Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[James R]

MacM:

Your irrational ranting isn't helping. You need to switch your brain on at some stage.

Wrong. In frame "A" clock "B" is perceived as reading 10:30AM it actually is 12:00PM. A's view did not change clock B. Otherwise you create the duality of clock readings which is not physically possible.

No. Wrong again.

In A's frame, when A reads 12:00 PM
A reads 12:00 PM.
B reads 10:30 AM
A sees B as reading some time before 10:30 AM.
B sees A as reading some (different) time before 10:30 AM.

In B's frame, when A reads 12:00 PM
A reads 12:00 PM
B reads some time later than 12:00 PM
A sees B as reading some time before 10:30 AM.
B sees A as reading some time before 12 PM.

The question of what each observer sees the other clock reading is completely separate from what the other clock actually says at a time which is simultaneous with the observation.

Not that you are capable of understanding the distinction.

We at least agree that the clock does not read two different times. The problem is when you accept your view of isolating different clock readings as seperate events you mask the problem.

Different clock readings are separate events. Any idiot can see that. An event is defined by spacetime coordinates. Therefore, if in a single reference frame, two things happen at different spatial locations, they must be different events. Similarly, if they happen at different times, they must be different events.

It is when you terminate the test and then bring the clocks back to see what they actually read that your view becomes clearly false.

My view is confirmed when the clocks are brought back together.

According to A, events 1 and 2 are simultaneous.
According to B, events 1 and 3 are simultaneous.
Events 2 and 3 are NEVER simultaneous, for ANY observer.

Sorry. Mickey Mouse gibberish avoiding the truth.

Please point out which part you disagree with and why.

Do we need to once again start over with the synchronization of the clocks. Use light beams to keep them in constant communication and show that no such thing occurs???

We can start over if you like. Do you have a new method which actually works as you say? Or are you planning to dredge up the same, old, discredited method?

Two clocks in relative motion. Forget all other specifics. How fast, what direction, how far apart, what time according to who, etc.

Tick rate is tick rate. This is not an Event 1 / Event 2 question.

Your tick rate is meaningless unless you specify a reference frame.

HINT: the view of an observer in relative motion is an observation and not the reality of the clock in question.

Wrong. Issues of signalling delay are separate from issues of simultaneity, as I have previously explained, and as you have failed to comprehend.

 

[James R]

Paul T:

Since your new thread has been sucked into the MacM black hole, I have merged it with this thread. Sorry about that.

 

[MacM]

Paul T:

Since your new thread has been sucked into the MacM black hole, I have merged it with this thread. Sorry about that.

Thank you. I was going to question the creating of duplicate threads.

Now to answer all of you in one thread and to stop this bouncing around and argueing lengthy post where there is nothing but name calling words.

The issue is so absolutely simple that it is simply amazing how you and others here can drag it on and on and never address the basic issue.

The following is called "Fissioning of a Bilogical Clock".

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3325&stc=1

Step 1 - A clock cell labled Ao having a tick rate of 1 tick per second (TPS) divides into Clock A1 and Clock A2, which are synchronized and continue to have the same tick rate.

But whatever means, since it doesn't matter about such details, A1 and A2 are set into motion with a relative velocity of 0.9c. That is +0.45c and -0.45c to the Lab Tech conducting the test.

NOTE: Both A1 and A2 still have a tick rate of 1 TPS.

Step 2 - A1 has the view that it is at rest and sees A2 as having a tick rate of only 0.436 TPS but in reality clock A2 is still ticking at the same rate of 1 TPS, as is A1 and both clocks will still read the same accumulated time.

Step 3 - The same as Step 2 but reversed for A2's view.

Step 4 - The lab tech sees both A1 and A2 as ticking at 0.893 TPS relative to his continued v = 0 view based on his continued 1 TPS initial base clock rate.

For anybody not blind A1, A2 and the Lab Tech will upon being brought back together, have their respective clocks ALL display the same exact time, since they ALL continued to function as clocks in real time of 1 TPS.

Now do more than lip service on this please, otherwise I am going to be forced to embarrass you and your lack of understanding about Relativity.

 

[Paul T]

There is no basis for your assumption of any time shift and indeed you are merely trying to invoke information delay and relavistic mathematics to prove relativity.

You have proven nothing. If you keep the clocks in constant communication using my side band modulation of information exhange via modulated light beams regarding their actual tick rate you find your assumption in the first instance is false.

You seem to having real problem understanding. Didn't you read my statement that I have no intention to prove the correctness of SR? The way you say, you assumed that SR doesn't exist. You speak like a cave man or at least someone from era before SR. There is a very IDIOT standing, I must say. First of all, prove that two postulates in SR completely flawed...otherwise your assumtion that SR need not be considered in my proposed test is simply wild speculation.

Well, as James R commented, I don't expect you to understand. Your logical ability seem to be no more than a primary school student...let me refrase...no more than an idiot school student, that's the truth.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Let's start at the end.

Now do more than lip service on this please, otherwise I am going to be forced to embarrass you and your lack of understanding about Relativity.

I am interested in how you calculated the figures you quote in your post. Obviously, you did not use relativity, since relativity gives different answers, as shown below.

What are these numbers you quote, then, and why should we believe them?

Step 1 - A clock cell labled Ao having a tick rate of 1 tick per second (TPS) divides into Clock A1 and Clock A2, which are synchronized and continue to have the same tick rate.

But whatever means, since it doesn't matter about such details, A1 and A2 are set into motion with a relative velocity of 0.9c. That is +0.45c and -0.45c to the Lab Tech conducting the test.

Not clear.

If they have velocities of +0.45c and -0.45c in the lab frame, they do not have a velocity of 0.9c relative to each other.

Relativity says they have a velocity of 0.75c relative to each other.

How did you arrive at the 0.9c figure? Not using relativity, obviously.

So, which is it? Are they moving at +/- 0.45c relative to the lab, or at 0.9c relative to each other? You can have one or the other, but not both.

I will assume below that you want +/- 0.45c relative to the lab, which means 0.75c relative to each other.

NOTE: Both A1 and A2 still have a tick rate of 1 TPS.

...in their own reference frames. Without a reference frame, your statement is meaningless.

Step 2 - A1 has the view that it is at rest and sees A2 as having a tick rate of only 0.436 TPS but in reality clock A2 is still ticking at the same rate of 1 TPS, as is A1 and both clocks will still read the same accumulated time.

Are you talking about A1's view here, or A1's calculated tick rate of A2, once signal delays and Doppler shifts have been factored out?

We really can't look at this any further until you specify what you mean, and clear up the issue with the speeds.

Step 4 - The lab tech sees both A1 and A2 as ticking at 0.893 TPS relative to his continued v = 0 view based on his continued 1 TPS initial base clock rate.

Again, are you talking about the rate before or after Doppler shifts and signal delays have been factored out?

For anybody not blind A1, A2 and the Lab Tech will upon being brought back together, have their respective clocks ALL display the same exact time, since they ALL continued to function as clocks in real time of 1 TPS.

It depends on how they are brought back together, which is something you have failed to specify. You can't bring them back together without accelerating them.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Let's start at the end.

Thank you for your response. I can now anticipate your responses and knew these would be your challenges.

I am ignoring Paul T's response since it, as usual, says nothing of substance and is nothing more than unsupported personal attacks.

I am interested in how you calculated the figures you quote in your post. Obviously, you did not use relativity, since relativity gives different answers, as shown below.

True deliberately but we will run with your assumption that I do not understand here for the time being.

t2 = t1 ( 1 - v^2 / c^2 ) ^.5.

1 - While I did not go through a detailed presentation omitting acceleration, clearly our past discussions and the fact that all my tests for 1 1/2 years have specifically stipulated "No acceleration or deceleration periods are being considered". The only thing being considered is the validity of the above time dilation formula based on nothing but relative velocity.

However, to include such an affect does not alter the ultimate conslusion and therefore for clarity should be omitted.

2 - I have done so on purpose because I saw Paul T in his presentation effectively omit acceleration to which you still have not commented. I just wanted to show yours is not an equal application of your complaints as to presentations. Relativists are allowed to make such assumptions in their arguements but not I.

What are these numbers you quote, then, and why should we believe them?

(a) t2 = 1 ( 1 - .9^2 ) ^.5 = (1 - .81 ) ^.5 = (.19 )^.5 = 0.436

(b) t2 = 1 ( 1 - .45^2 ) ^.5 = ( 1 - .2025 ) ^.5 = (.7975 ) ^.5 = 0.893

Not clear.

If they have velocities of +0.45c and -0.45c in the lab frame, they do not have a velocity of 0.9c relative to each other.

Good. I added the Lab Tech view as an after thought specifically to have you make this claim.

(a) Had I not specified the Lab view is not A1 and A2 at a relative velocity of 0.9c as stipulated?

Yes or No.

(b) Assuming a 0.9c velocity between A1 and A2 by what justification do you assert that the Lab view is not 0.45c?

Before answering you must also consider that I could have specified it the other way around .

I know and understand the arguement of SRT that Velocity Addition claims that when the velocity between the Lab and A1 and A2 is 0.45c that A1 and A2 sees 0.74844c relative velocity between them. The value is expanded to show that I do the calculation corretly if I choose to do so. I don't.

But you are here making the assumption in the first instance SRT is valid in your analysis. That prejudices your further thinking.

(c) I have allowed this issue to be raised since in the final analysis it does not alter the ultimate conclusion. Vf = ( v + u) / ( 1 + vu / c^2) ^.5.

Since we now still merely have three different views with different absolute numbers, which are generated by violating a basic premis of Relativity itself.

Relativity says they have a velocity of 0.75c relative to each other.

Agreed. But so what. As I have pointed out.

How did you arrive at the 0.9c figure? Not using relativity, obviously.

Agreed and on purpose to show the failure of your logical analysis of SRT as stated above by using SRT as your basis in fact in the first instance. SRT works mathematically only because you assume it works and ignore the consequences of its application..

So, which is it? Are they moving at +/- 0.45c relative to the lab, or at 0.9c relative to each other? You can have one or the other, but not both.

I will assume below that you want +/- 0.45c relative to the lab, which means 0.75c relative to each other.

Not at issue. Please stay on point. Using Velocity Addition or not using Velocity Addition does not alter the basic failure of SRT.

...in their own reference frames. Without a reference frame, your statement is meaningless.

Are you talking about A1's view here, or A1's calculated tick rate of A2, once signal delays and Doppler shifts have been factored out?

We really can't look at this any further until you specify what you mean, and clear up the issue with the speeds.

Fantastic. You took the bait. I specifically made the issue of A1 and A2's equal TPS in the form of a stand alone statement (NOTE: ) assuming you would attack that assumption.

Now I hope you can realize that there simply is no bases to argue frames of reference on this issue.

WHY? Because Relativity in its most basic of declarations states "There is no ABSOLUTE motion or VELOCITY. All motion or velocity must be RELATIVE.

HINT: In absence of stating a relative velocity for the Lab or A1 and A2 (each's assumption under relative as being at rest) the rates of operation and displayed times are still based on 1 TPS. Those are local proper times and have not and do not ever change. Their TPS and accumulated displayed times are always equal even according to basic Relativity.

The clocks in absence of stipulating any frame of reference MUST ALL still be 1 TPS and likewise they are continuing to accumulate and display times which are ALL three equal .

However, once you start to invoke SRT you have varying claims as to tick rate of clocks. You yourself have agreed that clocks can not and do not operate at multiple tick rates.

But you try to hide behind simultaneity to argue for such an affect. The simple truth is you cannot claim simultaneity in cases of "RATES" of ticks.

Rates of TPS are immutable basic principles which run concurrent (simultaneously) regardless of any shift in displayed time due to simultaneity.

They are based on local proper time which does not and cannot vary, even under Relativity; without creating the duality of physical clock displays which has been my issue regarding perception vs reality from the start.

Again, are you talking about the rate before or after Doppler shifts and signal delays have been factored out?

Again a strawman objection. This issue does not alter the final conclusion of SRT which are unsupported by basic physics and which are induced arbitrarily as a reality but conflict with possibilities of physics and even conflicts with the "No Absolute Motion" premis of Relativity.

It depends on how they are brought back together, which is something you have failed to specify. You can't bring them back together without accelerating them.

No it doesn't. We are comparing TPS and not accumulated times displayed.

There are no periods of acceleration or deceleration in the test. Only clock performance during constant relative velocity which addresses the claim of t2 = t1 ( 1 - v^2 / c^2 ) ^.5

Now please stick to the issue and give precise proof of any error in my presentation and knock off the innuendo and FIAT declarations involving SRT.

Justify any claim which varies from basic physics. Justify your claim that an observers view of a clocks TPS over rules the clocks local rest TPS upon which it always functions.

Go ahead try. You cannot.

 

[James R]

MacM:

My my. You've made a whole new mess. Let's see if we can help you clean it up.

Remember you set out to show an inconsistency in the theory of relativity itself. You claimed that using relativity, you could show that relativity contradicted itself. You were even bold enough to claim that your understanding of relativity was so much better than everybody else's that they could not possibly find a hole in your argument.

But now you're trying to pick and choose which parts of relativity you want to use in your supposed "disproof". You want to keep some parts in and throw other parts away, replacing them with MacM rubbish. That might show you that the combination of MacM rubbish and relativity doesn't make any sense, but it tells us absolutely nothing about relativity alone.

Let me walk you through your latest string of errors.

t2 = t1 ( 1 - v^2 / c^2 ) ^.5.

1 - While I did not go through a detailed presentation omitting acceleration, clearly our past discussions and the fact that all my tests for 1 1/2 years have specifically stipulated "No acceleration or deceleration periods are being considered". The only thing being considered is the validity of the above time dilation formula based on nothing but relative velocity.

I agree that the above time dilation formula, if properly applied, is a relativistic equation.

What are these numbers you quote, then, and why should we believe them?

(a) t2 = 1 ( 1 - .9^2 ) ^.5 = (1 - .81 ) ^.5 = (.19 )^.5 = 0.436

(b) t2 = 1 ( 1 - .45^2 ) ^.5 = ( 1 - .2025 ) ^.5 = (.7975 ) ^.5 = 0.893

Ok then. This is standard time dilation. Since you are using this, it means you are factoring out signal delays, Doppler shifts etc. Let's keep that in mind, in case we need it later.

If they have velocities of +0.45c and -0.45c in the lab frame, they do not have a velocity of 0.9c relative to each other.

Good. I added the Lab Tech view as an after thought specifically to have you make this claim.

(a) Had I not specified the Lab view is not A1 and A2 at a relative velocity of 0.9c as stipulated?

Yes or No.

You made two statements:

1. The lab sees A1 and A2 as going at +0.45c and -0.45c, respectively.
2. A2 sees A1 going at 0.9c.

These two statements are incompatible. You can have either (1) or (2), but not both at the same time. At least, not if you're supposedly using relativity.

(b) Assuming a 0.9c velocity between A1 and A2 by what justification do you assert that the Lab view is not 0.45c?

Before answering you must also consider that I could have specified it the other way around .

My justification is that if you want to use relativity, you need to use the whole thing, and not just the bits you like at the time.

If you don't plan to use relativity, just say so. But if you do, please don't make claims about it unless you use it properly.

I know and understand the arguement of SRT that Velocity Addition claims that when the velocity between the Lab and A1 and A2 is 0.45c that A1 and A2 sees 0.74844c relative velocity between them. The value is expanded to show that I do the calculation corretly if I choose to do so. I don't.

You choose not to use the velocity addition formula, which is part of the theory of relativity.

Ok, then, but from now on we'll need to keep in mind that any conclusions you come to won't be conclusions that somebody using the theory of relativity would reach.

But you are here making the assumption in the first instance SRT is valid in your analysis. That prejudices your further thinking.

Yes, it does.

What are you trying to do? Have you lost track of your original goal? Are you trying to show me that MacM's rubbish is rubbish, or that relativity is rubbish?

If it's the latter, then you have two options:

1. Show that you have a better system which matches real experiments, when relativity doesn't.
2. Show that relativity contains logical inconsistencies, so that its predictions contradict themselves somehow.

If you choose option (1), then you will need to spell out what your new system is, in detail. If you choose option (2), then you will have to restrict yourself to using relativity itself. No extra MacM rubbish allowed. No picking and choosing parts of the theory while ignoring other parts.

(c) I have allowed this issue to be raised since in the final analysis it does not alter the ultimate conclusion. Vf = ( v + u) / ( 1 + vu / c^2) ^.5.

There's no 0.5 power in the correct version of that formula.

Since we now still merely have three different views with different absolute numbers, which are generated by violating a basic premis of Relativity itself.

You mean, not using the actual theory of relativity? So what?

Agreed and on purpose to show the failure of your logical analysis of SRT as stated above by using SRT as your basis in fact in the first instance. SRT works mathematically only because you assume it works and ignore the consequences of its application..

You haven't shown any consequences of its application. At least, not correct ones, since you have used as assumptions two facts which cannot coexist when you use the theory correctly.

So, which is it? Are they moving at +/- 0.45c relative to the lab, or at 0.9c relative to each other? You can have one or the other, but not both.

I will assume below that you want +/- 0.45c relative to the lab, which means 0.75c relative to each other.

Not at issue. Please stay on point. Using Velocity Addition or not using Velocity Addition does not alter the basic failure of SRT.

What basic failure do you believe you've shown?

...in their own reference frames. Without a reference frame, your statement is meaningless.

Fantastic. You took the bait. I specifically made the issue of A1 and A2's equal TPS in the form of a stand alone statement (NOTE: ) assuming you would attack that assumption.

You mean you just said "A1 and A2 tick at the same rate."

Under what conditions?
According to which observer?
Who is measuring the tick rate?

As an unqualified statement, your statement is just an assertion without proof. You just assume it holds in all reference frames. You've given no actual argument that establishes your claim.

Now I hope you can realize that there simply is no bases to argue frames of reference on this issue.

We can't even start to look at the issue without specifying reference frames.

WHY? Because Relativity in its most basic of declarations states "There is no ABSOLUTE motion or VELOCITY. All motion or velocity must be RELATIVE.

Agreed.

HINT: In absence of stating a relative velocity for the Lab or A1 and A2 (each's assumption under relative as being at rest) the rates of operation and displayed times are still based on 1 TPS.

With no relative velocities specified, all we can say is that each clock, in its own frame, ticks at 1 tick per second. Nobody knows anything about how fast the clocks tick in some other frame.

Those are local proper times and have not and do not ever change.

Agreed. Proper tick rates do not change.

Their TPS and accumulated displayed times are always equal even according to basic Relativity.

There's no way to compare them, unless you specify the relative velocities of the clocks, so this claim is false.

The clocks in absence of stipulating any frame of reference MUST ALL still be 1 TPS and likewise they are continuing to accumulate and display times which are ALL three equal .

If you don't stipulate a frame of reference, you can say NOTHING about the tick rate of a clock. So far, you've specified one frame only: the rest frame of each clock. In the rest frame, the clock ticks at the proper rate, by definition of what a rest frame is. Who knows the rate the clocks tick in other frames? Those frames haven't been specified, so the tick rates could be anything.

However, once you start to invoke SRT you have varying claims as to tick rate of clocks.

Correct.

You yourself have agreed that clocks can not and do not operate at multiple tick rates.

No, I haven't.

Clocks do not operate at more than one tick rate in a single reference frame.

But you try to hide behind simultaneity to argue for such an affect.

I hide behind the vast mountains of data which confirm time dilation. It may be hard to see me, since there are so many piles of paper confirming relativity.

The simple truth is you cannot claim simultaneity in cases of "RATES" of ticks.

Your statement makes no sense. Simultaneity is about things which happen at the same time, or not at the same time. It has nothing to do with rates.

Rates of TPS are immutable basic principles which run concurrent (simultaneously) regardless of any shift in displayed time due to simultaneity.

Simultaneity doesn't shift time. It just says whether events happen at the same time or not.

Poor MacM. You are very confused.

They are based on local proper time which does not and cannot vary, even under Relativity; without creating the duality of physical clock displays which has been my issue regarding perception vs reality from the start.

Maybe one day you will come up with a thought experiment which can show this "dual time" effect you keep harping on about. So far, you've produced nothing. Good luck.

It depends on how they are brought back together, which is something you have failed to specify. You can't bring them back together without accelerating them.

No it doesn't. We are comparing TPS and not accumulated times displayed.

There are no periods of acceleration or deceleration in the test. Only clock performance during constant relative velocity which addresses the claim of t2 = t1 ( 1 - v^2 / c^2 ) ^.5

So, you bring your clocks back so that they are now in the same reference frame, say sitting on the lab bench, and you see that in that reference frame they tick at the same rate. Fine. But you knew that at the start. Why did you send your clocks on a trip in the first place? I thought you wanted to test the tick rates while they were moving.

Now please stick to the issue and give precise proof of any error in my presentation...

Done.

Remember, you need to decide whether you're going to disprove relativity by displaying a new theory which works better or if you want to disprove it by displaying some kind of internal contradiction. If you want to follow path (2), you'll need to use the theory as it is supposed to be used, as a whole. No picking and choosing. No adding MacM rubbish.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

My my. You've made a whole new mess. Let's see if we can help you clean it up.

Once again you claim to much and you have not corrected anything other than 1 typo, which is evident as a typo, since I produced the same result you specified using the formula. 0.74844

Remember you set out to show an inconsistency in the theory of relativity itself. You claimed that using relativity, you could show that relativity contradicted itself. You were even bold enough to claim that your understanding of relativity was so much better than everybody else's that they could not possibly find a hole in your argument.

And so I have. I have shown that none of the flip-flop tactics employed by arbitraily applying unsupported mathematics; which further by their application actually violate the very basic premis of Relativity itself, actually alter the ultimate result.

But now you're trying to pick and choose which parts of relativity you want to use in your supposed "disproof". You want to keep some parts in and throw other parts away, replacing them with MacM rubbish. That might show you that the combination of MacM rubbish and relativity doesn't make any sense, but it tells us absolutely nothing about relativity alone.

Not at all. Use them all. It doesn't alter the conclusion and that was my point. To let you make all your usual arguements about these side issues and then show that they don't change the conclusion. They are irrelavant to the issue..

Let me walk you through your latest string of errors.

You can try but based on your posts here you need to try again. There are no errors in the conclusion.

I agree that the above time dilation formula, if properly applied, is a relativistic equation.

Good.

Ok then. This is standard time dilation. Since you are using this, it means you are factoring out signal delays, Doppler shifts etc. Let's keep that in mind, in case we need it later

You made two statements:

1. The lab sees A1 and A2 as going at +0.45c and -0.45c, respectively.
2. A2 sees A1 going at 0.9c.

These two statements are incompatible. You can have either (1) or (2), but not both at the same time. At least, not if you're supposedly using relativity.

As I also pointed out. But also pointed out that there simply is no basis for the assumption of SRT to look at it in anyother light, particularily when to do so requires that you ignore the most basic premis of Relativity which is there is no "Absolute" motion or velocity.

As a ticking enity, which according to Relativity, views itself as being at rest, hence no motion, hence no change it its local proper time TPS (which equates to accumulated time and physical display of time) All clocks MUST remain physically synchronized and display the same time regardless of relative veolcity and duration of such relative velocity.

Clocks do not tick in accordance to an observers view. They tick and display time according to their local proper time, which in all three cases are at rest, unaltered 1 TPS performance. All clocks remain with a common displayed time regardless of any observers view.

Hence Relativity is not physical reality but is restricted to being a perception.

My justification is that if you want to use relativity, you need to use the whole thing, and not just the bits you like at the time.

More than willing to have you do that as I have pointed out. These diversionary issues have nothing to do with the ultimate failure of the concept. It violates the very principle of "There is no absolute motion or velocity". This premis mandates that no change can occur in the local proper time or TPS of a clock and it will always retain its initial calibrated value regardless of any relative motions as viewed by a remote observer, since it always sees itself as being at rest. (Excluding periods of acceleration which are not at issue here).

If you don't plan to use relativity, just say so. But if you do, please don't make claims about it unless you use it properly.

Don't be so sensative. I have shown that to include all your diversions do not alter the final conclusion. You can use them or don't, I really don't care. The failure is more basic than not using some fudge factor speficically designed to keep the concept mathematically whole when viewed in absence of basic physics and basic relavistic principles.

You choose not to use the velocity addition formula, which is part of the theory of relativity.

Ok, then, but from now on we'll need to keep in mind that any conclusions you come to won't be conclusions that somebody using the theory of relativity would reach.

No but as pointed out it merely changes the absolute values and does not resolve the basic issue of the failure of the concept to be considered a physical change in time of a running clock. The running clock runs at its fixed rate, unchanged by any number of observers moving at a variety of relative velocities. All clocks therefore remain synchronized and continue to tick at a common rate and will forever always display the same accumulated time.

Yes, it does.

What are you trying to do? Have you lost track of your original goal? Are you trying to show me that MacM's rubbish is rubbish, or that relativity is rubbish?

I have infact shown that MacM is not rubbish and Relativity is rubbish.

If it's the latter, then you have two options:

1. Show that you have a better system which matches real experiments, when relativity doesn't.

Not necessary. I only need do what I have done which is show that the twin paradox based on variable clock performance due to relative motion is hogwash and all clocks by basic Relativity remain synchronized and ultimately will display the same amount of accumulated time regardless of motion. The twin does not get yonger.

You (or other physicists) must explain your own claims of evidence otherwise, since you have accepted not only the impossible but something that violates the basic premis of Relativity in the first instance.

2. Show that relativity contains logical inconsistencies, so that its predictions contradict themselves somehow.

Done.

There's no 0.5 power in the correct version of that formula.

That is correct. It is a typo as evidenced by the fact that I too got a 0.74844 answer doing the calculation. You had rounded to 0.75.

You mean, not using the actual theory of relativity? So what?

Go ahead use it to its fullest. You only alter the absolute values of numbers that are in conflict with the basic premis that all clocks operate at a local proper TPS and always view themselves as at rest. I have given you the data both ways just to highlight the fact that all these diversionary tactics don't alter the ultimate conslusion.

You haven't shown any consequences of its application. At least, not correct ones, since you have used as assumptions two facts which cannot coexist when you use the theory correctly.

So are you argueing that clocks do not operate at their local proper time and can display only one accumulted time or are you not?

What basic failure do you believe you've shown?

Clocks all remain synchronized and properly display the same amount of accumulated time regardless of motion, in accordance with the basic principle of Relativity itself.

Hence the arguements of Relativity are in conflict not only with physics possibilities or logic but in conflict with the primary principles of Relativity .

You mean you just said "A1 and A2 tick at the same rate."

Under what conditions?

Under all constant relative velocity conditions.

According to which observer?

Irrelavant to the issue of physical reality. Only has meaning in terms of observation or percepton.

Who is measuring the tick rate?

The physical clocks which are ticking at the same initial rate and are displaying synchronized common accumulated times.

As an unqualified statement, your statement is just an assertion without proof. You just assume it holds in all reference frames. You've given no actual argument that establishes your claim.

Which is mandated by the basic premis of Relativity. It is your assumptioons which are unqualified or unjustified and are in conflict with proveable reality. Your claim to the contrary violates the premis of "No absolute motion or velocity".

We can't even start to look at the issue without specifying reference frames.

We not only have started, we have finished and unless you do better at justifying your desire to ignore the very premis of Relativity your arguement falls flat and is wholly unsupported.

With no relative velocities specified, all we can say is that each clock, in its own frame, ticks at 1 tick per second. Nobody knows anything about how fast the clocks tick in some other frame.

Agreed. But your admission here is all that is needed to show that whatever other observers see the clock tick rate at, it doesn't alter the true TPS at the local proper time which is at the clock and always at rest. Hence all clocks remain synchronized and are displaying a common accumulated time regardless of any relative motions between clocks.

Agreed. Proper tick rates do not change.

Good then you agree that all clocks will upon later inspection have been based on their local proper time TPS and all must therefore remain synchronized since in absence of some absolute motion affect none are given cause for change.

There's no way to compare them, unless you specify the relative velocities of the clocks, so this claim is false.

Irrelavant. The failure of SRT is at a basic level of violating the basic premis of Relativity itself and has nothing to do with any particular relative velocity.

If you don't stipulate a frame of reference, you can say NOTHING about the tick rate of a clock.

Only in a theoretical sense regarding the perception of an observer, which has no bearing on the local proper TPS and performance of the clock.

So far, you've specified one frame only: the rest frame of each clock. In the rest frame, the clock ticks at the proper rate, by definition of what a rest frame is. Who knows the rate the clocks tick in other frames? Those frames haven't been specified, so the tick rates could be anything.

You have just committed to the crux of the issue. The clocks DO infact tick at their local proper time rest rate. Hence you cannot then justify the claim that their time will be made different for anyother observer regardless of relative motion upon final inspection. The displayed time (the real time) does not change; hence SRT is a perception and not a reality.

No, I haven't.

Clocks do not operate at more than one tick rate in a single reference frame.[/qluote]

The correct statement and the only statement which can be justified and supported is not quite as long.

"Clocks do not operate at more than one tick rate ".

This does not address the fact that observers in relative motion may percieve the clock differently; however, the clcok does not change. It's locally displayed time is real time and real time remains unaltered by the perception of an observer in relative motion. It is only the observer that sees the clocks time incorrectly, not that the clock changes time.

I hide behind the vast mountains of data which confirm time dilation. It may be hard to see me, since there are so many piles of paper confirming relativity.

Unfortuantely the pile of paper lies adjacent to the piles one used the paper to wipe off.

Your statement makes no sense. Simultaneity is about things which happen at the same time, or not at the same time. It has nothing to do with rates.

I believe I have already made that point. Which was the reason to do the analysis in the rate form, so as to eliminate simultaneity from the discussion. Glad you now agree that simultaneity does not enter this test.

Just recall that rates of TPS ultimately determine the accumulated times displayed.

Simultaneity doesn't shift time. It just says whether events happen at the same time or not.

I agree and I don't beleive you can show where I have ever said anything to the contrary.

Poor MacM. You are very confused.

Doesn't seem that it is poor MacM that is confused here. You keep wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You can't.

Maybe one day you will come up with a thought experiment which can show this "dual time" effect you keep harping on about. So far, you've produced nothing. Good luck.

Maybe one day you will become man enough or smart enough to understand the truth when it is plastered all over these examples and admit the simple truth - SRT is perception and does not alter the readings of physical clocks upon inspection after the trip.

So, you bring your clocks back so that they are now in the same reference frame, say sitting on the lab bench, and you see that in that reference frame they tick at the same rate. Fine. But you knew that at the start. Why did you send your clocks on a trip in the first place? I thought you wanted to test the tick rates while they were moving.

I have and I have shown that they continue to tick without change (as required by Relativity itself) and that any perception by a moving observer doesn't alter the local proper TPS or displayed time on final inspection.

You stand corrected.

 

[Persol]

The correct statement and the only statement which can be justified and supported is not quite as long.

"Clocks do not operate at more than one tick rate ".

First, this is your entire argument... yet you have no reason to remove the 'per frame of reference'.

Your use of the t2 = t1 ( 1 - v^2 / c^2 ) ^.5. is a red herring. It doesn't in any way disagree with the above sentence (with the reference frame specified).

 

[MacM]

First, this is your entire argument... yet you have no reason to remove the 'per frame of reference'.

Your use of the t2 = t1 ( 1 - v^2 / c^2 ) ^.5. is a red herring. It doesn't in any way disagree with the above sentence (with the reference frame specified).

This does show your limitations mentally.

Of course there is reason to remove the reference to reference frames.

CLOCKS DO NOT TICK IN THOSE FRAMES. THEY TICK ONLY IN THEIR LOCAL PROPER TIME AT REST FRAME.

All other frames of reference are observations of the ticking clock but are not the clock's tick rate. The one that actually rolls up an accumulated time display.

The issue is time displayed vs time perceived. The perceptions of other frames are shown to not be real since they do not and cannot alter the rest frame tick rate. It is that tick rate that is real since it is the only one the clock ever registers. Sheeesssh. :bugeye:

 

[Persol]

The issue is time displayed vs time perceived.

Time displayed is time perceived.... that's how we preceive it.... even in the same frame.

The perceptions of other frames are shown to not be real since they do not and cannot alter the rest frame tick rate.

No, as you are typing this you just jumped through an infinite number of different frames. You are not totally cut off from the rest of the universe, but the exchange of information is delayed... and stays that way.

It is that tick rate that is real since it is the only one the clock ever registers.

It is no more or less 'real' than a clock in another frame of reference. Two duplicate clocks in two different frames will NOT read the same when brought back together. As much as you're tired of hearing this... experiments prove it.

 

[MacM]

Time displayed is time perceived.... that's how we preceive it.... even in the same frame.
No, as you are typing this you just jumped through an infinite number of different frames. You are not totally cut off from the rest of the universe, but the exchange of information is delayed... and stays that way.
It is no more or less 'real' than a clock in another frame of reference. Two duplicate clocks in two different frames will NOT read the same when brought back together. As much as you're tired of hearing this... experiments prove it.

Experiments do not prove your claim. They may or may not show evidence of something but it damn sure isn't time dilation as in a real shift in time.

For your information what you perceive as a moving observer is not real in that upon comparing clocks the tick rate you claimed is not supported. Only the local proper time tick rate is supported in every case. Just as it should be.

Otherwise that is where your theory would cause multiple displays of accumulated times, which it cannot do.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Your theory IS restricted to being perception only and not an actual shift in time.

What is it about Relativity and it's primary principle that you cannot understand. There are no absolute motions or velocities, hence no basis to change the local proper time of clocks. They always see themselves as the stationary rest clock in relative motion cases.

HINT: If they are at rest, there is no basis to alter their TPS. Hence they all retain the common initial TPS and display a common accumulated time display, not some shifted display based on your perception of their tick rate during the relative velocity.

 

[Persol]

but it damn sure isn't time dilation as in a real shift in time.

Can you please just stop throwing out unsupported asserstions? Explain why?

For your information what you perceive as a moving observer is not real in that upon comparing clocks the tick rate you claimed is not supported.

Experiments show that it is supported. Care to show your reasons why it isn't?

 

[MacM]

Can you please just stop throwing out unsupported asserstions? Explain why?
Experiments show that it is supported. Care to show your reasons why it isn't?

I just did. Your experiments may show some kind of affect but it isn't time dilation or change in real time of events since that "Perceived" distorted tick rate vs the local proper time tick rate is not supported.

The only time that can be displayed is the rest frame tick rate because all clocks are always ticking in their rest frame and not in some multiple frames of reference of observers.

Otherwise you are requiring clocks physical clocks to have multiple tick rates.

Granted as long as there is relative motion you might observe a shift in percieved display of time but the only time recorded by the clock is the rest frame tick rate.

By claiming H&K type evidence, which is highly questionable based on Hafele's own admission in the Naval Report but not in the published version, "The data is concerning in that it doesn't support the concept of time dilation", actually caused a shift in the clock's tick rates in accordance with SRT, is the simple fact. that also according to SRT the earth bound clocks should also display the same change in times to be supported from the moving clocks perspective.

That didn't happen. You have only one half of a prediction that purportedly occured. By what basis do you exclude the clocks in the airplanes view of the earth clock from your calculations?

Further to assume that the moving clocks actually did change, since they see themselves as at rest, to have their tick rate vary violates the premis of no absolute motion or velocities.

Stop claiming such unadultrated evidence proves time dilation. It does not, not even if you accepted H&K and H&K claims were not based on altered raw data. H&K is only half of the relavistic relationship. It cannot work as a special favor to the earth observers, it must also work for the airplane pilots and their clocks view, which it DID NOT.

Please take the blinders off.

 

[Pete]

Nothing new here...

MacM is still claiming to understand relativity...

Everyone else is laughing...

 

[James R]

MacM:

Most of your reply to me was irrelevant waffle, so let's cut to the chase.

I wrote:

With no relative velocities specified, all we can say is that each clock, in its own frame, ticks at 1 tick per second. Nobody knows anything about how fast the clocks tick in some other frame.

And your reply was:

Agreed. But your admission here is all that is needed to show that whatever other observers see the clock tick rate at, it doesn't alter the true TPS at the local proper time which is at the clock and always at rest. Hence all clocks remain synchronized and are displaying a common accumulated time regardless of any relative motions between clocks.

This is your entire "argument" (if you can call it that).

But look what you've done. You talk about the "true" tick rate of a clock. You define the "true" rate to be the rate as measured in the clock's rest frame.

But your argument, as you say, relies on this (which is another direct quote of your post):

the most basic premiss of Relativity ... is there is no "Absolute" motion or velocity.

If there is no absolute motion or velocity, what makes the clock rate as measured in the rest frame any more "true" than the rate measured in any other frame?

In relativity, no reference frame is preferred. On the contrary, in MacM's world, the rest frame of the clock is preferrred. It is the "real" frame, and all other frames are "perception".

It is you who is in conflict with the "basic premiss" of relativity. Relativity says no preferred frames. MacM says rest frame = reality and all others are "lesser" frames.

Your conclusion, from your assumption that the rest frame of a clock is special or preferred, is:

Hence all clocks remain synchronized and are displaying a common accumulated time regardless of any relative motions between clocks.

But you haven't shown this. You have simply assumed it, without proof, as you hav done all along.

You have multiple clocks, and each one has a particular tick rate in its own rest frame. But have you established that clock A ticks at the same rate as B in B's rest frame? No. You haven't even started to address that question. You have suggested no method for comparing the tick rates of two clocks. You make a measurement of clock A's rate in one reference frame (A's rest frame). Then you make a measurement of clock B's rate in a different reference frame (B's rest frame). Then, without any proof at all, you claim that B's rate, if measured in A's frame, would be the same as B's rate measured in B's frame, and vice versa.

You'll need to do better than simply repeat unfounded assertions.

You claim:

Clocks do not tick in accordance to an observers view.

But you have completely failed to establish this as fact. It is based on nothing other than MacM's "common sense", and we all know how fallible that is as an indicator of truth.

Here's another formulation of your "argument":

You have just committed to the crux of the issue. The clocks DO infact tick at their local proper time rest rate. Hence you cannot then justify the claim that their time will be made different for anyother observer regardless of relative motion upon final inspection. The displayed time (the real time) does not change; hence SRT is a perception and not a reality.

The term "proper time rest rate" specifies a reference frame - the rest frame. Yes, I agree that, by definition, clocks tick at their rest rate when they are in their rest frame. There's nothing controversial about that.

You again refer to the proper time as "real time", which shows your preference for one frame over all others.

You again provide no argument to show that a clock's rate in any frame other than its rest frame must be the same as the rate in its rest frame.

The correct statement and the only statement which can be justified and supported is not quite as long.

"Clocks do not operate at more than one tick rate ".

This is false.

You need to explain why rest frame time is "real time", and why rest frame time must equal time in all other reference frames.

You stand corrected.

 

[James R]

MacM:

I just noticed a later response of yours:

CLOCKS DO NOT TICK IN THOSE FRAMES. THEY TICK ONLY IN THEIR LOCAL PROPER TIME AT REST FRAME.

This suggests to me a worrying lack of understanding of what a reference frame is, which I thought you would have understood after 2 years of discussions.

Please define the term "reference frame" for me, so I can be sure that you know what the term means.

A single clock ticks in an infinite number of reference frames, not just one. Prove to me that you know what a reference frame is.

 

[Paul T]

No need to read further. You have already assumed to much.

In your scenario.

What are the tick rates of A, B, C when all are together on earth? Doesn't matter just call it 1 tick per second and all clocks are identical and synchronized at 12:00PM, 5 Oct, 2004.

Assume a 1 year trip. During the trip.

What is A's view of its tick rate? 1 tick per second. What does clock "A" read upon return to earth? Well you might try 12:00PM, 5 Oct, 2005.

What is B's view of its tick rate? 1 tick per second. What does clock "B" read upon return to earth? Well you might try 12:00PM, 5 Oct, 2005.

What is C's view of its tick rate? 1 tick per second. What does clock "C" read upon clock A and B's return to earth? Well you might try 12:00PM, 5 Oct, 2005.

Try ask the same question to a group of kindergarten kids, who obviously know nothing about relativity (generally), let alone understand it. Don't you expect them to give you the same answer as you have given above? Those answer like yours are very naive answer. What proof do you have to justify them? Well, if you are no more than a kindergarten kid, you don't have to give any explanation.

I cannot say you have never heard (as you obviousely had) about moun decay matter and how their relative speed to observer somehow lengthen their life. You are free to reject any time dilation involvement in that process, but if you are intelligent enough, you at least could accept the recorded data and possibly also accept that SR's time dilation formulae in a very strange way (you think) predict the process quantitatively. Let's do not make any attempt to conclude that therefore SR must be correct, just accept the data first.

Now, move on...can we design a clock that work based on moun decay...just for convenience sake? Theoretically, no problem. What do you think about this clock running speed for A and B, compared to C (on earth)? Is it too much to accept that those "moun clocks" must not show the exact same time or date? If A and B carry such clock, after 1/2 year the captain reverse its motion and move back to earth and reach earth (C) after a total one year of travelling, again, is it wrong to say that earth's muon clock should not show the elapse time of one year, but more? That's what actual tests have shown us. Now, what evident can you offer to prove that your kindergarten kids' answers are correct?

There is no basis for your assumption of any time shift and indeed you are merely trying to invoke information delay and relavistic mathematics to prove relativity.

Indeed, the same comment should be addressed to you. There is no basis for your assumption of non-existence of time dilation as so-so many tests have proven that time dilation is not only an imagination. You may not like the term "time", but you can actually settle with simple clock-ticking instead of accepting there is "time" involve as I noticed you once said "time" is not measureble. It seem that in your mind you see time as some kind of mystical stuff...something that cannot measured, that even the clock that you have not measuring time. Get over it, MacM...you don't have to picture time in such an abstract fashion. Just see it as clock ticking and yes...just settle with that simple thing. When your clock or watch tick one second, okay just see that as one second time.

You have proven nothing. If you keep the clocks in constant communication using my side band modulation of information exhange via modulated light beams regarding their actual tick rate you find your assumption in the first instance is false.

 

[2inquisitive]

by Paul T;
"Now, move on...can we design a clock that work based on moun decay...just for convenience sake? Theoretically, no problem."
=======================================================

Perhaps you could give me the details of how such a clock could be designed. I mean
the actual mechanics. To begin with, how long does a muon live? The often-quoted
2.2 microseconds is their average mean-life in their 'rest frame.' Why do some live less
than 1 microsecond in their rest frame? Why do some live 10 microseconds in their
rest frame? Could it be because some are more energetic than others? Exactly how
fast are the muons travelling in their 'rest frame'?
Now on to the decay sequence of a 'cosmic ray' (proton?) entering Earth's atmosphere. Do all protons collide with an atom's nucleus at exactly the same altitude?
And what altitude is this exactly? Do all the resulting pions decay into muons and neutrinos at exactly the same altitude? How fast are the pions travelling and does
'time dilation' have any effect on their lifetimes of a few nanoseconds? Exactly how
fast are the muons travelling? Is it .95c? Or .99c? Are they all travelling at the same
speed? Do some muons travel at an oblique angle toward Earth's surface and some
straight down toward the Earth, affecting their travel times? Ahh, but how do they
reach the Earth's surface. I can think of three possibilities.
(1) SR is correct and 'time dilation' extends their lifetime in Earth's frame of reference.
(2) The muons travelling at near the speed of light in Earth's magnetic field or gravitational field increases their energy and thus their lifetimes.
(3) SR's equations that nothing with mass can travel at or beyond the speed of light
does not hold true and the muons are travelling at 7 to 14 times the speed of light.

Now, tell me again why a muon's lifetime of 2.2ms is increased by time dilation and why
some muons expire in less than a microsecond? Try to keep it on an adult level, none
of those childlike thought experiments of trains travelling at near 'c' speeds and looking
at clocks lightyears away that are travelling at near 'c' speeds. SR is full of those
childlike thought experiments that are impossible to actually perform, thus making it
impossible to descredit them. And, Paul T, has your captain really travelled one-half
light year into space, then reversed his course and returned to Earth to show his
clock recorded less time? You said it had been PROVEN by actual tests.

 

[MacM]

Nothing new here...

MacM is still claiming to understand relativity...

Everyone else is laughing...

I see you lack an answer for the reciprocity issue. Hmmmm.