn't nonsense. I do not throw basic physical principles to the wind and play follow the leader.

I point out in advance that my refutation of your process does not rely on relativity in any way. Relativity could be completely false and it would not change anything. The only thing which would make your process work would be if universal time existed, and even then your process would only work by accident, since, as I said, no actual information about A's clock rate is transmitted to B.

Well, that is a gain in disguise. "IF UT exists then clocks were synchronized. Hmmm. Seems you reject the process based on preconcieved ideas that UT isn't real and SRT is. Imagine that.

Most of your post is irrelevant padding, so I'll ignore that and address only those points where you have once again demonstrated your inability to accept simple reasoning.

If you call pointing out the distortion of the process and irrelevance of your version padding, so be it.

First, I point out a strawman you have raised. I wrote:

A and B keep accurate time. Your procedure does not synchronise the clocks because no actual information about A's rate is transmitted from A to B.

Wrong. The SBM ratio tells B what A's tick rate is since the modulation is in direct relation to the carrier frequency.

You replied:

I replied that A, B and A Monitor and B monitor would all read the same. Which they will. Shame you chose to not respond to that issue but simply say it isn't proven. You have shown no cause why it is not.

Once you finish your smug, misplaced chortling, I suggest you read what I wrote once again. I did not say we cannot say A's tick rate is what A says it is. I said that is ONLY true for A. A's tick rate may be different for B. (Relativity says it is, but that is not important for this argument. The point is that your procedure simply assumes it without proof.)

Not so. Further my proof is 100 times better than your guess. Show us how A transmitting a code via the SBM to B in some fashion does not tell B what A's clock tick rate is according to A. We don't give a damn what B thinks it is at this time.

To remind you again: my point is that no actual information about A's clock rate is transmitted to B. The only information transferred to B is A's own perception of A's clock rate, as measured by A's clock. What we need is A's clock rate relative to B's clock.

Not so. You are missing the issue entirely.

A's rate locally at A = 1 tick per second is represented as a 10/1 ratio between the carrier and the SBM.

B's rate locally is 1 tick per second and conversion of A's data (the 10/1 ratio) established B's A clock monitor tick rate at 1 tick per second.

The very rate A is ticking locally. So just how is it that no information about A's rate was transferred. B got it right.

After 1 hour A's time, B's clock will read 36,000 seconds, B's monitor of A will read 36,000 seconds. Clock A locally actually displays 36,000 seconds.

B's view of A via SRT (a large telescope) shows A's clock reading 684 seconds? Or 11 minutes: 24 Seconds.

How is it that you propose to claim that A isn't reading 36,000 seconds and that B's SRT view is merely distorted perception. B's view did not change A's clock. B's view is inconsistant with reality (A's displayed time).

Here's the killer blow:

What killer blow James R?

1 - You have admitted that A's clock is still running on its 1MHz standard. That hasn't changed.

B is still running on his 1 MHz standard. It hasn't changed.

Care to explain just how you find using B's standard any different than using A's standard? You can't make that case but just to cut you off lets consider this. We know A is still running 1MHz and we are at a relative velocity of 0.9c because of the 0.229MHz carrier. If not we know nothing and you can't even apply SRT. This velocity is either valid and so is the local 1 MHz standard or you cannot use B's view of "A" since you don't know your relative velocity. If you want to assume it then so shall I and therefore prove the 1 MHz signal is still valid.

You can't start to say "But we don't know that". Because that is a distortion of the test conditions. I could just as well say you can't prove SRT because your clock might be broken and not keeping good time. That is the total worth of your post.

And you admit it!

You bet. Now tell us A is no longer running a 1MHz. Nor is B running at 1 MHz. Don't tell me about B's view of A's 1 MHz signal. We already know it is showing 229KHz. But the SBM is also running at 22.9KHz so the fact that A is running a 1 tick per second rate is confirmed. Using B's 1 MHz standard A's rate is duplicated without distortion at B.

1 MHz means "1 million cycles per second". To know what a MHz is, you have to know how long a second is. You are assuming that B's measure of a second is the same as A's, even though they are now in relative motion, and therefore that 1 MHz for B is the same as 1 MHz for A. That is an assumption which is without proof. It is, in fact, false, but that is another argument.

And a damned poor one as I have pointed out. If you now want to claim that 1 MHz locally is not actually 1 MHz then you no longer have any clocks that are keeping time. You are trying to introduce added variables where even SRT doesn't have them. I think you are panicing.

If B's 1 MHz can't be taken as 1 MHz then B's view of A's is absolutly meaningless. SRT can no longer be applied. Which way do you want it. Both wrong or just SRT?

The issue here, which seems to continually escape your feeble mind, is whether the two clocks are synchronised by your procedure. As I have shown, they are not.

Again Unsupported Fiat. You have done no such thing. You have tried to cloud the issue by claiming things that even SRT can't allow and still function. LOL. Makes me start to wonder just who has a feeble mind.

Once again, you are trying to raise a straw man. For the record, I will correct you again. Both clocks A and B keep accurate time. Your procedure does not synchronise the clocks because no actual information about A's rate is transmitted from A to B.

Pardon me but bullshit. You have not corrected me you have made yourself appear stupid, which I'm sure you actually are not.

Discussing that would be a complete waste of time, since we have failed to agree on whether the clocks are synchronised to start off with. This is exactly why I was so careful to step through your procedure, when you suggested it. I knew I had to avoid your stupid assumptions, or at least catch them where they occurred, before they had flow-on effects further down the line.

Nice bold talk. Shame it is nothing but self congratulatory hot air. Fact - the clocks are synchronized. Fact - you have failed to provide any truthful objection to the proceedure and/or the results.

My refutation, as I said, does not rely on relativity in any way. We haven't even got to the point where we can start to test relativity against some other option, because we don't have a system of sychronised clocks yet.

You have here :

1 - Stated that both clocks keep accurate time.

That requires that they each have stable 1 MHz standards.

2 - You have introduced new variables, not supported by even SRT, to try and get out of this box you now find yourself. You claim that 1 MHz is no longer 1 MHz because of relative motion. I'm not confusing doppler view but the fact you are trying to claim that the local 1 MHz standard is no longer 1 MHz.

Fine. While it most certainly isn't true (or at least there is no indication of it and it doesn't even fit SRT), I'll play your little dodge the ball game.

Lets assume the 1 MHz signal has dropped to actually being 500KHz. So F__king what.

a - Relative to what? UT? Must be. There ain't anythingelse to go by to make that claim.

b - If A drops to 500KHz, so does B because relative velocity is "Relative", imagine that. That means the clocks are still in synch and still recording the same tick rate. They might be shifted but only in relation to the UT which you deny.

c - What the hell are you going to do with clock "C", "D", "E", "F" and "G"? I notice you glazed over that little complexiety.

You now have 7 clocks all running at 1 MHz which isn't actuallly 1 MHz (according to you) but all keeping accurate time, none of which agree with each others accumulated time.

Tells me something smells. And you can't simply blow it off by saying its "Counter Intuitive". Its "Impossible". The two interpretations have incompatiable conclusions.

You choose the impossible, so be it. Don't expect to see me join you in your fantasy world.

Nice try but you have failed. If this is all you got then retire. You lose.

 

[MacM]

This has been done over and over. Your answer every time is 'but that is not reality'... which is an incredibly stupid statement.

I see only words here. None of which sucessfully address the issue. Perhaps you might actually try to answer the issue at hand and knock off the I'm smarter than routine for that has become quite clear to be false.

You are defining your 'reality' with no evidence what so ever.

Really. The actual accumulated time on the face of a clock is no basis at all.

You feel that it isn't reality... that's the crux of the issue. You 'feel' it is wrong. You 'fell' that it goes "against common sense".

That doesn't make it wrong.

This has nothing to do with MacM's feelings. It has to do with physical reality of clocks and tick rate and accumulated time displayed on a clock. Try addressing that instead of your escape goat by suggesting I just don't understand.

It is wrong because it is wrong and impossible to be as you claim which is based on what? You feel Relativity is correct. Even though I have shown that what you feel is correct is impossible phsically. Hmmmm.

To suimmarize for you:
1) Relativity matches what has been observed. Accept it and deal with it.

As a perception perhaps but it is not reality. It is nothing more than a distorted observation.

2) Your 'reality' argument is about as empty as your head. Drop it unless you have something to support your 'reality'.

Nice. Really nice. Again try actually talking physics and not theory. Forget the personal attacks or you'll get some in return.

3) The only way for you to disprove time dilation is to
-a) create a simpler and more complete theory which predicts the same things (you seem to have failed)

Not necessary. Nice but not necessary. The onus is on you to show how SRT achieves the impossible.

-b) find experiments which poke holes in the theory (pasta bowl gravity experiments do not count)

Funny you should raise that point. The fact is if current data is validated then it shows GR isn't the answer. But that is another diversion and we aren't going there here. Hell James don't even want to see papers that disagree with time dilation of muons in this thread. That is directly germain and in response to a challenge by your side.

Might as well simply say you are not allowed to post anything that doesn't agree with our view.

I think you'll most likely choose option 4 though.... post poor arguments, change topics when challenged, and then claim victory.

I'm about to claim victory here unless somebody actually addresses the issue and stops trying to alter the test and merely respond by Fiat SRT is right therefore you are wrong. If that is all you guys got you are in trouble.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Let me remind you once again, because I know you have a short, selective memory. The issue to be resolved is this:

Do identical clocks which are in motion relative to one another, tick at the same rate?

Logic 101 dictates that you cannot assume what you want to prove. Therefore, you cannot use the assumption that they tick at the same rate in order to prove that they do. Which is exactly what you are trying to do.

Your side-band modulation is a smoke screen. As I said, it doesn't matter how your digital information is transmitted from A to B. The digital signal contains no information about the relative rates of the clocks. The only information it contains is that A measures his own clock to tick once per second. A can tell B that any way he likes. For example:

a. Encode the number "10" in a side-band modulation (which is what you suggest).
b. Paint the number "10" on a carrier pigeon and have it fly to B.
c. Stick together a bunch of matchsticks to spell out the symbol "10" and send it by fast rocket to B.
d. Encode the number "10" using DES encryption and send it in a chip carried in a secure briefcase to B by some guy in a dark suit and sunglasses.

Whichever option you choose, B doesn't get any information about the rate at which B's clock is ticking in relation to A's clock, because your method doesn't transfer any information about A's clock rate.

"IF UT exists then clocks were synchronized. Hmmm.

...by accident. Not by your process. Like I said before.

Stop reading selectively.

The SBM ratio tells B what A's tick rate is since the modulation is in direct relation to the carrier frequency.

The modulation ratio doesn't tell you anything about the frequency itself. Which is exactly the kind of information B needs, and exactly the kind that your procedure does not provide.

Show us how A transmitting a code via the SBM to B in some fashion does not tell B what A's clock tick rate is according to A. We don't give a damn what B thinks it is at this time.

On the contrary, the whole point of the procedure is to determine the relative rates of B's and A's clock. I know you don't care, because you assume, with no proof at all, that they must be the same, then use that assumption to prove itself.

A's rate locally at A = 1 tick per second is represented as a 10/1 ratio between the carrier and the SBM.

Yes.

B's rate locally is 1 tick per second and conversion of A's data (the 10/1 ratio) established B's A clock monitor tick rate at 1 tick per second.

Which requires that B use his own clock rate to convert the number "10" to a tick rate. Which can be done regardless of whether the number 10 arrives on a light beam or by carrier pigeon. Either way, B setting his own clock will not do.

Suppose A's clock was, in fact, running 100 times slower than B's. Then, A would send out a 10 kHz beam modulated at 1 kHz, thus encoding the number "10" on his beam. When B receives the number "10", he sets his monitor at 1 tick per second, as determined by B's clock. Ignoring all relativistic effects, this procedure does not guarantee that B's clock and A's clock are now ticking at the same rate. Even an idiot could see that. B's clock would be running 100 times faster than A's, but there's no way that B would know that from A's sending of the number "10" to him. After all "10" was agreed to be the "one tick per second" signal, wasn't it?

You have here :

1 - Stated that both clocks keep accurate time.

That requires that they each have stable 1 MHz standards.

Measured locally. It does NOT require that those standards remain the same when the clocks are in motion. That is what we are testing, remember?

2 - You have introduced new variables, not supported by even SRT, to try and get out of this box you now find yourself. You claim that 1 MHz is no longer 1 MHz because of relative motion. I'm not confusing doppler view but the fact you are trying to claim that the local 1 MHz standard is no longer 1 MHz.

Strawman again. False. I have never claimed the local 1 MHz standard is not 1 MHz, as measured locally.

Stop making up my arguments and start reading. Most of all, start thinking.

My real arguments are much harder to dismiss than your fairy-tale versions of them.

The remainder of your post is a waste of time, so I won't respond to it. In fact, the whole thing is a waste of time, but I like to cut fools some slack.

 

[Persol]

As a perception perhaps but it is not reality. It is nothing more than a distorted observation.

When two particles which are at different speeds are brought back together the difference REMAINS. It does not disappear as a 'perception'.

Experiments have shown that processes do 'tick' a different rates, as relativity predicts. All of your arguments ignore this singular fact.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Let me remind you once again, because I know you have a short, selective memory. The issue to be resolved is this:

These unsupported and untrue personal attacks are not doing your rebuttal any favors. If you can't provide a rational answer then admit you have none.

Do identical clocks which are in motion relative to one another, tick at the same rate?

Logic 101 dictates that you cannot assume what you want to prove. Therefore, you cannot use the assumption that they tick at the same rate in order to prove that they do. Which is exactly what you are trying to do.

Not so and I'll go through it once again to show others that you are totally lost. However, assuming this were true then you have no basis to declare your assumption of SRT is in any way valid. Either you have local standards or you don't. If you don't you have nothing for SRT to operate on:

t2 = t1 (1 - v^2/c^2). NOW if t1 is not some specific number you cannot declare t2 to any any specific number and you have destroyed your own claim of SRT by trying to fake this unknown local standard issue.

Local standards remain local standards as viewed by both A and B. It can be no other way and for SRT to still give you any information that means anything. Make up your mind, do you claim SRT gives valid observations or not? If so then t1 is still A's local rate, etc., and is also valid for synchronization.

Your side-band modulation is a smoke screen. As I said, it doesn't matter how your digital information is transmitted from A to B. The digital signal contains no information about the relative rates of the clocks. The only information it contains is that A measures his own clock to tick once per second. A can tell B that any way he likes. For example:

a. Encode the number "10" in a side-band modulation (which is what you suggest).
b. Paint the number "10" on a carrier pigeon and have it fly to B.
c. Stick together a bunch of matchsticks to spell out the symbol "10" and send it by fast rocket to B.
d. Encode the number "10" using DES encryption and send it in a chip carried in a secure briefcase to B by some guy in a dark suit and sunglasses.

I believe I have responded to this already. The method does not matter as long as it can be properly claimed to occur simultaneously, so your hype here is a worthless distraction. Your repeated assertion that "A's" signal carries no information is laughable. The SBM tells B A's view of A's clock tick rate.

That is the only information B needs to know how to set its monitor. That is to set its oscillator such that it will record A's true rate at B using B's standard. (which just happens to also be consistant with A's standard, even though you are trying to claim otherwise which violates the Relatvitiy you are trying to protect.)

Whichever option you choose, B doesn't get any information about the rate at which B's clock is ticking in relation to A's clock, because your method doesn't transfer any information about A's clock rate.

Absolutely false and is a ludricrus assertion. The 10/1 ratio of modulation to carrier frequency clearly states A sees it's rate as 1 tick per second, locally.

...by accident. Not by your process. Like I said before.

Now you agree but claim it is an accident. Make up your mind.

1 - You claim clocks are not synchronized and cannot be synchronized,

2 - You then claim they are synchronized but only by accident.

3 - You claim local clocks keep accurate time but then claim we know nothing about their time but claim SRT takes this unknown and through magic produces a valid time. Laughable. Absolutely laughable.

4 - You are flip flopping all over the place. You have no valid answer here and you are searching for anything you can claim but your claims fly in the face of Relativity itself.

Stop reading selectively.

And stop trying to choose selectively what information is valid and what is not. You cannot claim A's view of A's clock is an unknown and at the same time claim that SRT takes this unkown tick rate and produces useful information which is absolutely valid. You are a joke James R. If t1 is not valid then SRT cannot produce t2 as a valid number. Wake up. You are digging your hole deeper.

The modulation ratio doesn't tell you anything about the frequency itself. Which is exactly the kind of information B needs, and exactly the kind that your procedure does not provide.

False for the reasons already given (6) times. Your SRT formula requires t1 be a valid local tick rate otherwise t2 is a meaningless calculation. If t1 is valid for SRT then t1 is valid for my synchronizaton method.

On the contrary, the whole point of the procedure is to determine the relative rates of B's and A's clock. I know you don't care, because you assume, with no proof at all, that they must be the same, then use that assumption to prove itself.[/quotre]

False and totally untrue. I accept the same standards you use in calculating SRT. Don't believe for a minute that it makes any sense what so ever to claim SRT and in the same breath claim to deny me to accept and use the same signal. t1 is t1 if it is valid for SRT it is valid for my synchronization. Get real. You are losing it. Your are babbling and making no sense.

Yes.

So now A's tick rate is still 1 tick per second and the SBM is in direct proportion to A's tick rate which is real information being sent to B with regard to A's view of A's clock. Which is the very information we want to send.

Which requires that B use his own clock rate to convert the number "10" to a tick rate. Which can be done regardless of whether the number 10 arrives on a light beam or by carrier pigeon. Either way, B setting his own clock will not do.

Method of delivery can be by other means but the information is verification of A's true tick rate locally. B's local t1 is just as valid as A's t1, hence it matters not which standard one uses. I could just as well however, using the doppler formula assertain that A's t1 is still based on 1 MHz, if I am to assume I am actually going 0.9c relative to "A". If you want to claim I can't know that for sure then you cannot also claim you know relative velocity to do your SRT calculation. Either t1 A and t1 B are valid and equal and I can synchronize or they are not valid and SRT cannot possibly work either.

Make up your mind. Stop being selective in which data you claim is valid when and where. It is either valid in both cases, SRT and my process, or it is invalid for both. It is not possible that it is invalid for my use but valid for yours. That is a joke.

Suppose A's clock was, in fact, running 100 times slower than B's. Then, A would send out a 10 kHz beam modulated at 1 kHz, thus encoding the number "10" on his beam. When B receives the number "10", he sets his monitor at 1 tick per second, as determined by B's clock. Ignoring all relativistic effects, this procedure does not guarantee that B's clock and A's clock are now ticking at the same rate.

Again with the hypothetical "the clock isn't really working correctly" it is running 100 times slower than it thinks it is. Well guess what wise guy SRT uses A's t1 in its calculation and SRT now produces a result which is meaningless since it is using invalid data.

Stop being selcetive in when and how data can be considered valid and used. If you can claim it valid for SRT it is valid for my process.

Even an idiot could see that. B's clock would be running 100 times faster than A's, but there's no way that B would know that from A's sending of the number "10" to him. After all "10" was agreed to be the "one tick per second" signal, wasn't it?

Unfortunately I would have to agree even "An Idiot" should see that if A's tick rate as indicated by t1 is not actually correct then SRT applied to that t1 producing t2 is totally invalid.

Measured locally. It does NOT require that those standards remain the same when the clocks are in motion. That is what we are testing, remember?

Stop with trying to play your games. You don't have the moxy to circle the wagons around me. Inspite of your frequent insertion of innuendo and outright statements that I am feeble minded, uneducated, ignorant, stupid, incapable of comprehending, etc, etc.

I have already addressed this. While it is improper to make such a claim, feel free to make it. If A is off by a factor of 100 then B is off by a factor of 100 and the clocks remain in synch. If you claim this unknown drift affect due to relative motion of an observer is not symmetrical then you have no system of clocks from which SRT can operate.

Strawman again. False. I have never claimed the local 1 MHz standard is not 1 MHz, as measured locally.

You just have AGAIN in this thread. When you claim A's doesn't know his own clock rate. If the 1MHz signal is still correct (and the clock is functioning correctly) then its tick rate is 1 tick per second. If it is not functioning correctly then SRT can't correctly calculate B's observation of A.

Make up your mind.

1 - You say clocks are functioning properly

2 - You say clocks are running 100 times fast or slow.

3 - You cannot have it both ways. Oh but I forgot you probably think you can since you seem to believe a physical clock can tick at two or more different rates simultaneously. Causing it to be required to display two or more different numbers at the same time.

Stop making up my arguments and start reading. Most of all, start thinking.

Ditto.

My real arguments are much harder to dismiss than your fairy-tale versions of them.

I haven't found your arguements hard at all. They are simplistic and hogwash on the surface.

The remainder of your post is a waste of time, so I won't respond to it. In fact, the whole thing is a waste of time, but I like to cut fools some slack.

Once again your personal attacks add no merit to your weak and incorrect assertions. I don't feel I need any longer to respond in kind. I will remain above your childish and ineffective meaningless response level.

Now either put your rebuttal into coherent terms and stop bouncing off the walls or admit you have no actual answer.

 

[MacM]

When two particles which are at different speeds are brought back together the difference REMAINS. It does not disappear as a 'perception'.

Experiments have shown that processes do 'tick' a different rates, as relativity predicts. All of your arguments ignore this singular fact.

Just where do you see I have ever claimed data does not show certain affects?

What I have said and continue to say is those affects (if any) are not as a consequence of time dilation. Any such affect is a change in process having nothing to do with time.

The synchronization process proposed shows without any room for doubt that what I have just stated must be true. An observer's velocity relative to another clock in no way alter the other clock and vice versa.

You have no basis to claim time dilation causes any permanent measureable change in particles, clocks or anythingelse.

 

[Persol]

What I have said and continue to say is those affects (if any) are not as a consequence of time dilation. Any such affect is a change in process having nothing to do with time.

Then when brought back together the two particles would be in the same state, because the difference we see would have not been 'reality' but perception. When the frame of reference for both particles is the same we should once again see 'reality'. But experimnts show otherwise though... and you are ignoring that.

They show that (from our pov):
two particles travelling at different speeds 'tick' at different rates.
when brought to the same speed the 'ticking rate' becomes the same but the one particle is older.

This has been done.

 

[MacM]

Then when brought back together the two particles would be in the same state, because the difference we see would have not been 'reality' but perception. When the frame of reference for both particles is the same we should once again see 'reality'. But experimnts show otherwise though... and you are ignoring that.[/quote

Not at all. I am saying that any permanent change is due to a change in process unrelated to time dilation. This is supported by the synchronized view of clocks. Which is what you choose to continue to ignore in your responses.

They show that (from our pov):
two particles travelling at different speeds 'tick' at different rates.
when brought to the same speed the 'ticking rate' becomes the same but the one particle is older.

This has been done.

Just how is it you think a claim that you or anyone has ever determined the age of a particle has any merit. LOL :bugeye:

 

[Persol]

I suppose you've never heard of decay rates and statistical analysis?

 

[MacM]

I suppose you've never heard of decay rates and statistical analysis?

Of course I have but that isn't knowing the age of a particle. It is a statistical guess at best and that doesn't mean time dilation had any affect. Perhaps you should read the Russian article I posted.

 

[SKULLZ]

Then when brought back together the two particles would be in the same state, because the difference we see would have not been 'reality' but perception. When the frame of reference for both particles is the same we should once again see 'reality'. But experimnts show otherwise though... and you are ignoring that.

They show that (from our pov):
two particles travelling at different speeds 'tick' at different rates.
when brought to the same speed the 'ticking rate' becomes the same but the one particle is older.

This has been done.

Heres my question at this point,is this something only shown at quantum scales,or has it also been shown and proven to be true for macroscopic things?.

Is time dilation an automatic consequence in macroscopic beings like ourselves,just because your quantum checking devices say so?

Like,the two slits,the two slits experiments when sending one photon at a time apears to tell us it can produce an interference pattern(interferes with itself),and its not just light,heavier elements with mass produce the same result,
how does a piece of mass interfere with itself in such a way that we are left with many strange assumptions about reality on macroscopic scales,as the schrodinger cat thought experiment showed,it outlined the problem.

How come i dont see the same interference pattern if i throw...a piece of cheese at the two slits,its made of atoms isnt it?

Im always confused about that experiment,cos the evidence is in your face for something strange but we dont see it,or notice it in our everyday world,from what i read someone wants to try sending virus through the slits or something,at that level id say it would not work but they have sent heavier particles and got the interference,it wasnt just photons.

Could there not be a simarlar problem with the idea that time dilation is a real world thing?
like we dont recognise it at our scales,yet at a microscopic level there appears a discrepency,i mean i dont know thats why i ask.

 

[Paul T]

Not at all. I am saying that any permanent change is due to a change in process unrelated to time dilation. This is supported by the synchronized view of clocks. Which is what you choose to continue to ignore in your responses.

Not due to time dilation, so due to what? Something called MacM's dilation and it's formulated exactly the same as that in SR?

Just how is it you think a claim that you or anyone has ever determined the age of a particle has any merit. LOL :bugeye:

If you think particle age has no merit, can you now tell us if your age has any merit at all? At your age now are your getting closer to the grave or just as far as you were 50 years ago???

 

[MacM]

Not due to time dilation, so due to what? Something called MacM's dilation and it's formulated exactly the same as that in SR?

It would seem it is not up to me to explain muon decay but for you to explain how it could be SRT when you can't explain its failure made obvious by synchronization of clocks.

If you think particle age has no merit, can you now tell us if your age has any merit at all? At your age now are your getting closer to the grave or just as far as you were 50 years ago???

I might be old but one thing that is nice is "Wisdom comes with age"

 

[James R]

MacM:

Not so and I'll go through it once again to show others that you are totally lost. However, assuming this were true then you have no basis to declare your assumption of SRT is in any way valid.

At this stage, the argument is not about relativity. Your process doesn't work to sychronise the clocks. If the clocks were actually running at different rates while sitting next to each other on the bench in the lab, you would still claim (incorrectly) that they were synchronised after applying your process.

This has nothing at all to do with relativity.

The method does not matter as long as it can be properly claimed to occur simultaneously, so your hype here is a worthless distraction.

But simultaneity is exactly what we are trying to test. You just assume it from the start.

Circular reasoning.

The SBM tells B A's view of A's clock tick rate.

Indeed it does. And it tells B nothing about the relative tick rates of clocks A and B, which is what is actually needed.

That is the only information B needs to know how to set its monitor.

Wrong.

That is to set its oscillator such that it will record A's true rate at B using B's standard.

You can't guarantee that if B uses B's standard, B will reproduce A's "true rate". And, as I have shown, that often does not happen, regardless of any relativistic effects.

1 - You claim clocks are not synchronized and cannot be synchronized,

I claim your method does not synchronise the clocks. I have never claimed that they cannot be synchronised. I can give you a perfectly adequate method of synchronising the clocks.

2 - You then claim they are synchronized but only by accident.

Using your method, the clocks will be synchronised in the lab (or in a fantasy world with universal time), provided they keep accurate time. That has nothing to do with the information transmitted between them. It is just that when they are at rest they keep ticking at the same rate regardless.

Your method is irrelevant in this case. It is simply a lucky accident that the clocks end up synchronised.

3 - You claim local clocks keep accurate time but then claim we know nothing about their time but claim SRT takes this unknown and through magic produces a valid time.

We haven't got to the stage of examining SR predictions yet. First, we need a way to accurately monitor the "other" clock. Your method doesn't do the job.

4 - You are flip flopping all over the place.

False.

So now A's tick rate is still 1 tick per second and the SBM is in direct proportion to A's tick rate which is real information being sent to B with regard to A's view of A's clock.

Yes. A's tick rate is 1 tick per second as measured by A.

Which is the very information we want to send.

No. We need to be able to compare the tick rates of clocks A and B. Your method does not allow that to be done.

B's local t1 is just as valid as A's t1, hence it matters not which standard one uses.

False. You cannot set a monitor of clock A based on the rate at which clock B ticks. What you are doing is assuming that the tick rates are the same a priori. Which is what you are trying to prove in the first place.

Circular reasoning.

Again with the hypothetical "the clock isn't really working correctly" it is running 100 times slower than it thinks it is.

It doesn't matter why the clock might be running slowly. It could be that the clock is broken, or it could be relativistic effects. Either way, you can't simply assume that the two clocks are running at the same rate, which is what your procedure does.

Stop with trying to play your games. You don't have the moxy to circle the wagons around me.

Hehe.

Inspite of your frequent insertion of innuendo and outright statements that I am feeble minded, uneducated, ignorant, stupid, incapable of comprehending, etc, etc.

What other explanation could there be? It is obvious. Want to take a poll of the people reading this thread? Unless it is just sheer bloodymindedness on your part...

1 - You say clocks are functioning properly

We can assume that for the actual test. We need to ensure that the synchronisation method would produce real results, though. For clocks actually running at different rates, the synchronisation method should ensure that the difference is captured - i.e. that clock B's monitor of A's clock displays the actual rate of A's clock, even if A's rate is different from B's, for whatever reason.

This, your method completely fails to achieve. Which is why it is useless.

2 - You say clocks are running 100 times fast or slow.

That is an illustration of why your method is useless. I know it is difficult to hold multiple counterfactuals in your head at once, but please make an effort.

3 - You cannot have it both ways. Oh but I forgot you probably think you can since you seem to believe a physical clock can tick at two or more different rates simultaneously.

Strawman. Dealt with previously. Selective memory.

I haven't found your arguements hard at all. They are simplistic and hogwash on the surface.

You don't understand them.

Now either put your rebuttal into coherent terms and stop bouncing off the walls or admit you have no actual answer.

I'm sure this post won't make an iota of difference to your thinking. You're so wrapped up in your own ego, and burdened by 50 years of wrong thinking, that you'll never break out of your self-built prison.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

At this stage, the argument is not about relativity. Your process doesn't work to sychronise the clocks. If the clocks were actually running at different rates while sitting next to each other on the bench in the lab, you would still claim (incorrectly) that they were synchronised after applying your process.

What a lot of hype double talk nonsense. If this were the case then you can not run SRT calculation and produce any useful data. This is an unacceptable dodge of the theoretical issue. IF your SRT calculation is based on such rates then the synchronization can also be based on such rates. You can't have it two different ways. Sorry. You are flat wrong.

This has nothing at all to do with relativity.

It has to do with basic physics principles. You do consider SRT physics do you not?

But simultaneity is exactly what we are trying to test. You just assume it from the start.

SRT is what you are trying to test and you assume it from the start.

Circular reasoning.

Ditto. But it is not circular reasoning to assume locally measured rates are what we measure. You seem to want to claim otherwise to over turn this proceedure. That doesn't cut it since you are also over turning any basis to also compute SRT.

Lets see you claim that your B clock and A clock do not have useable tick rates measured locally in SRT. You don't dare. So don't try to pull lthis crap here. You are hand waving and saying nothing that has any merit or is useful.

Indeed it does. And it tells B nothing about the relative tick rates of clocks A and B, which is what is actually needed.

Wrong. If local rates aply in SRT calculation they are useable in the synchronization. You are being foolish.

Wrong.

Useless invalid FIAT. You must assume local clock rates are valid or SRT doesn't work either. B's local standard is still 1 MHz per SRT. A's local standard is 1 MHz per SRT. The clocks are synchronized if you like it our not. You can't claim to blow off the standards and not also blow off any opportunity for SRT to function. Kepp it up. You are destrying your own arguement that SRT is even a useable "Perception" much less reality.

[quotre]You can't guarantee that if B uses B's standard, B will reproduce A's "true rate". And, as I have shown, that often does not happen, regardless of any relativistic effects.[/quote]

False. You assume such standards and local tick rates in SRT. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I claim your method does not synchronise the clocks. I have never claimed that they cannot be synchronised. I can give you a perfectly adequate method of synchronising the clocks.

Sure assume SRT. HeHeHe. What a joke. Your claim is baseless and unproven.

Using your method, the clocks will be synchronised in the lab (or in a fantasy world with universal time), provided they keep accurate time. That has nothing to do with the information transmitted between them. It is just that when they are at rest they keep ticking at the same rate regardless.

Ditto for SRT. What is your point. You have none. Your view cannot be applied exclusively to synchronization you must also apply such failures of clocks locally to SRT.

In a thought experiment there are no such pragmatic consideration. It is stipulated that the clocks are accurate and synchronized when at rest locally.

Your method is irrelevant in this case. It is simply a lucky accident that the clocks end up synchronised.

And it is an accident that SRT predicts anything useful. Ho Hum. Your statement is also totally false and unsupportable.

We haven't got to the stage of examining SR predictions yet. First, we need a way to accurately monitor the "other" clock. Your method doesn't do the job.

False. If clock A is not being correctly monitored in this procedure then you are not correctly monitoring clock A in SRT.

False.

1 - You stated clocks are operating correctly.

2 - You state the clocks run fast or slow compared to thier local reading?????

3 - You claim each clock still has a 1 MHz standard.

4 - You claim there is no way of knowing the standards are still the same.

5 - You claim the clocks are not synchronized.

6 - You claim they are synchronized by accident.

You have flip flopped thorughout this thread. You are saying just anything you can think of to claim synchronization has not occured. Unfortunately none of your efforts are supported by facts.

1 - SRT requires that local rates are the same - Unchanged by relative motion. If SRT is wrong and you are right and 1 MHz isn't actually 1 MHz then it really doesn't matter since synchronization is occuring under the same conditions as you are applying to SRT.

2 - Since the local standards are both still 1 MHz "A's" SBM properly calibrates "B's" monitor of "A" to tick at the same rate (accumulated time over time until clocks are returned for comparison, they will read the same - HINT: They were synchronized)

Yes. A's tick rate is 1 tick per second as measured by A.

Good then B having the same 1 MHz standard can jproperly calibrate its monitor for "A".

No. We need to be able to compare the tick rates of clocks A and B. Your method does not allow that to be done.

Only in your fantasy world where 1 MHz is not 1 MHz and a worl in wich SRT cannot function. Make up your mind.

False. You cannot set a monitor of clock A based on the rate at which clock B ticks. What you are doing is assuming that the tick rates are the same a priori. Which is what you are trying to prove in the first place.[/qluote]

False. For you to argue this you must violate the principle that relative motion did not alter the local standard of 1 MHz. If you argue it is no longer 1 MHz then SRT fails also.

Circular reasoning.

It is not circular reasoning to accept 1 MHz local standards are still 1 MHz; especially since that is also part of Relativity.

It doesn't matter why the clock might be running slowly. It could be that the clock is broken, or it could be relativistic effects. Either way, you can't simply assume that the two clocks are running at the same rate, which is what your procedure does.

This arguement is a lame duck. You can't introduce violations of the assumptions in a thought experiment to claim the experiment results are not valid.

I can do the exact same thing to SRT. The clock rate isn't what we think it is hence your SRT doesn't produce a valid result. Try some other tact. This one fails. It is an obvious joke.

Hehe

What other explanation could there be? It is obvious. Want to take a poll of the people reading this thread? Unless it is just sheer bloodymindedness on your part...

Could be expected from those that can't find valid objection to the synchronization process. Actually I rather enjoy watching you make up all this BS that isn't even allowed in SRT. Tells me you are hard pressed and a bit of name calling is your only defense since you have not and cannot truthfully defeat this synchronization.

We can assume that for the actual test. We need to ensure that the synchronisation method would produce real results, though. For clocks actually running at different rates, the synchronisation method should ensure that the difference is captured - i.e. that clock B's monitor of A's clock displays the actual rate of A's clock, even if A's rate is different from B's, for whatever reason.

You don't seem to get it. According to Relativity the local standard of 1 MHz is still the local standard. There is no differeance to record. That is the point here. For you to be correct and claim that the 1 MHz standard is no longer 1 MHz not only violates Relativity but would in fact become apparrent upon returning the clocks for comparision. i.e. - B is now actually 500 KHz and A is 1 MHz. The accumulated counts on the monitor and clock A will not agree. So to say it can't capture such deviation is simply a false claim. Of course it won't. They will agree because their local rates have not changed.

All this time and you never saw throught the smoke screen put up by Relativity. Amazing, absolutely amazing. Relativity routinely declares things are the same and then declares they are different. Which is it?

This, your method completely fails to achieve. Which is why it is useless.

Blatantly false. It only fails if you distort physics even according to Relativity.

That is an illustration of why your method is useless. I know it is difficult to hold multiple counterfactuals in your head at once, but please make an effort.

I much rather keep my feet anchored in reality, thank you. You should try it for a change. You might learn something.

Strawman. Dealt with previously. Selective memory.

False claim again. You have flip flopped several times here. Get your act together. I'm getting whip lash.

You don't understand them.

Blatantly false charge. I understand very well. I understand yo have done everything but declare SRT invalid in an attempt to argue moot points which violate the stipulated conditions of the test and relativity itself.

I'm sure this post won't make an iota of difference to your thinking. You're so wrapped up in your own ego, and burdened by 50 years of wrong thinking, that you'll never break out of your self-built prison.

I happen to be quite free and think rather than recite from books. You should try it.

 

[Billy T]

To MacM (James and Pete are asked for help also)

I admire you, still don’t agree with you, but you are very hard to shoot down, even with muons. ( :bugeye: ) I won’t charge you with “ducking” – It more like you quickly put up a shield and stood your ground.
I could not fend off M attackers as well and as calmly as you are doing. (M>>1)

I will argue with you some more later, still using these tiny bullets, and I think I, with the help of others, that your shield can be broken, but for now, mainly to show I am fair, let me state that despite “just-say-10” James R’s obvious knowledge and efforts, in my view, he has not shown that your clocks A&B synchronization scheme is not flawed. This based only on reading much of thread 6796604 and none yet of 680159 which James also directed readers to. Thus this is only a preliminary judgement of mine, but because of it, I began to think about how I would destroy your “monitor clock at B shows same time as clock at A” (or conversely) scheme.

I have not found the answer, yet. Consequently, I am now leaning to “So what” I.e. the ability to make a clock at B display the same as one at A does not prove UT (as you believe) exist. Briefly I thought I might argue that the flexing of the 100 MHz crystal at B was slower now that it was in a moving frame, and consequently multiplying its one second by 10 would fail, but I immediately realized that this is a circular argument (I could only say this if I believe in SR). Shortly after “immediately” I realized this also a wrong idea (wrong as the flexing only SEEMS to be slow to A). Your very recent post neatly destroyed this wrong idea and perhaps some other arguments we “SR guys” had. I refer to your observation that t2=t1 (1-v2^2/c^2), which SR uses to get correct results, is already conceding that t1 clock is valid to measure time locally. Well done MacM. – I am anxious to see what James and Pete, both of whom are better versed than me, say to your further charge that they want it both ways, selecting which way is needed at the time. (Sort reminds me of the “waves” on Monday, Wen. & Friday and “particles” on Tues. Thursday and Weekends solution to the counter intuitive facts about nature exhibited by photons in interference and photoelectric effect (respectively) experiments.) - I think I had best do a little “ducking” now as I am sure the tar and feathers are coming. (smiley) but I am just telling where I am at mentally now.

I still want to “beat up on MacM” with the muon club, but it will not be as easy as I thought. I am going to need help. My basic thrust will be to try a “cross sections” approach. I.e argue that significant energy transfer between atmosphere and muon is improbable (after the rare strong collision that made them) except for the charged muons and even then it is just weak coupling, mainly to the electrons of the air molecules that makes a little Cerinkov radiation, which in air proves that they still are essentially still at c in vacuum because the refractive index of air is only slightly different from 1, especially true in the higher parts. (There MacM, you are forewarned and can begin to think about “shield refinements” before the attack resumes. – I will be away for at lest two days.

After the above, everyone will think I am crazy to now ask for James R’ help in breaking you muon shield, but here goes:
James, you said you have actually measured muons. You must know much more than I do about them. MacM asked me (in his reply to my post that told him to go to bed and be more coherent in the morning):
What the half life of a rest muon is? Damn good question MacM. I don’t know. Fact is I don’t even know if there are such things as muon at rest in the lab frame. My general impression, based on vague memory is that they are always created in accelerator collisions of barrions and born moving at the 99+% of c. Furthermore, I want James to confirm that meutral muons exist? What fraction at ground level are neutral muons? Is it true that most of these neutral ones did not have any interaction in the air or is there some “forward scattering” going on? What fraction of the typical “birth energy” gets converted into Cerinkov radiation for charged ones on the way down, typically? Is there a Crash Course on muons on the web? Other comments as to how to put a little more lead in the muon club? Pete feel to help also – I think I am going to need it to battle with MacM, but think he is logical and can be presuaded.

Perhaps I should explain my ignorance. (1) Although I have a Ph.D. in physic from a good school (Johns Hopkins) I never was interested in high energy physics (“re-normalization” to cancel out infinities, and the rapid pace of new “symmetry theories” etc. combined with the huge team efforts at relatively few spots where accelerators exist, left an experimental physicist like me cold) (2 ) I was idealist, and many people thought at the time I was a student that the controlled fusion problem would be solved in a decade or two at the most – I wanted to be part of that. (3) I lost interest in physics two decades ago and became interested in how the mind functions instead. (BTW, I have a solution, consistent with classical physics, to the determinism/ free will problem.)(4) When I moved to Brazil, I only took my books related to 3, not 1 or 2, with a few exceptions, and even those are in storage. (5) I don’t search the net much as it costs more every 3 seconds of connect to my local ISP. (6) I have forgotten a lot. Thus I need help with muon physics, and attack ideas /suggestions, if you don’t want to fight along side me with muon spears.

 

[James R]

Billy T:

...for now, mainly to show I am fair, let me state that despite “just-say-10” James R’s obvious knowledge and efforts, in my view, he has not shown that your clocks A&B synchronization scheme is not flawed.

I suggest you read all the posts, not just a random selection.

But if you're going to read just one post, see this one:

[post]685066[/post]

This completely demolishes MacM's scheme.

If you think my argument has flaws, please point them out. Don't join in MacM's chorus of unsupported claims.

Your very recent post neatly destroyed this wrong idea and perhaps some other arguments we “SR guys” had. I refer to your observation that t2=t1 (1-v2^2/c^2), which SR uses to get correct results, is already conceding that t1 clock is valid to measure time locally. Well done MacM.

It has never been contested that the clocks are valid to measure time locally, so I don't see what the congratulations are for.

What the half life of a rest muon is?

Roughly 2 microseconds.

Furthermore, I want James to confirm that meutral muons exist?

They don't. Muons are negatively charged, like electrons.

What fraction of the typical “birth energy” gets converted into Cerinkov radiation for charged ones on the way down, typically?

I think the answer is probably zero. I don't see why it is relevant.

 

[MacM]

Billy T,

I do have to say I find you being the most honest of any here. While I'll have to disagree that the muon issue is your saving grace. Unless the clock synchronization is properly defeated it simply means the muon observation is from causes other than time dilation.

When you read James recommended post, then please also review my reply:

[post=685076]Click Here[/post]

James likes to make statements based on FIAT or reciting SRT when trying to defend SRT. You can't prove a theory quoting the theory. He doesn't seem to understand that.