Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[Pete]

You appear to not only have insufficent information to stipulate 0.9 light-seconds but I disagree with your conclusions. However, this is off topic. If you post it elsewhere I may participate.

It's a direct continuation of your challenge, Mac. I'm sorry it wasn't clear to you.
That's where the 0.9 came from, and also why it's relevant.

Try again. Exactly what conclusion/s do you disagree with and why?

 

[Pete]

Right after you do the calculations and post your data.

I agree with your calculations, and maintain that they are meaningless.

It's much like the following fallacious argument:

An olympic sprinter runs past you at 10m/s.
From his point of view, his speed is 0 and you speed is 10m/s.

Since 10-10 is zero, we should conclude that the velocity difference is perception only, that you and the sprinter are in fact moving at the same speed.

It's not very sensible is it?

So.
I challenge you to spell out your logic.

 

[MacM]

But in any given reference frame, the velocities are not necessarily reciprocal (there is only one frame in which they are).

Let's see why this is important in the context of your synchronization procedure.


In [post=684082]this post[/post], I addressed Mac's attempt to show that two moving clocks can be synchronized in all frames at once.

Here is the point of divergence:


I maintain that this is only true if the two clocks have equal speed in opposite directions.

For example, it isn't true if one clock is stationary and the other is moving.

Mac says that the relative velocity is all that matters, and went on to develop his "reciprocity" notion.

We followed with a short discusion about cars on the highway.

Let's take it from there:

Mac maintains that for two objects in constant relative motion, if two events happen at the same time on both objects, then each will observe the others event at the same time as well.

False. I have not claimed that.

Let's test it out:

Object A is sitting still.
Object B flies past at 0.5c

When B is 1 light second away, both objects simultaneously send a flash of light to each other.

According to MacM, this means that both objects will receive the others flash of light at the same time.

Is this true?

Of course but you are missing the point and you are putting words in my mouth.

 

[Pete]

False. I have not claimed that.

Really?

Then please explain the difference between these two statements:

"for two objects in constant relative motion, if two events happen at the same time on both objects, then each will observe the others event at the same time as well. "

"any change in the system relative between clocks will be observed by each clock at the same actual instant if the change(s) are induced locally at each clock at the same instant."

 

[MacM]

I agree with your calculations, and maintain that they are meaningless.

Finally. At least you seem to agree that relavistic calculations which can justifiably be arbitrarily chosen to have either A or B as the rest frame when compared mathematically the results show a "Null" time dilation".

That is progress at least.

Now to have you say that is meaningless is another matter. I think that is a bit more difficult to justify. If the comparison is meaningless then each calculation must also be meaningless. Are you sure you want to take this position?

It's much like the following fallacious argument:

An olympic sprinter runs past you at 10m/s.
From his point of view, his speed is 0 and you speed is 10m/s.

Since 10-10 is zero, we should conclude that the velocity difference is perception only, that you and the sprinter are in fact moving at the same speed.

It's not very sensible is it?

Neither correct nor aplicable to the issue at hand. Both are not moving at the same speed simultaneously. either one or ther other are moving at that speed and the outher is simultaneously at rest.

So.
I challenge you to spell out your logic.

I do believe this has been done many times. The very fact that Relativity mandates that either clock may be assumed at rest means selection of a particular view is arbitrary. It also means it is required that to select the opposite view is equally valid and that to do so must produce the same result for the other clock.

That being the case there can be no realistic view based on physics, and not some unsupported claim that there will be a real change between clocks with relative velocity, upon returning those clocks to a common rest frame and compared.

There simply is no basis or way to ignore that conclusion by Relativity itself.

Your claim now is the following:

A =10
B=10
A - B = 0

but

B - A = X a non zero value.

Please justify this unsupported view.

 

[Pete]

Object A is sitting still.
Object B flies past at 0.5c

When B is 1 light second away, both objects simultaneously send a flash of light to each other.

According to MacM, this means that both objects will receive the others flash of light at the same time.

Is this true?

Of course

Are you sure about that? We may be at the heart of our disagreement.

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3349&stc=1">

 

[Pete]

Finally. At least you seem to agree that relavistic calculations which can justifiably be arbitrarily chosen to have either A or B as the rest frame when compared mathematically the results show a "Null" time dilation".

No - What don't you understand about "I maintain that they are meaningless"?
I agree that A-B = 0 - and that's all.

You have yet to explain what you think the quantity A-B means in reality. Please do so.

 

[Pete]

Your claim now is the following:

A =10
B=10
A - B = 0

but

B - A = X a non zero value.

I think not.
Please explain why you think that is my claim.

 

[MacM]

Really?

Then please explain the difference between these two statements:

"for two objects in constant relative motion, if two events happen at the same time on both objects, then each will observe the others event at the same time as well. "

"any change in the system relative between clocks will be observed by each clock at the same actual instant if the change(s) are induced locally at each clock at the same instant."

I do not think your statement makes clear that there is a delay in observation of the events in question. I can be interpreted correctly but it is not my wording and I feel it leaves open to much room for misinterpretation.

 

[Pete]

It's much like the following fallacious argument:

An olympic sprinter runs past you at 10m/s.
From his point of view, his speed is 0 and you speed is 10m/s.

Since 10-10 is zero, we should conclude that the velocity difference is perception only, that you and the sprinter are in fact moving at the same speed.

It's not very sensible is it?

Neither correct nor aplicable to the issue at hand. Both are not moving at the same speed simultaneously.

Yes they are - but in different reference frames. Just like A and B in your argument.

This is exactly analogous to your attempt at logic, and illustrates why I discard it as meaningless.

Just as the calculation 10-10=0 doesn't have a physical meaning in the above scenario, you calculation of A-B=0 has no physical meaning in your scenario.

 

[MacM]

Yes they are - but in different reference frames. Just like A and B in your argument.

This is exactly analogous to your attempt at logic, and illustrates why I discard it as meaningless.

Just as the calculation 10-10=0 doesn't have a physical meaning in the above scenario, you calculation of A-B=0 has no physical meaning in your scenario.

Your statement is only partially true. Their motion is as you say comperable to equating relative velocity between A and B but it isn't applicable to the A - B situations since we are not dealing with the velocity itself but the proclaimed affect on clocks as having been slowed due to relative velocity.

Lets see if I can emphasize the differance.

What your runner case above actually states when subjected to reciprocity is that there is no differance in there views of relative velocity. Which is true and necessary.

Likewise the reciprocity issue in Relativity mandates that there is no time dilation between the two clocks moving at relative velocity because there is no differential in their view of the relative velocity mathematically they must both be affected equally hence no net differential.

 

[Pete]

Likewise the reciprocity issue in Relativity mandates that there is no time dilation between the two clocks moving at relative velocity because there is no differential in their view of the relative velocity, mathematically they must both be affected equally hence no net differential in accumulated time.

What exactly does "net differential in accumulated time" correspond to in reality, Mac?

Why would it affect the reality of the time difference in a particular reference frame?

And why are you only considering the time differentials in those two reference frames? There are infinitely many to consider.

Your logic is full of holes.

 

[MacM]

What exactly does "net differential in accumulated time" correspond to in reality, Mac?

It corresponds to no time dialtion in reality.

Why would it affect the reality of the time difference in a particular reference frame?

It doesn't it corresponds to time dilation in moving frames being perception and no change in actual physical clocks - I. E. - Perception.

And why are you only considering the time differentials in those two reference frames? There are infinitely many to consider.

All the more reason to consider such frames as perception otherwise you are creating multiple tick rates in clocks. You cannot retun a dilated clock back to a rest frame and compare clocks to see any such affect. It requires multiple tick rates in clocks; which does not happen since clocks brought back and compared do not show any lsuch affect.

Your logic is full of holes.

Your logic is full of holes. Time dilation as seen by a moving observer is Perception. Clock accumulated time is reality. Accumulated time does not support the multiple tick rate view.

 

[Pete]

Since you are reduced to repeating your conclusions with no justification, I think we can call that part of the discussion over.


Don't forget about the other issue -

Do you still maintain that "any change in the system relative between clocks will be observed by each clock at the same actual instant if the change(s) are induced locally at each clock at the same instant"?

Recap:

Object A is sitting still.
Object B flies past at 0.5c

When B is 1 light second away, both objects simultaneously send a flash of light to each other.

According to MacM, this means that both objects will receive the others flash of light at the same time.

Is this logical?
<hr>
<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3349&stc=1">

 

[Paul T]

Challenge:

Clocks A and B have a relative velocity of 0.9c. They arrived at this condition from equal acceleration apart in deep space where their is no gravity affect.

Now calculate A's time from A's view and A's view of B's time based on tick rates where 1 = 1 tick per second. This is done to remove the issue of simultaneity from the arguement so as to concentrate on the issue at hand - Relative Velocity affects by Relativity.

Just as expected "None". There is no time dilation in physical reality.

In the event you choose to not perform the calculations yourself let me post the correct answers to the above kindergarten quiz on Relativity.

A's view of A's rate = 1.0000, A's view of B's rate = 0.4359 ticks per second.

B's view of B's rate = 1.0000, B's view of A's rate = 0.4359 ticks per second.

Differentials:

A - B and B - A = 0.0000

A's view - B's view and vicea-versa = 0.0000

Now show an error in my computation or admit your failure to properly lable Relativity's time dilation as being perception and not reality.

The error is that you comparing result from two separate reference frames. If you want to compare two clocks reading, you should bring both clocks to one reference frame. Say in your above example, while A and B are having relative velocity of 0.9c, they both find the other clock ticking rate is slower than the one he/she has. It is meaningless to compare their clock reading in that situation. "Bring" the clock into the reference frame that you choose as the rest reference frame (any of the two), then you can compare them. Once you decided, say, A as the rest reference frame, you break the system symmetry. Then you bring B's clock (physical clock or just the clock reading) to A's reference frame.

1) Bring B's clock reading to A's reference frame

Put another observer who is stationary relative to A, along the path of B motion. When B passes this observer, take the reading of B's block.​

2) Bring B's clock to A's reference frame

Decelerate B, then accelerate it so that it is stationary relative to A.​

When this is done, you will find that B's clock runs slower than A's clock. Use Lorentz's transformation or other method to compute the time in B as seen by A. This what I would do if I were you, rather than wasting time arguing as you are doing now. I am sure you will carry on arguing your pointless method to 'nullify' time dilation after this post.

 

[James R]

MacM:

As usual, you choose to ignore simple demonstrations of your stupidity. That is most convenient for you, isn't it.

I must say, your continual lies and avoidance have considerably diminished my respect for you. I really thought you had more integrity than you do. You seemed polite enough, and at one time you seemed willing to work through problems until agreement was reached. But now you just dig your heels in, put on the blindfold, stick your fingers in your ears and recite the same comforting MacM mantras over and over, pretending that nobody else can see your faults.

You're making yourself look like an idiot, and nobody really wants to talk to an idiot for long.

So, how about you start to show some integrity and address some of the issues which have been put to you.

* Comment on the spacetime diagrams which have been presented to you.
* Comment on my mathematical derivation.
* Try to come up with an alternative which doesn't involve unsupported assertions and MacM fantasy-relativity.

Let's start with a very easy one: Pete's simple diagram and situation. Can you answer his simple question?

Here it is:

Object A is sitting still.
Object B flies past at 0.5c, heading to the left.

When B is 1 light second away, both objects simultaneously send a flash of light to each other.

According to MacM, this means that both objects will receive the others flash of light at the same time.

Is this true? Yes or no?

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3349&stc=1">

A simple yes or no answer is all that is required, initially. I know it will be hard for you to answer, because it will mean committing yourself to something. In fact, I have no real expectation that you'll answer at all.

Unlike you, I address your scenarios in detail, so I will look at your latest twist.

Challenge:

Clocks A and B have a relative velocity of 0.9c. They arrived at this condition from equal acceleration apart in deep space where their is no gravity affect.

Now calculate A's time from A's view and A's view of B's time based on tick rates where 1 = 1 tick per second. This is done to remove the issue of simultaneity from the arguement so as to concentrate on the issue at hand - Relative Velocity affects by Relativity.

A's rate ?________, A's view of B's rate?_________

Your problem is not well specified, so I will make the following assumption:

* Clocks A and B tick at 1 tick per second in their rest frames.

Answers:

A's rate according to A: 1 tick per second.
B's rate according to A: 0.436 ticks per second.

Now apply reciprocity:

Calculate B's view of B's clock and B's view of A's clock.

B's rate?_________, B's view of A's rate?__________

B's rate according to B: 1 tick per second.
A's rate according to B: 0.436 ticks per second.

Note the symmetry.

You never answered my question about the difference between "symmetry" and "reciprocity", so I don't know if these things means the same thing to you or not. Frankly, I don't care any more, since you don't have the courtesy to address questions put to you on multiple occasions.

Having gotten correect time dilation factors, what is the differential in terms of recorded times of A - B and B - A's recorded rates locally?___________

Can't answer this, because it is not specified when the times are recorded, and who by. Also, it is not specified when the clocks are stopped, or how they are stopped.

Frankly, you were doing better with your original 2-clock scenario, which I am sure by now is but an unhappy distant memory for you.

What is the differance between A's view - B's view of the other clocks rate and vice versa?________________

Same. Not enough information to be able to answer.

Just as expected "None". There is no time dilation in physical reality.

How did you calculate this? You are obviously using information you have not provided to us.

In the event you choose to not perform the calculations yourself let me post the correct answers to the above kindergarten quiz on Relativity.

A's view of A's rate = 1.0000, A's view of B's rate = 0.4359 ticks per second.
B's view of B's rate = 1.0000, B's view of A's rate = 0.4359 ticks per second.

Correct, but these aren't just "views". B really does tick at 0.436 ticks per second in A's reference frame.

And yes, Virginia, two objects with different speeds can exist in the same reference frame. Chew on that one for a while.

Differentials:

A - B and B - A = 0.0000

A's view - B's view and vicea-versa = 0.0000

Please provide the information you used to calculate this.

Now show an error in my computation or admit your failure to properly lable Relativity's time dilation as being perception and not reality.

Please provide the required information.

HINT: There is no changes in the twins ages DUE TO RELATIVE VELOCITY.

Twins? Who mentioned twins? Bait and switch?

HINT: Claims that muon decay or the H&K Atomic Clock tests prove relativity are fraudulent statements.

Correct. It is a good thing nobody in history has ever claimed that, then, isn't it?

Both actually violate Relativity itself with respect to relative velocity and Relativity.

False. Unsupported assertion, as usual.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

As usual, you choose to ignore simple demonstrations of your stupidity.

Let me suggest that it is your stupidity that we must address.

That is most convenient for you, isn't it.

Whatever this means?

I must say, your continual lies

Your repeated assertions that I have lied and lie regularily is more than annoying it is unwarranted slander and is not appreciated. I only tolerate you so as to not permit you the pleasure of trying to run me off with your insults.

"Stick and Stones"

and avoidance have considerably diminished my respect for you.

Ditto.

I really thought you had more integrity than you do. You seemed polite enough, and at one time you seemed willing to work through problems until agreement was reached. But now you just dig your heels in, put on the blindfold, stick your fingers in your ears and recite the same comforting MacM mantras over and over, pretending that nobody else can see your faults.

They and you cannot see or admit your own falults. I have been given no viable reason to alter my view or to accept yours.

You're making yourself look like an idiot, and nobody really wants to talk to an idiot for long.

Ditto.

So, how about you start to show some integrity and address some of the issues which have been put to you.

I have, so knock off the innuendo, and how about addressing my questions while you are at it. Stop interjecting different scenarios. Just answer straight forward the question put to you.

* Comment on the spacetime diagrams which have been presented to you.
* Comment on my mathematical derivation.

None of which directly address to the reciprocity issue.

* Try to come up with an alternative which doesn't involve unsupported assertions and MacM fantasy-relativity.

So you claim reciprocity is a fantasy. Good luck.

Let's start with a very easy one: Pete's simple diagram and situation. Can you answer his simple question?

Here it is:

A simple yes or no answer is all that is required, initially. I know it will be hard for you to answer, because it will mean committing yourself to something. In fact, I have no real expectation that you'll answer at all.

No. but just where did you ever get the idea that simultaneity addresses reciprocity????

Unlike you, I address your scenarios in detail, so I will look at your latest twist.

Innuendo.

Your problem is not well specified, so I will make the following assumption:

* Clocks A and B tick at 1 tick per second in their rest frames.

Some stretch to conclude after these many months of talking about tick rate and 1 tick per second that maybe we are using a standard tick rate. but then it wouldn't appear you are superior to just state your assumption without casting innuendo would it.

Answers:

A's rate according to A: 1 tick per second.
B's rate according to A: 0.436 ticks per second.

B's rate according to B: 1 tick per second.
A's rate according to B: 0.436 ticks per second.

Note the symmetry.[/quote]

You are telling me to note the symmetry. LOL :bugeye:

You never answered my question about the difference between "symmetry" and "reciprocity", so I don't know if these things means the same thing to you or not. Frankly, I don't care any more, since you don't have the courtesy to address questions put to you on multiple occasions.

SYMMETRY: Similarity of form or arrangement on either side of a dividing line or plane.

RECIPROCITY: Recipocal state or relationship , mutual action, dependance, etc.

A curve need not be symmetrical to have reciprocity.

Can't answer this, because it is not specified when the times are recorded, and who by. Also, it is not specified when the clocks are stopped, or how they are stopped.

What a joke. PLease read the problem. The question you can't answer here is what is A's view of A's clock and B's view of B's clock. Let me suggest:

a - Times were recorded when they turned on their clocks.

b - They turned them on.

c - The clocks were stopped when they shut them off.

d - I guess they pushed a button or maybe in this future age of hyperspace drives they simply said "Stop Clock" and the computer did it. Give me a break. You can't even handle local proper time.?

Frankly, you were doing better with your original 2-clock scenario, which I am sure by now is but an unhappy distant memory for you.

Why on earth would you say that?

Same. Not enough information to be able to answer.

Yours is a pathetic resonse James R. Given information of relative velocity and t1, you are unable to compute t2 = t1(1 - v²/c²)^.5?

You do seem bent on waffleing and weaving. We are dealing with tick rates. Tick rates are not subject to simultaneity - Remember? That is why I have gone to tick rates is to undo you protective armor of playing hide and seek with the truth.

How did you calculate this? You are obviously using information you have not provided to us.

Damn I gave you far to much credit before. You have all the information you need to come to a conclusion. t1, relative velocity, the time dilation formula, compute both views and subtract one from the other. If there is not tick rate differential there is no accumulated time differentials.

Correct, but these aren't just "views". B really does tick at 0.436 ticks per second in A's reference frame.

You just don't get it. When you stipulate a frame other than the ticking clocks rest frame you are speaking of perception, not the clocks actual tick rate. Your claims otherwise are baseless, unsupported by evidence and inconsistant with reciprocity mandated by the principles of relativity itself.

And yes, Virginia, two objects with different speeds can exist in the same reference frame. Chew on that one for a while.

I will but that has nothing to do with this issue.

Please provide the information you used to calculate this.

You are either playing stupid or you are stupid. Which is it?

Please provide the required information.

Twins? Who mentioned twins? Bait and switch?

Knock of the bullshit. "Bait and Switch" my ass. the twins is the favorite topic for claiming time dilation due to relative veloicty.

Correct. It is a good thing nobody in history has ever claimed that, then, isn't it?

Talk about "Bait and Switch"? Are you trying to now say that nobody has ever claimed munon decay and H&K Clock tests prove relativity? You cannot be taken seriously.

False. Unsupported assertion, as usual.

Please stop lying.

You have a choice you are either a liar here or here:

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3354&stc=1

Which is it?

 

[James R]

MacM:

Most of your post contains no substance, so I'll ignore those parts and only reply to the substantive parts.

Let's start with a very easy one: Pete's simple diagram and situation. Can you answer his simple question?

No. but just where did you ever get the idea that simultaneity addresses reciprocity????

I am not sure what you're "no" refers to.

Are you answering "no" to Pete's question? In other words, are you now agreeing that when light is emitted simultaneously from A and B it does not reach the other clock simultaneously? Please be clear.

As for simultaneity addressing reciprocity, you still haven't defined "reciprocity" well enough for me to be able to answer. More on this below. I note that the term "reciprocity" is hardly ever, if ever, used in relativity.

You are telling me to note the symmetry. LOL

Yes. LOL.

SYMMETRY: Similarity of form or arrangement on either side of a dividing line or plane.

RECIPROCITY: Recipocal state or relationship , mutual action, dependance, etc.

The term "symmetry" in physics is used more widely than your definition. It is usually used to refer to a property of a system which stays the same when some kind of transformation is made on the system. Thus, if elapsed time for two observers is the same when similar processes occur then we can say that there is a symmetry between the observers, for example.

Your definition of "reciprocity" is circular, and therefore seems to be useless. It is also vague.

What is it supposed to mean in the context of relativity?

A curve need not be symmetrical to have reciprocity.

Please explain, and give an example of a curve which is not symmetrical but which has reciprocity.

Can't answer this, because it is not specified when the times are recorded, and who by. Also, it is not specified when the clocks are stopped, or how they are stopped.

What a joke. PLease read the problem. The question you can't answer here is what is A's view of A's clock and B's view of B's clock.

I have already read the problem. The required information is not in it, as I said.

I have answered the tick rate questions, which is the most that can be done with the given information.

Let me suggest:

a - Times were recorded when they turned on their clocks.

Which was when? I asked this before.

b - They turned them on.

When?

c - The clocks were stopped when they shut them off.

When did they shut them off? I asked this before, too. Remember?

d - I guess they pushed a button or maybe in this future age of hyperspace drives they simply said "Stop Clock" and the computer did it. Give me a break. You can't even handle local proper time.?

Your last statement here bears no relation to the ones before. You seem confused.

Yours is a pathetic resonse James R. Given information of relative velocity and t1, you are unable to compute t2 = t1(1 - v2/c2).5?

No. I can do that. You haven't specified t1.

You do seem bent on waffleing and weaving. We are dealing with tick rates. Tick rates are not subject to simultaneity - Remember?

I already answered your questions about tick rates. The ones I couldn't answer were about total elapsed times. Try to keep up.

Damn I gave you far to much credit before. You have all the information you need to come to a conclusion. t1, relative velocity, the time dilation formula, compute both views and subtract one from the other.

You haven't specified t1.

You just don't get it. When you stipulate a frame other than the ticking clocks rest frame you are speaking of perception, not the clocks actual tick rate.

False. The rest frame is just another frame, like any other.

Your claims otherwise are baseless, unsupported by evidence and inconsistant with reciprocity mandated by the principles of relativity itself.

What is this "reciprocity" thing? Why does it not appear in any text on relativity, if it is so important? Oh, that's right. The people who write the textbooks don't know what they are talking about. Yeah, sure.

And yes, Virginia, two objects with different speeds can exist in the same reference frame. Chew on that one for a while.

I will but that has nothing to do with this issue.

Let me know when you reach a conclusion.

You are either playing stupid or you are stupid. Which is it?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Knock of the bullshit. "Bait and Switch" my ass. the twins is the favorite topic for claiming time dilation due to relative veloicty.

I thought you specified constant velocity only. The twin paradox involves acceleration. Make up your mind.

Are you trying to now say that nobody has ever claimed munon decay and H&K Clock tests prove relativity?

Yes.

You cannot be taken seriously.

Then you find me one quote from a published source which says "the muon decay experiments prove that relativity is correct", or something of that kind.

You can't.

You have a choice you are either a liar here or here:

[link]

Which is it?

I have no idea what you're talking about. There are no inconsistencies in my statements. If there were, you could point them out by quoting the relevant parts and showing the inconsistency.

Instead, you just make unsupported assertions, as usual.

 

[Pete]

Hi Mac,
When you've finished foaming at the mouth, can we get back to the issue at hand?

If James infuriates you so much, why don't you put him on your ignore list?

 

[MacM]

Hi Mac,
When you've finished foaming at the mouth, can we get back to the issue at hand?

If James infuriates you so much, why don't you put him on your ignore list?

It really isn't a matter of being infuriated or foaming at the mouth. He is just going to get whatever he dishes out. One does not call me a liar. I do not lie.

I can be mistaken or make an error but I do not lie and I do resent his tendancy to think that denegarating other elevates himself. It does not.