In a recent post James suggested I post the new 3 Clock question for review. I thought I had done so but it appears I haven't so here it is.

To eliminate numerous argumentative points about acceleration, synchronization, simultaniety, and to correct improper differential velocities used in the first 3 Clock Paradox, etc, the test is designed to use only periods of linear velocity between clocks and is based on VAF calculated differential velocities.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html

Time dilation: t' = t/(1-(v/c)^2)^.5

http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~tawfiq/Relativity/L13.pdf

Velocity Addition Formula gamma = (u+v)/(1+vu/c^2).

In the original 3 Clocks I had used space clocks traveling at 0.2c and 0.3c and had taken the delta v between the space clocks as 0.1c. This introduced an error as follows: (.3 - .2)/(1+(.2*.3)) = .1/1.06 = 0.094339 or 6% difference. However, that difference does not resolve the issue. The following tables use the VAF to keep the number correct.


TEST: Dan K. McCoin - 3 Clock Paradox

Place three clocks in space traveling in a common vector. They will have different velocites and each will monitor the rate of clock ticks of the other clocks in comparison to their own clock for a period of 10 hours per their clock and the respective clock rates are recorded by a counter. The clocks output ticks one per second their local time. At which time they stop their counters for the other clocks and raise a flag to indicate they have stopped their test but leave their clock running until all observers have raised their flag declaring the test is over.

Dilation Rate is set by Relativity as t' = t/ (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

"A's Perspective:........................Ticks Counted for Clocks
"A" at rest......., v =0.00c......................36,000
"B" relative to "A" v =0.50c...............31,176
"C" relative to "A" v =0.75c...............13,176

Note: Relavistic differential velocity between "B" and "C" is (.75-.5)/(1+(.5*.75)) = .25/1.375 = 0.1818 c

"B's" Perspective:
"B"..........(Ref =Rest)..........................36,000
"A".........(0.5000 c Delta)...................31,176
"C".........(0.1818 c delta)...................35,388

"C's" Perspective:
"C"...............(Ref = Rest)....................36,000
"A".................................................. ....13,176
"B".................................................. ....35,388

Summary of recorded time dilations of clocks by each observer:

A total of (4) different times for (3) Clocks 36,000, 35,388, 31,176 and 13,176 counts are recorded. And;

"A" must simultaneously display 36,000, 31,176 and 13,176 counts. That corresponds to a local time flow as being 10 h, 8.66 h and 3.66 h.

"B" must simultaneously display 36,000, 35,388 and 31,176 counts. Which corresponds to 10 h, 9.83 h and 8.66 h.

"C" must simultaneously display 36,000, 35,388 and 13,176 counts.Corresponding to 10 h, 9.83 h and 3.66 h.

Now since physical clocks cannot dilate at multiple rates nor simultaneously display three different times, it should be obvious that Relativity is computing perception and not reality.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM:

Ok. Let's look at this again. First, the relative velocities:

From A's perspective:

A: v = 0
B: v = 0.50 c (gamma = 1.15)
C: v = 0.75 c (gamma = 1.51)

From B's perspective:

A: v = - 0.50 c (gamma = 1.15)
B: v = 0
C: v = 0.40 c (gamma = 1.09)

From C's perspective:

A: v = -0.75 c (gamma = 1.51)
B: v = -0.40 c (gamma = 1.09)
C: v = 0

Note that the figure 0.40 c comes from a correct application of the relativistic velocity addition formula. Please tell me if you disagree with this.

Here's what each observer sees:

<u>Observer A</u>

Clock A ticks off 10 hours, or 36000 seconds. At the exact second the 36000th tick happens, A puts its flag up to indicate it has finished the test. At that instant, the times A sees on the other two clocks are (ignoring the time it takes light to travel from the other clocks to A):

B: 36000/1.15 = 31304 seconds
C: 36000/1.51 = 23841 seconds.

So, at this time, A has not yet seen either of the other two clocks put its flag up. When that does happen, B's flag goes up before C's, according to A.

<u>Observer B</u>

Clock B ticks off 10 hours, or 36000 seconds. At the exact second the 36000th tick happens, B puts its flag up to indicate it has finished the test. At that instant, the times B sees on the other two clocks are:

A: 36000/1.15 = 31304 seconds
C: 36000/1.09 = 33027 seconds.

So, at this time, B has not yet seen either of the other two clocks put its flag up. When that does happen, A's flag goes up before C's, according to B.

<u>Observer C</u>

Clock C ticks off 10 hours, or 36000 seconds. At the exact second the 36000th tick happens, C puts its flag up to indicate it has finished the test. At that instant, the times C sees on the other two clocks are:

A: 36000/1.51 = 23841 seconds
B: 36000/1.09 = 33027 seconds.

So, at this time, C has not yet seen either of the other two clocks put its flag up. When that does happen, A's flag goes up before B's, according to C.

<u>Summary</u>

In terms of when the flags go up:

A sees his own flag go first, followed by B then C.
B sees his own flag go first, then A then C.
C sees his own flag go first, then A then B.

Once again, this shows that the ordering of events is different for different observers in relative motion.

You have made a couple of incorrect statements. The first is your calculation of the relative speed of clock C, as seen by B. The second is in your conclusions, where, for example, you say:
"A" must simultaneously display 36,000, 31,176 and 13,176 counts. That corresponds to a local time flow as being 10 h, 8.66 h and 3.66 h.
A can not and does not simultaneously display three different times. For each observer, at any particular time, A only ever shows one reading. However, events which are regarded as simultaneous by one observer are not simultaneous from another observer's point of view. So, for example, when A's clock reads 36000s, A says that at the same time (ACCORDING TO A), B's clock reads 31304 seconds. But when B's clock reads 31304 seconds ACCORDING to B, A's clock DOES NOT read 36000 seconds, according to B.

There is nothing at all paradoxical about this, once you accept the relativity of simultaneity. The entire description is logically consistent.

James R.,


Ok. Let's look at this again. First, the relative velocities:

From A's perspective:

A: v = 0
B: v = 0.50 c (gamma = 1.15)
C: v = 0.75 c (gamma = 1.51)

From B's perspective:

A: v = - 0.50 c (gamma = 1.15)

?: This is not an arguement but what justification is there to apply a (-) sign to "A's" velocity relative to "B". "B" has assumed a rest position and in his view the velocity is "+".

B: v = 0
C: v = 0.40 c (gamma = 1.09)

?:Initial conditions: B = 0.5 c and C = 0.75 c (Newronian delta = 0.25 c) VAF is (.75 - .5)/(1 -vu/c^2) = .25/.625 = .4

I agree. I mixed the +'s and -'s.

From C's Perspective:

A: v = -0.75 c (gamma = 1.51)
B: v = -0.40 c (gamma = 1.09)
C: v = 0

?:Again I don't see the justification to apply (-) velocities. Relative to "C" all velocities are viewed as +.

Note that the figure 0.40 c comes from a correct application of the relativistic velocity addition formula. Please tell me if you disagree with this.

ANS: Yes

Here's what each observer sees:

Observer A

Clock A ticks off 10 hours, or 36000 seconds. At the exact second the 36000th tick happens, A puts its flag up to indicate it has finished the test. At that instant, the times A sees on the other two clocks are (ignoring the time it takes light to travel from the other clocks to A):

B: 36000/1.15 = 31304 seconds
C: 36000/1.51 = 23841 seconds.

So, at this time, A has not yet seen either of the other two clocks put its flag up. When that does happen, B's flag goes up before C's, according to A.

ANS: We agree.

Observer B

Clock B ticks off 10 hours, or 36000 seconds. At the exact second the 36000th tick happens, B puts its flag up to indicate it has finished the test. At that instant, the times B sees on the other two clocks are:

A: 36000/1.15 = 31304 seconds
C: 36000/1.09 = 33027 seconds.

So, at this time, B has not yet seen either of the other two clocks put its flag up. When that does happen, A's flag goes up before C's, according to B.

ANS: I believe "B" will see "C's" flag before "A's"

Observer C

Clock C ticks off 10 hours, or 36000 seconds. At the exact second the 36000th tick happens, C puts its flag up to indicate it has finished the test. At that instant, the times C sees on the other two clocks are:

A: 36000/1.51 = 23841 seconds
B: 36000/1.09 = 33027 seconds.

So, at this time, C has not yet seen either of the other two clocks put its flag up. When that does happen, A's flag goes up before B's, according to C.

ANS: Again I believe "C" will see "B's" flag fefore "A's"

Summary

In terms of when the flags go up:

A sees his own flag go first, followed by B then C.

ANS: Yes

B sees his own flag go first, then A then C.

ANS: No. His own, C then A.


C sees his own flag go first, then A then B.

ANS: No. C see his flag then "B" then "A".

Once again, this shows that the ordering of events is different for different observers in relative motion.

ANS: We agree but that doesn't resolve the issue.


You have made a couple of incorrect statements. The first is your calculation of the relative speed of clock C, as seen by B.


ANS: We agree. I used + and I should have used - in the VAF.

The second is in your conclusions, where, for example, you say:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A" must simultaneously display 36,000, 31,176 and 13,176 counts. That corresponds to a local time flow as being 10 h, 8.66 h and 3.66 h.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A can not and does not simultaneously display three different times. For each observer, at any particular time, A only ever shows one reading.

ANS: Bad choice of words on my part. The clock does only show one time 10 hours but the counters which predict time aboard other flights do not agree with the times those observers record.

Other observers claim that "A" shouldn't be 36,000 counts it should be either 31,304 (B's view) or 23,841 (C's view).

The same holds true for the other clocks and counters.

However, events which are regarded as simultaneous by one observer are not simultaneous from another observer's point of view. So, for example, when A's clock reads 36000s, A says that at the same time (ACCORDING TO A), B's clock reads 31304 seconds. But when B's clock reads 31304 seconds ACCORDING to B, A's clock DOES NOT read 36000 seconds, according to B.

There is nothing at all paradoxical about this, once you accept the relativity of simultaneity. The entire description is logically consistent.

The problem stems from the fact that relativity requires that each clock see the other as being dilated (running slower than itself).

Since both cannot run slower than each other in real time there is a conflict.

Simultaneity does not fix the conflict.

The purpose of the test is to show that "Rate Differential's" are perception not reality. Simultaneity runs the clocks until they each raise their flag and record 36,000 counts local time.

Simultaneity is only valid when you take information at light speed into account. The computed clock "Rates" do not require simultaneity. The "Rates" are simultaneous already. One can stop the clocks by whatever means such that they stop simultaneously in real time and the recorded times on the clocks will show a simular conflict. i.e. If all clocks are stopped when "A" reaches 36,000 counts:

If in fact time dilation is reality then B would have only recorded 8.69 hours test time (31,304 counts local) but would think "A" stopped the test prematurely at 27,221 by his counter monitoring clock "A". That is because he sees "A" running at gamma 1.15 relative to his clock which was stopped by "A" local time 36,000 counts and has "B" running 31,304 counts because it sees "B" at a gamma of 1.15 also.

This same complexiety runs between each clock and they data does not jive and cannot be reconciled, except to blindly say that is the way it is.

"C" will have recorded 23,841 counts locally but thinks "A" terminated the test prematurely at 15,788 counts on its "A" monitor counter.

B thinks C should show 19,545 and C thinks B should show 21,872.

Lets not overly complicate the analysis.

Lets stick with Clock "A" and "B" only.

With "A" being the master control clock and stopping the test after 36,000 count local time. Remember the issue of simultaniety is not at play here. "A's" clock instantly stops the test and all counters when "A" reaches 36,000 counts.

1 - What is the counts on the "B" Clock local time?

2 - What does "B's" counter of "A's: clock read?


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM:

Sorry, I stuffed up the ordering of the flags going up, as seen by each observer. I agree with your ordering. My displayed times, are, however, correct.

You ask:

<i>...what justification is there to apply a (-) sign to "A's" velocity relative to "B". "B" has assumed a rest position and in his view the velocity is "+".</i>

Suppose I take the direction "to the right" to be positive, and "to the left" negative. Then an object seen moving to the right has a positive velocity, and an object seen moving to the left has a negative velocity. If A sees B moving towards the right, from A's point of view, A's velocity is zero and B's is positive. From B's point of view, A's velocity is negative and B's is zero. According to B, A is moving away from B to the left.

The sign is unimportant for the calculations here, but it is correct and consistent.

The crux of your confusion comes at the end of your post:

<i>The problem stems from the fact that relativity requires that each clock see the other as being dilated (running slower than itself). </i>

That is not a problem.

<i>Since both cannot run slower than each other in real time there is a conflict.</i>

There is no "real time". There is only what is observed by somebody. That's relativity.

<i>Simultaneity is only valid when you take information at light speed into account. The computed clock "Rates" do not require simultaneity. The "Rates" are simultaneous already. One can stop the clocks by whatever means such that they stop simultaneously in real time and the recorded times on the clocks will show a simular conflict.</i>

That is not true. Let's look at your final, simple example.

<i>Lets stick with Clock "A" and "B" only.

With "A" being the master control clock and stopping the test after 36,000 count local time. Remember the issue of simultaniety is not at play here. "A's" clock instantly stops the test and all counters when "A" reaches 36,000 counts.

1 - What is the counts on the "B" Clock local time?
2 - What does "B's" counter of "A's: clock read?</i>

A stops B instantly when A reaches 36,000 counts. Let's be very clear about this: A stops B simultaneously <b>according to A</b>. This is the important point.

When A stops both clocks they will read:
A: 36000 counts.
B: 31304 counts.

Both observers can bring their stopped clocks back together and look at them. They will agree they show the number of counts listed here.

You might well ask: what sequence of events does B see in this example. The answer is:

<u>A's point of view</u>

When A reaches 36000, both clocks stop simultaneously.

<u>B's point of view</u>

B sees A's clock ticking slowing than B's clock. Suddenly and mysteriously, when B's clock shows exactly 31304 counts, B gets the signal to stop the clock. But B sees clock A continue to count after B's clock has stopped, because the signals which stop clocks A and B are <b>not simultaneous</b> from B's point of view, even though they <b>are</b> simultaneous from A's point of view.

So, B sees A's clock continue to tick after B's clock has stopped, until A's clock reads 36000 counts. Then, A's clock stops.

The answer to your apparent paradox is quite simple, though difficult to believe at first. The "stop" signal happens at exactly the same time for both clocks according to A, but at different times for each clock according to B.

This is the relativity of simultaneity. It completely explains your 3-clock issues. It is self-consistent, and supported by real experimental evidence. It is not a flaw in relativity. Nor is it a patch to make the equations work. It is an inevitable consequence of the theory. But much more importantly, it is the way we observe our world to work.

James R.,

MacM:

Sorry, I stuffed up the ordering of the flags going up, as seen by each observer. I agree with your ordering. My displayed times, are, however, correct.

ANS: Not a problem. If I can muff up the +/- terms in VAF then we can all have slips.

You ask:

...what justification is there to apply a (-) sign to "A's" velocity relative to "B". "B" has assumed a rest position and in his view the velocity is "+".

Suppose I take the direction "to the right" to be positive, and "to the left" negative. Then an object seen moving to the right has a positive velocity, and an object seen moving to the left has a negative velocity. If A sees B moving towards the right, from A's point of view, A's velocity is zero and B's is positive. From B's point of view, A's velocity is negative and B's is zero. According to B, A is moving away from B to the left.

The sign is unimportant for the calculations here, but it is correct and consistent.

ANS: Yes I agree that the signs are not that important (unless you do half and half as I did).

But even your explanation seems arbitrary. If the line of motion (Left/Right) were to be (East/West) and I am standing to the North side facing the event and then walk across the line and turn around facing the same event the +/- designaltion reverses also.



The crux of your confusion comes at the end of your post:

The problem stems from the fact that relativity requires that each clock see the other as being dilated (running slower than itself).

That is not a problem.

ANS: This is where we have our disagreement.


Since both cannot run slower than each other in real time there is a conflict.

There is no "real time". There is only what is observed by somebody. That's relativity.


ANS: Assuming you are correct is where multiple clock rates derive from. To me that is a problem.


Simultaneity is only valid when you take information at light speed into account. The computed clock "Rates" do not require simultaneity. The "Rates" are simultaneous already. One can stop the clocks by whatever means such that they stop simultaneously in real time and the recorded times on the clocks will show a simular conflict.

That is not true. Let's look at your final, simple example.


Lets stick with Clock "A" and "B" only.

With "A" being the master control clock and stopping the test after 36,000 count local time. Remember the issue of simultaniety is not at play here. "A's" clock instantly stops the test and all counters when "A" reaches 36,000 counts.

1 - What is the counts on the "B" Clock local time?
2 - What does "B's" counter of "A's: clock read?

A stops B instantly when A reaches 36,000 counts. Let's be very clear about this: A stops B simultaneously according to A. This is the important point.

When A stops both clocks they will read:
A: 36000 counts.
B: 31304 counts.

Both observers can bring their stopped clocks back together and look at them. They will agree they show the number of counts listed here.

You might well ask: what sequence of events does B see in this example. The answer is:

A's point of view

When A reaches 36000, both clocks stop simultaneously.

B's point of view

B sees A's clock ticking slowing than B's clock. Suddenly and mysteriously, when B's clock shows exactly 31304 counts, B gets the signal to stop the clock. But B sees clock A continue to count after B's clock has stopped, because the signals which stop clocks A and B are not simultaneous from B's point of view, even though they are simultaneous from A's point of view.

ANS: This is where I see the failure of the concept. When "A" stops both clocks (irrespective of information delay and simultaneity) both are stopped and there simply is no continuation of "B" seeing "A" continue to run. That only occurs if you do not stop simultaneously as specified. Simultaniety involves the transfer of information at the sped of light.


So, B sees A's clock continue to tick after B's clock has stopped, until A's clock reads 36000 counts. Then, A's clock stops.

ANS:When "A" stops and stops "B" "Simultaneously", it also stops "B" counter monitoring of clock "A". It no longer sees "A" running. You are re-introducing simultaneity into a circumstance where simultaneity has been eliminated by definition of the test.


The answer to your apparent paradox is quite simple, though difficult to believe at first. The "stop" signal happens at exactly the same time for both clocks according to A, but at different times for each clock according to B.

This is the relativity of simultaneity. It completely explains your 3-clock issues. It is self-consistent, and supported by real experimental evidence. It is not a flaw in relativity. Nor is it a patch to make the equations work. It is an inevitable consequence of the theory. But much more importantly, it is the way we observe our world to work.


ANS: Once again as stated above. When "A" stops "B" it also stops "B's" monitoring of "A" and your "Simultaneity" solution is not available to make the adjustments you want to show in clock data.

Recall (though it was not well received)I have shown that the clocks can be stopped simultaneously by "A" using precalculated timing using Relativity to conduct the test.

Now assuming Clock "A" stops "B" and its monitoring of "A" simultaneously, what time (counts) does "B"'s think "A" stop the test at?


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM:

<i>If the line of motion (Left/Right) were to be (East/West) and I am standing to the North side facing the event and then walk across the line and turn around facing the same event the +/- designaltion reverses also.</i>

Yes, the direction you call positive is arbitrary. But as long as you're consistent it doesn't matter which way is positive. If you say B moves in the positive direction according to A, then A must be moving in the negative direction according to B. If you go the other way and say that B moves in the negative direction relative to A, then A must be moving in the positive direction relative to B.

<i>When "A" stops both clocks (irrespective of information delay and simultaneity) both are stopped and there simply is no continueation of "B" seeing "A" continue to run. That only occurs if you do not stop simultaneously as specified.</i>

You're still missing the point. In relativity there is no absolute notion of what is simultaneous, just as there is no absolute notion of what is stationary. Therefore, <b>events which are simultaneous for one observer are not simultaneous for an another observer in motion relative to the first</b>.

In this case, as I already said, A's stop signal goes out to both clocks exactly simultaneously according to A, but at different times according to B. A and B have different ideas of which events are simultaneous.

This has nothing at all to do with light or signal travel time, by the way. We're assuming all that kind of stuff has already been factored out of the analysis.

<i>ANS:When "A" stops and stops "B" "Simultaneously", it also stops "B" counter monitoring of clock "A".</i>

When you say <b>when</b> you must specify whose time you're talking about. If you're talking about A's time, then that has no effect on B's time. B's time is different. The moment when A stops clocks A and B according to A's time corresponds to two different moments in B's time. (This is only possible because clocks A and B are separated by some distance in space, by the way.)

<i>You are re-introducing simultaneity into a circumstance where simultaneity has been eliminated by definition of the test.</i>

No. I'm not introducing simultaneity into anything. Rather, it is you who is trying to impose an absolute simultaneity onto the situation. Such a thing, like the aether, does not exist.

Have another go at answering your own question:

<i>Now assuming Clock "A" stops "B" and its monitoring of "A" simultaneously, what time (counts) does "B"'s think "A" stop the test at?</i>

The answer is the same as I gave before. And now you should understand why.

I've drawn a diagram to explain this a bit better. See the attached file.

The diagram is a spacetime diagram of the situation. the blue axes are A's spacetime coordinates. Time is vertical; space is horizontal. The red line shows the path of clock B as seen by A.

The blue horizontal lines (which should be parallel to the space axis) connect points in spacetime which are simultaneous according to A. A sends the signal to stop both clocks at 36000 ticks, at which time B is in the position indicted by the dot in the middle of the picture.

The slanted lines connect points in spacetime which are simultaneous according to B. Notice that the line connecting B's position when clock A reads 36000 to the axis corresponds to A's time of 31304. In other words, B receives the signal to stop when A sees B as reading 31304. B agrees that his clock reads 31304 at the time the stop signal is received.

But what about B's time when A reads 36000? The time 36000 on the axis corresponds to a time after the stop signal is received, according to B. By the time A reads 36000 according to B, B has moved on from its position as indicated on the diagram, to a new position further up and to the right, on the slanted line which goes through 36000 on the axis.

In other words, according to B, A's clock continues to run after B has already received the "stop" signal.

James r.,


You're still missing the point. In relativity there is no absolute notion of what is simultaneous, just as there is no absolute notion of what is stationary. Therefore, events which are simultaneous for one observer are not simultaneous for an another observer in motion relative to the first.

In this case, as I already said, A's stop signal goes out to both clocks exactly simultaneously according to A, but at different times according to B. A and B have different ideas of which events are simultaneous.

ANS: Not so. At least in this case. As I did once before it can be shown that using precalculated relavistic values clocks "A" and "B" can be shut down at the same exact moment. In this case it is arranged that "A" determines the moment of the end of the test.

When that signal is activiated (there are several ways of achieving this) both clocks are stopped, including "B's" monitor counter for clock "A". So when "B" see his clock stop he thinks "A" shut down prematurely but he does not continue to see "A" run due to a shift in simultaneity. When "A" clock stops at the very same instant "A's" view "B" stops andhis counter for "A" stops. End of test, end of simultaneity adjustments.


This has nothing at all to do with light or signal travel time, by the way. We're assuming all that kind of stuff has already been factored out of the analysis.

ANS: You do jest. Simultaneity has everything to do with information transfer at v = c. Simultaneity is explained by the two lightening strikes and the train. Remember?


ANS:When "A" stops and stops "B" "Simultaneously", it also stops "B" counter monitoring of clock "A".

When you say when you must specify whose time you're talking about. If you're talking about A's time, then that has no effect on B's time. B's time is different. The moment when A stops clocks A and B according to A's time corresponds to two different moments in B's time. (This is only possible because clocks A and B are separated by some distance in space, by the way.)

ANS: Which is simultaniety, which is no longer at issue. Once again when "A" stops "B" also stops at the same instant in "A's" time. Run the numbers of that case. That is what I did above. That is the end of the questions and has nothing to do with "B" continuing to run or see "A" continuing to run/ "B" is shut down by "A" time. What are the readings?

At that moment "A's" time:

"A" = 36,000 counts
"B" = 31,304 counts
"B's" monitor of "A's" clock shows "A" = 27,221 counts

Yes or No?

You are re-introducing simultaneity into a circumstance where simultaneity has been eliminated by definition of the test.

No. I'm not introducing simultaneity into anything. Rather, it is you who is trying to impose an absolute simultaneity onto the situation. Such a thing, like the aether, does not exist.


ANS: This has nothing to do with aether. This has to do with the precalculated or prearranged circumstance of measuring clocks rates from the vantage point of clock "A" controlling the clocks to start and stop simultaneously by "A's" time and the values indicated according to relavistic mathematics.



Have another go at answering your own question:

Now assuming Clock "A" stops "B" and its monitoring of "A" simultaneously, what time (counts) does "B"'s think "A" stop the test at?

The answer is the same as I gave before. And now you should understand why.


ANS: Unfortunatly that answer doesn't fit the limits of the test as described. You must give the results of the clocks and monitor counter from "A's" perspective, that is all. No simultaneity of B continueing to run or continuing to see "A" run. this is from "A" perspective.



Clock "A" _______________ counts?
Clock "B" _______________ dounts?
"B's" Monitor of Clock "A"_____________counts?




Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

James R.,

I've drawn a diagram to explain this a bit better. See the attached file.


ANS: I do appreciate your effort here but you have not properly described the test or the events.

The diagram is a spacetime diagram of the situation. the blue axes are A's spacetime coordinates. Time is vertical; space is horizontal. The red line shows the path of clock B as seen by A.

The blue horizontal lines (which should be parallel to the space axis) connect points in spacetime which are simultaneous according to A. A sends the signal to stop both clocks at 36000 ticks, at which time B is in the position indicted by the dot in the middle of the picture.

The slanted lines connect points in spacetime which are simultaneous according to B. Notice that the line connecting B's position when clock A reads 36000 to the axis corresponds to A's time of 31304. In other words, B receives the signal to stop when A sees B as reading 31304. B agrees that his clock reads 31304 at the time the stop signal is received.

But what about B's time when A reads 36000? The time 36000 on the axis corresponds to a time after the stop signal is received, according to B. By the time A reads 36000 according to B, B has moved on from its position as indicated on the diagram, to a new position further up and to the right, on the slanted line which goes through 36000 on the axis.

In other words, according to B, A's clock continues to run after B has already received the "stop" signal.

ANS: The problem with your presentation is this.

1 -"A" stops "B's" clock and stops "B's" monitoring counter of "A's" clock. B's view of simultaneity has nothing to do with the test. When "A" stops at 36,000 counts and correctly (and you have agreed here) stops "B" at 31,304 counts. that is simultaneous from "A's" point of view.

The question now becomes what is the count on "B's" monitoring counter of "A's" clock before it was stopped at the same instant "B's" clock stopped at 31,304?


"B's" monitoring counter of "A's" clock_______________counts when "A'" stop all clocks and monitor.

I agree "B" has not seen "A" raise his flag (that is why I added that tid bit) and may think "A's" clock is still running and that something went wrong with the test. But he has no way of knowing that since his monitor has been turned off.

You now have data to assess the validity of linear velocity time dilation predictions. Does clock "A" and clock "B's" monitor agree as to the passage of time.? Of course not. The point being that clock "A" will physically show or display 36,000 counts. It is also the point that "A" cannot display the counts predicted by "B's" monitor counter of "A's" clock.

That is the argument. Time dilation is perception and not reality.

A's clock does not and cannot agree with "B's" view of "A's" time dilation.

I did look at your graph. But it introduces simultaneity and events after clock "B" was stopped by "A".


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

This string has been a rehash limited between myself and James R.

He has made his statements and I have responded. From my perspective the question remains unanswered but it has been (3) days and no other input.

Does anybodyelse have a more conclusive contribution or is this horse DOA.?

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Hi MacM,

I've just read the whole thing, and the difference between James and yourself is simply that you assume there is an absolute frame of reference with a "real time" and a "real length". Furthermore you seem to have a problem with the breaking of simultanity. Unfortunately, you wanted an explanation within the realm of special relativity. You disagree with it, saying that "it cannot be so because that is so incredible" (basically it comes down to that).

So there are a few possibilities. Either we go over the entire thing ONCE AGAIN in relativity style. Any scientist will produce the same numbers and explanations as James did (I did not verify the calculations, but I assume they are correct), as this is what the theory of relativity predicts. Or we can do it the good ol' Newtonian style, which makes this a very easy problem. Both not good I think.

Or maybe you can tell us what it is you would have liked to hear, then we can point out where conventional science disagrees with you.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,



I've just read the whole thing, and the difference between James and yourself is simply that you assume there is an absolute frame of reference with a "real time" and a "real length". Furthermore you seem to have a problem with the breaking of simultanity. Unfortunately, you wanted an explanation within the realm of special relativity. You disagree with it, saying that "it cannot be so because that is so incredible" (basically it comes down to that).

So there are a few possibilities. Either we go over the entire thing ONCE AGAIN in relativity style. Any scientist will produce the same numbers and explanations as James did (I did not verify the calculations, but I assume they are correct), as this is what the theory of relativity predicts. Or we can do it the good ol' Newtonian style, which makes this a very easy problem. Both not good I think.

Or maybe you can tell us what it is you would have liked to hear, then we can point out where conventional science disagrees with you.

Bye!

ANS: Thanks for the above response. It is actually good and on point.

It does seem that James and I agree on the resulting numbers but disagree as to what the signigfigance of what those numbers mean.

With respect to your post "You disagree with it, saying that "it cannot be so because that is so incredible" (basically it comes down to that).

I wouldn't use that term. "Incredible" I could live with or accept. "Impossible" is another issue.


Since the clocks operate on local time and display time accordingly they obviously operate on and record only one time base. Yet via Relativity the claim is that time dilates and is different for different observers in motion.

What I am trying to show is that such a proposition is not reality. It is not reality because the clock physically cannot possess different clock rates simultaneously, hence the concept of time dilation is perception not reality.

That is what "B" thinks about clock "A" or "A" thinks about "B" is not time itself but perception of time because the physical clock continues to operate on local time in total disregard to any observers view of its operation.

I don't know if that made sense.

While simultaneity exists and has proper place in physics it doesn't really resolve this issue if you define the problem in sufficient detail. That is that "B's" clock and monitor counter of "A's" clock stop defacto concurrent (simultaneous) with "A" reaching 36,000 counts.

You can't claim that "B" continues to run or sees "A" to continue to run via simultaneity. That is like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Claiming it is both stopped and running at the same time becomes Schroders Cat.

I don't think the disagreement I have had with other members here is symantics. I am not saying time dilation doesn't appear to occur via Relativity. I am saying that that observation doesn't alter the clocks physical ticking since it continues to run on local time and that the fact its recorded time and the observed time of a moving observer don't match simply means the observers view of dilated time is only perception.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
You can't claim that "B" continues to run or sees "A" to continue to run via simultaneity. That is like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Claiming it is both stopped and running at the same time becomes Schroders Cat.


Ehr... this is not entirely accurate. We, as outside observers having the ability to calculate it all, know that there is disagreement amongst the observers whether the clock has stopped or not. I think that because the observers cannot transport information to eachother faster than light, in the end, when "B" gets a message from "A" saying "hey, the clock at C stopped", then by the time "B" gets this message, he will also have established that the clock stopped ticking.

I should verify this with some calculations, but I'll leave it up to you as an exercise :D.

Bye!

Crisp

MacM:I don't think the disagreement I have had with other members here is symantics. I am not saying time dilation doesn't appear to occur via Relativity. I am saying that that observation doesn't alter the clocks physical ticking since it continues to run on local time and that the fact its recorded time and the observed time of a moving observer don't match simply means the observers view of dilated time is only perception.
Hi Mac,
you make some good points but I want to ask a question.
Sure any given observer perceives the time rate of a moving clock-- but he 'perceives' said time rate via measurements. Can we elevate these perceptions to reality if that observer will always measure what SR predicts and if we can show that any other experiment he can do regarding time (of the moving clock) will indicate to him that same 'percieved' time rate? Or, said another way, if that which has been discussed are all just perceptions, what would constitute a measurement of reality? :)

Crisp,

Ehr... this is not entirely accurate. We, as outside observers having the ability to calculate it all, know that there is disagreement amongst the observers whether the clock has stopped or not. I think that because the observers cannot transport information to eachother faster than light, in the end, when "B" gets a message from "A" saying "hey, the clock at C stopped", then by the time "B" gets this message, he will also have established that the clock stopped ticking.

ANS: What you say is only true if you do not pre-establish the clock "A" control (as I have done) so that information transfer time is voided and the action taken is (from "A's" view simultaneous at "B's" clock.

This can infact actually be done several ways. The one anticipated here is to precalculate the time delay in information transfer and send the signal in time to arrive at "B" the instant "A" reaches the 36,000 count.

Doing that you are now stuck with "B" showing one time for "A" and no fuether testing on going since "B" is actually stopped but its projected time for "A" does not match "A". So "B's" view is perception and "A's" recorded time is reality.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Natural,

Hi Mac,
you make some good points but I want to ask a question.
Sure any given observer perceives the time rate of a moving clock-- but he 'perceives' said time rate via measurements. Can we elevate these perceptions to reality if that observer will always measure what SR predicts and if we can show that any other experiment he can do regarding time (of the moving clock) will indicate to him that same 'percieved' time rate? Or, said another way, if that which has been discussed are all just perceptions, what would constitute a measurement of reality?


ANS: Off the cuff I would have to say local time is reality. That is the time the clock actually records. (Although I have to qualify that statement by saying as far as I am concerned "actual" slowing of a clock does not mean time was altered. That is because all clocks are processes and don't actually measure time perse.


And as I have said before if you calibrate a pot of water with graduations on the side of the pot and claim evaportation rate is now a water clock and you then heat the pot you will change the evaporation rate hence the recorded rate of time change but time itself didn't change.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM:

<i>Off the cuff I would have to say local time is reality.</i>

Then you've just reinvented relativity.

The local times of different observers are different, so each has his own reality. End of story.

I have to say that I agree with Macm:D

Time doesn't exist! Time is not physical! Time does, however, look like it's running slower or faster depending on your relative speed to an observer. But that's only due to the finite speed of light, and it give an illusion of time variance.

Can I just say that if you DO see an illusion of time slowing, then you MUST be travelling at a different speed relative to that ray of light. Oh, that's funny, this means you ARE changing your speed relative to light! But Einstein doesn't allow that.

My head just blew up:D

James R.,

MacM:

Off the cuff I would have to say local time is reality.

Then you've just reinvented relativity.

The local times of different observers are different, so each has his own reality. End of story

ANS: So then you agree that time dilation is perception and not reality? That is my dilated view of your clock due to relativie motion does not alter your clock?

That has been my statement and argument the entire time.:D

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

We've been over this already, and from the Lorentz transformation point of view, there is more in the game than just "the finite speed of light".

Bye!

Crisp

Physics, 1989 revised version, written by Prof. Richard Weidner of Rutgers University, the author explains how this time dilation equation drawn (page 868):

T = To /Ö (1 - v2/c2)
'This is the fundamental time-dilation equation. Keeping straight the meaning of the terms in it is crucial. The time interval To is between two events that occur at the same location and are measured on the clock of an observer at rest at this location; To is termed the proper time (or rest time). On the other hand, T is the time interval between the very same two events but registered on the clock of an observer traveling at the speed of v relative to the location at which the two events take place (and who therefore sees the two events take place at different locations in his reference frame). Of course, the clocks of the two observers when compared at rest with respect to one another give identical readings.'



Relativity written by Prof. Gerald Tauber in 1988, the author also used the same experiment with two identical clocks of light pulse to explain that clocks appear to run slow. He wrote: 'Two such clocks are constructed. One is kept on the ground, and the second is mounted in a fast-moving airplane or spacecraft. Both the observer on the ground and the pilot will obtain the same readings on their particular clocks. However, as seen from the ground, the path of the light in the moving clock -- the one in the plane -- will describe a zigzag (figure added). It is longer than the path of the stationary clock, because the airplane is moving horizontally. Since the speed of light is the same for both, the time between ticks of the moving clock is longer -- the clock has slowed down. Exactly the same argument applies to the pilot of the spacecraft. To him the light pulse of the clock on the ground follows a zigzag path (but in the opposite direction). The clock has slowed down. The effect is mutual. Every observer finds that clocks in motion relative to him or her tick more slowly.'



Fearful Symmetry written by Prof. Anthony Zee in 1986, talking about Einstein's time and space, he wrote: 'Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, Einstein's theory does not offer a path to longevity. The lifetime of the train passenger is measured as longer by the station clock, but the lifetime experienced by the passenger, that is, as measured by the clock in the train, remains the same. In fact, since the very notion of relativity insists that neither the passenger nor the stationmaster has a status more special than the other, the lifetime of the stationmaster is also observed by the passenger as longer. Each perceives the other as having lived longer!'


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Isnt there some way that the 3 clock rate situation can be simulated/measured physically on earth, for instance, by using pulsed laserbeams of different wavelengths (read different velocity) shooting at targets, these tagets record the pulse (counter) AND also provide the local clock by loopback; when the target is hit, the laser is triggered again (otherwise, if the 3 lasers where pulsed by chrystalclocks outside the laserbeams, all three would have the same common timeframe and that is not what we want we want local velocity dependant clocks). The counters recordings are fed to a computer where a program runs that also handles the flagraising to be received in correct/synchronised order...

Vortexx,

I am trying to follow your experiment. Where is the relative velocity between clocks? The way I read this is a measure of timing delays only?

What am I missing. I see different lasers being used but that changes the energy of the beam not the velocity of the beam.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM:

I said: <i>The local times of different observers are different, so each has his own reality.</i>
You replied: <i>So then you agree that time dilation is perception and not reality?</i>

Read what I wrote again. I said each observer has his own <b>reality</b>. Your problem is that you assume there is only one True reference frame, which is why you're stuck at square one with relativity.

Regarding your quotes:

'This is the fundamental time-dilation equation. Keeping straight the meaning of the terms in it is crucial. The time interval To is between two events that occur at the same location and are measured on the clock of an observer at rest at this location; To is termed the proper time (or rest time). On the other hand, T is the time interval between the very same two events but registered on the clock of an observer traveling at the speed of v relative to the location at which the two events take place (and who therefore sees the two events take place at different locations in his reference frame). Of course, the clocks of the two observers when compared at rest with respect to one another give identical readings.'

I agree.

Relativity written by Prof. Gerald Tauber in 1988, the author also used the same experiment with two identical clocks of light pulse to explain that clocks appear to run slow. He wrote: 'Two such clocks are constructed. One is kept on the ground, and the second is mounted in a fast-moving airplane or spacecraft. Both the observer on the ground and the pilot will obtain the same readings on their particular clocks. However, as seen from the ground, the path of the light in the moving clock -- the one in the plane -- will describe a zigzag (figure added). It is longer than the path of the stationary clock, because the airplane is moving horizontally. Since the speed of light is the same for both, the time between ticks of the moving clock is longer -- the clock has slowed down. Exactly the same argument applies to the pilot of the spacecraft. To him the light pulse of the clock on the ground follows a zigzag path (but in the opposite direction). The clock has slowed down. The effect is mutual. Every observer finds that clocks in motion relative to him or her tick more slowly.'
Again, this is correct.

Fearful Symmetry written by Prof. Anthony Zee in 1986, talking about Einstein's time and space, he wrote: 'Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, Einstein's theory does not offer a path to longevity. The lifetime of the train passenger is measured as longer by the station clock, but the lifetime experienced by the passenger, that is, as measured by the clock in the train, remains the same. In fact, since the very notion of relativity insists that neither the passenger nor the stationmaster has a status more special than the other, the lifetime of the stationmaster is also observed by the passenger as longer. Each perceives the other as having lived longer!'

This is correct, but only up to a point. The passenger and the stationmaster both agree that the passenger is younger once the train finishes its journey and stops at the station. There is no paradox here.

What is Prof. Anthony Zee a professor of, exactly?

James R.,


Read what I wrote again. I said each observer has his own reality. Your problem is that you assume there is only one True reference frame, which is why you're stuck at square one with relativity.


ANS: You can't have it both ways. Either my view of your clock is reality and your clock must conform or my view of your clock is Percention and your clock will continue to do its own thing at its own local rate.

The latter is the way it works, hence time dilation is perception not reality.

I'm not stuck at all. You seem to have an adversion to acknowledging the true meaning of perception vs reality. Apparently to you perception means Relativity is invalid, therefore you can't acknowledge the fact that the reality is time dilation is perception.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

James R.,

We actually seem to have finally reached agreement as to what happens to clocks in motion. There remains a matter of symantics as to what one calls "Reality" and one calls "Perception".

You seem to be content to claim the perception I hold of your clock as being my "Reality". I have no real problem with that except I think it obviscates the truth a bit since my view doesn't alter your clock I think it better to simply call a spade a spade and say it is "Perception" but that is not an issue worth argueing about.

I would like to advance this discussion to the next level. That is the fact that "Perception" or "Reality" don't alter the fact that there is no evidence that "Clock Dilation" means "Time Dilation".

Clocks do not measure time. They are processes and while the process may change with velocity, acceleration, gravity, etc., that in no way shows that time changed.

That is to say we may well find (and this is my personal view) that having made a short trip (i.e. 1 hour) at relavistic speed in space and return expecting to see the next century on earth that all I did was miss lunch with my twin brother, who is still at the same relative age as I and that our clocks don't agree by a few minutes.

That is there is no evidence that the biological process (aging) is subject to the same process changes for clocks.

Once again I re-introduce the concept of clocks and time dilation.

"If I fill a pan, with graduation marks on its side, with water and call the evaporation rate of water from the pan a clock".

You can see that heating the pan (altering the process) appears to alter time but in actuality we know that time was unaffected, we merely changed our process of measurement and time did not change.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM:

<i>You can't have it both ways. Either my view of your clock is reality and your clock must conform or my view of your clock is Percention and your clock will continue to do its own thing at its own local rate.</i>

Your view of my clock is your reality. My view of my clock is my reality.

<i>Apparently to you perception means Relativity is invalid, therefore you can't acknowledge the fact that the reality is time dilation is perception.</i>

I'm quite happy to agree that perception is reality. Fine.

<i>You seem to be content to claim the perception I hold of your clock as being my "Reality". I have no real problem with that except I think it obviscates the truth a bit since my view doesn't alter your clock...</i>

But your view <b>does</b> alter my clock, for you.

<i>I would like to advance this discussion to the next level. That is the fact that "Perception" or "Reality" don't alter the fact that there is no evidence that "Clock Dilation" means "Time Dilation".</i>

Einstein's derivation of time dilation does not rely on any particular mechanism (clock, biological, etc.). It is completely general.

<i>Clocks do not measure time.</i>

If they measure anything at all, they measure time.

<i>That is to say we may well find (and this is my personal view) that having made a short trip (i.e. 1 hour) at relavistic speed in space and return expecting to see the next century on earth that all I did was miss lunch with my twin brother, who is still at the same relative age as I and that our clocks don't agree by a few minutes.</i>

Not if Einstein was correct. And all evidence so far indicates he was.

<i>That is there is no evidence that the biological process (aging) is subject to the same process changes for clocks.</i>

Einstein's derivation of time dilation does not rely on any particular mechanism (clock, biological, etc.). It is completely general.

<i>"If I fill a pan, with graduation marks on its side, with water and call the evaporation rate of water from the pan a clock".</i>

Sure, you can do that. In a sense, it is a clock - just not a very accurate one.

<i>You can see that heating the pan (altering the process) appears to alter time but in actuality we know that time was unaffected, we merely changed our process of measurement and time did not change.</i>

How do you know time did not change? If you can answer that question, you'll understand why your pan is a lousy clock. Think about it.

James R.,

James - I'm quite happy to agree that perception is reality. Fine.

Ans: Finally I think we are on the same page.

Mac - You seem to be content to claim the perception I hold of your clock as being my "Reality". I have no real problem with that except I think it obviscates the truth a bit since my view doesn't alter your clock...

James - But your view does alter my clock, for you.


ANS: But that has always been the bone of contention. What is physical reality is the actual clock and its physical reading. What I think your clock will say is nothing more than my perception of your clock.

But I think we are in good agreement here. You just want to call my perception reality, I disagree with that interpretation. Since it is only my reality until I come face to face with your clock under controlled conditions and I find what I thought your clock was doing it really wasn't.


MAc - I would like to advance this discussion to the next level. That is the fact that "Perception" or "Reality" don't alter the fact that there is no evidence that "Clock Dilation" means "Time Dilation".

James - Einstein's derivation of time dilation does not rely on any particular mechanism (clock, biological, etc.). It is completely general.

ANS: I agree. But the point is it has only been tested on clocks.

Mac - Clocks do not measure time.

James - If they measure anything at all, they measure time.

ANS: No, they display increments of a process in time. When a clocks battery gets weak it loses time. That is because its process changes. When the battery is dead, time doesn't stop.

Time (if it exists at all) continues to run unaffected by the pulse rate of a clock process.


Mac - That is to say we may well find (and this is my personal view) that having made a short trip (i.e. 1 hour) at relavistic speed in space and return expecting to see the next century on earth that all I did was miss lunch with my twin brother, who is still at the same relative age as I and that our clocks don't agree by a few minutes.

James - Not if Einstein was correct. And all evidence so far indicates he was.

ANS: I agree. But at least I now have you using correct terminology "IF".

Mac - That is there is no evidence that the biological process (aging) is subject to the same process changes for clocks.

James - Einstein's derivation of time dilation does not rely on any particular mechanism (clock, biological, etc.). It is completely general.


ANS: I am afraid we agree.:D But I even have to add that even should it be found that biological process are also altered by motion or gravity, etc., that doesn't show time has been altered.

If time exists I see it as the universal standard and all that has been accomplished is another way to change aging, not in the final analysis any different than taking anti-oxidants to prolong life.

Now I will have to qualify that it would be a major finding and would provide a way for one to experience life well after the time he should otherwise have demised but that still doesn't mean time itself was altered.

I don't know if you follow the distinction or not, it is a technical one in this case but one I think is important none the less.



Mac - "If I fill a pan, with graduation marks on its side, with water and call the evaporation rate of water from the pan a clock".

James - Sure, you can do that. In a sense, it is a clock - just not a very accurate one.

ANS: That is why I use it. It makes the point quite well:D

Mac - You can see that heating the pan (altering the process) appears to alter time but in actuality we know that time was unaffected, we merely changed our process of measurement and time did not change.

James - How do you know time did not change? If you can answer that question, you'll understand why your pan is a lousy clock. Think about it.


ANS: I know why my pan is a lousy clock. That is why I use it to make my point.

If you think my pan-clock is man's first time machine then you are to gullible. hmmmmm. :D

Thanks for your participation. I do think 3 Clocks went better this time. I actually got to the point I have been wanting to reach with it.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

"Thanks for your participation. I do think 3 Clocks went better this time. I actually got to the point I have been wanting to reach with it."

... that point being ? You're still using one absolute "truth" behind it all, which is still in contradiction with relativity.

Bye!

Crisp

In post by MacM:

quote:MAc - I would like to advance this discussion to the next level. That is the fact that "Perception" or "Reality" don't alter the fact that there is no evidence that "Clock Dilation" means "Time Dilation".

James - Einstein's derivation of time dilation does not rely on any particular mechanism (clock, biological, etc.). It is completely general.

ANS: I agree. But the point is it has only been tested on clocks.
========================================
Mac, I think this statement is where your conclusions about time
dilation as proposed by SR are derived from. I agree that the Hafele
& Keating two clock experiment may have been inconclusive due to
errors, but there is much other evidence that supports time dilation
that is not as easily dismissed. Surely you are aware of the results
of particle accelerator experiments, decay rates of particles entering
the earth's atmosphere and other experiments supporting time
dilation?

2Inquisitive,

Yes. But they too are all processes. These individual processes can change but the universal standard of time would still be marching on unaffected.


Decay rates of elements is statistics. That is after "x" number of internal cycles (hertz) it will eject some form of radiation or change in energy state.

These internal cycles are the same process that is taken advantage of in atomic clocks. Energy input (accleration, etc) affect the dynamics of the electron and the atomic frequency but that doesn't mean time changed.

You change the energy equilibrium in any process and the process changes but you have not changed time by doing so.

Another way of looking at this is "What is frequency?"

Frequency is motion within a time period. It is not time itself.



Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

This is just funny....
Yes. But they too are all processes. These individual processes can change but the universal standard of time would still be marching on unaffected.
So what exactly is the 'universal standard of time'? Considering that processes ignore it anyway, and thats the only thing we use time for, or ever will. We would never know what the 'universal standard' was, because by your definition it is completely invisible and doesn't affect anything. I could just as easily say that clock A's view of time is the universal standard, and everybody else's processes are changing. Your comment doesn't actually say anything.

Persol,

All I can add is that you would do well to not only stop skimming and read but also think.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Isn't that nice. Thanks for addressing the issue so completely instead of just ignoring my comment.

you forgot to carry the 6

Persol,

Since you insist.

We would never know what the 'universal standard' was, because by your definition it is completely invisible and doesn't affect anything.


ANS: Assuming it exists (and I don't) it affects everything. Your conclusion that my presentation has it affect nothing just shows you don't follow the logic.

Evidence actually suggests to me that time is a property of space and energy and not an enity in of itself such as a 4th dimension.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
Assuming it exists (and I don't) it affects everything.
Such as?

Your conclusion that my presentation has it affect nothing just shows you don't follow the logic.
Then list something it would affect.

MacM:

You claim that all changes in rates seen in relativity are actually changes in process rather than changes in time itself.

Ok. Let's take a specific example - the well-known observation of muon decay rates. Muons come from outer space. In particle accelerators and the like, they are observed to have a specific half-life. This half-life is too short for any muons to reach from the limits of our atmosphere to the ground. And yet, we detect muons from space on the ground (I've actually done this myself, experimentally).

Please explain what it is which changes the observed muon half-life, if not relativistic time dilation. In other words, do you have <b>any</b> alternative explanation in terms of physical processes relating to the decay which explains the observations? Or is your point of view nothing more than wishing it were so?

Persol,

You might find it educational to actually try to envision some new concepts rather than try to make it appear there is something wrong with them. That is because when an idea is right it is more difficult to punch holes in.

Assuming it exists (and I don't) it affects everything.
Such as?

Your conclusion that my presentation has it affect nothing just shows you don't follow the logic.

Then list something it would affect.


ANS: Lets see. Lets try if it exists as a seperate enity (4th dimension) you could not have motion without passage of time.

Without motion you could have no energetic particles (such as quarks and gluons) and even if they existed they couldn't move
hence creation would be timeless and there would be no events hence no concept of time.

Therefore here is the list:

1 - Everything.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

James R.,


I'm not vouching for the following link but it appears to address your question. And to say the least something like this could well be the answer.


However, we know from experiments that fast moving particles disintegrate at a slower rate and atoms emit a lower frequency. This has been clearly observed in the muon's and spectroscopic experiments. We conclude that the increase of electron mass that causes atoms to disintegrate at a higher rate in a gravitational potential does not appear to be compatible with the slower rate of disintegration of fast moving muons. This apparent contradiction is a very serious problem that requires a more careful study. Using the principle of mass-energy conservation, we will solve that problem by showing that one important parameter has been ignored.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/Chapter2.html#Section2



Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

There seems to be nothing on that page which addresses my question. Could you please quote the parts you think are particularly relevant?

James R.,


However, we know from experiments that fast moving particles disintegrate at a slower rate and atoms emit a lower frequency. This has been clearly observed in the muon's and spectroscopic experiments. We conclude that the increase of electron mass that causes atoms to disintegrate at a higher rate in a gravitational potential does not appear to be compatible with the slower rate of disintegration of fast moving muons. This apparent contradiction is a very serious problem that requires a more careful study. Using the principle of mass-energy conservation, we will solve that problem by showing that one important parameter has been ignored.


ANS: Like I said I can't vouch for this site however the above paragraph is discussing muon and other decays, it further states that they show solving that problem by an important parameter having been ignored.

If they don't do what they say then I don't know what to say. I did scan through and they seem to be saying that speed, frequency ect., of sub atomic activities vary as a function of energy (excitation) due to mass change and/or dimensional change.

So other than perhaps just being incorrect I don't see how you say it doesn't address the issue.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

In reply to:

Please explain what it is which changes the observed muon half-life, if not relativistic time dilation. In other words, do you have any alternative explanation in terms of physical processes relating to the decay which explains the observations? Or is your point of view nothing more than wishing it were so?

How about introducing the concept of a yet undiscovered variable density aether, which retards and slows the physical processes at the sub-atomic level. Seems more intuitive than incorporating the concept of time slowing into the equations. Especially as time doesn't exist!:D

Originally posted by dav57
Seems more intuitive than

Nice to see that you have an intuition to what is going at very high speed.

In my every day life, the maximal velocity I went was about 1000 km/hour as a passenger in a plane, so I don't have an intuition about what is going at these speeds.

So instead of using there my intuition, I rely on experiments that physicist perform, and then I have to choose between two possible explanations of the results:

1. I live in a world that is very simple but is not in accordance wit the extrapolation of my intuition to these places I haven't been there. The laws of this world are tested even today at higher and higher precision.

2. My intuition of everyday life is correct, even for places I haven't been there. To keep this intuition correct, I have to invent some matter with very peculiar properties which, alltogether have formed some conspiracy in order to give the experiments results.


I choose 1.

Originally posted by dav57


How about introducing the concept of a yet undiscovered variable density aether, which retards and slows the physical processes at the sub-atomic level. Seems more intuitive than incorporating the concept of time slowing into the equations. Especially as time doesn't exist!:D


I don't understand what is intuitive in an aether that is reppeled by masses (as I read somewhere in this thread or in another one), but is getting denser near masses in order to slow them.

Originally posted by MacM
Lets see. Lets try if it exists as a seperate enity (4th dimension) you could not have motion without passage of time.
And? This has nothing to do with an absolute time frame existing.

Without motion you could have no energetic particles (such as quarks and gluons) and even if they existed they couldn't move
hence creation would be timeless and there would be no events hence no concept of time.
As you noted, processes don't follow you universal frame of reference. The movement of quarks and gluons are themselves processes, as is everything else. Why would quarks and gluons follow universal time, but not any other matter?

Very simply, everything is a process. Nothing would follow this universal frame of reference... and so it isn't much of a reference frame.

MacM:

Your quote:
We conclude that the increase of electron mass that causes atoms to disintegrate at a higher rate in a gravitational potential does not appear to be compatible with the slower rate of disintegration of fast moving muons.
No solution here, only a problem. It goes on:
Using the principle of mass-energy conservation, we will solve that problem by showing that one important parameter has been ignored.
So, which important parameter has been ignored, MacM? You still haven't actually addressed my question.

<i>I did scan through and they seem to be saying that speed, frequency ect., of sub atomic activities vary as a function of energy (excitation) due to mass change and/or dimensional change.</i>

How? I do not believe that is the case. Please explain for me.

<i>So other than perhaps just being incorrect I don't see how you say it doesn't address the issue.</i>

I asked that you quote the part which addresses the issue. The quote you have given clearly does not. It doesn't explain anything.


<b>dav57</b>

<i>How about introducing the concept of a yet undiscovered variable density aether, which retards and slows the physical processes at the sub-atomic level. Seems more intuitive than incorporating the concept of time slowing into the equations.</i>

It may be more intuitive, but I don't think you'll get it to work so that it duplicates the experimental observations. For a start, you'll need to explain why the ether is less dense in the lab and more dense in the upper atmosphere.

<i>Especially as time doesn't exist!</i>

That's a silly statement. If time doesn't exist, why do we talk about the past, present and future? What do clocks do? What stops everything happening at once?

Persol,

As you noted, processes don't follow you universal frame of reference. The movement of quarks and gluons are themselves processes, as is everything else. Why would quarks and gluons follow universal time, but not any other matter?

Very simply, everything is a process. Nothing would follow this universal frame of reference... and so it isn't much of a reference frame.

You are greatly over simplifying; plus you fail to recognize that what really matters is what is reality.

You just don't want to accept that reality may not be Relativity.

Thanks for making my point that everything is a process, now we can concentrate on what affects those processes and "Causs" the illusions of Relativity.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM:

You have fallen into the same trap as Prosoothus. You think that there is a single "reality", and all else is "illusion". Yet, when pressed, you can give no effective method for telling the difference between what you call reality and what you call illusion.

That means your attempted distinction is useless.

James R.,


You have fallen into the same trap as Prosoothus. You think that there is a single "reality", and all else is "illusion". Yet, when pressed, you can give no effective method for telling the difference between what you call reality and what you call illusion.

That means your attempted distinction is useless.

ANS: You should pay more attention. I believe it has been shown that clocks tick at a local rate and that the Relavistic view of what you think other clocks are doing is an illusion. Understannding that is not useless.

It has been shown that Pi does not change on a rotating merry go round for an observer on the merry go round. That knowledges is not useless, indeed others had a misconception about that issue.

It can be shown that distance between moving objects doesn't change, when most say it does but when asked to measure the distance they find it has to measure the same because the ruler in motion has undergone the same contraction as the proclaimed distance change, hence no measurable difference exits.. That is not useless information.

Understanding the alternatives to the above issues is not useless information. It is the pathway to our future.

There are physical realities and to many people have become so confused by Relativity they are making all sorts of erroneous statements and drawing incorrect conclusions of what it all really means.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
You are greatly over simplifying; plus you fail to recognize that what really matters is what is reality.

You just don't want to accept that reality may not be Relativity. It is all well and good to declare 'this is reality', but it is an empty statement that can never be demonstrated, a time frame which can never be known, and a useless concept that only makes you feel better because it's universal.

You still have no concept of the relation between reality and observation. You are getting boring.

Persol,


It is all well and good to declare 'this is reality', but it is an empty statement that can never be demonstrated, a time frame which can never be known, and a useless concept that only makes you feel better because it's universal.

You still have no concept of the relation between reality and observation. You are getting boring.


ANS: Not nearly as boring as the same old song and dance you try to pull.

If you were to actually answer some questions instead of looking up the answer in your handy Pocket Version of Relativity you might find some of these issues are rather tantilizing.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Still here Mac! Same old bullshit I see. Persol, I can't believe you are still arguing with this fool.

Not nearly as boring as the same old song and dance you try to pull.

Yeah right, same Old song and dance. Same Old Mac, With the same old fucking dance. I'll come back in a few months and see if anything productive has transpired.

Ryans,

Yeah right, same Old song and dance. Same Old Mac, With the same old fucking dance. I'll come back in a few months and see if anything productive has transpired.


ANS: I would hope that in a few months you will have been able to derive the correct answer for the Changing Pi problem on a merry-go-round. :D.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Whatever Mac. You get beaten on all counts of your arguements. You then wait a couple of months then start the same shit, with the same arguements all over again. If you had have learned your lesson , you would have spent that time learning calculus

Ryans,

Whatever Mac. You get beaten on all counts of your arguements. You then wait a couple of months then start the same shit, with the same arguements all over again. If you had have learned your lesson , you would have spent that time learning calculus

ANS: And you would have done well to have gained enough character to admit you made a simple error and that as described in the test Pi does not change. But you continue to claim you were right when everybody (without an axe to grind) see how wrong you were.

Admit your simple mistake and lets move on or contiune your denial and see it forever.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM:

<i>You should pay more attention. </i>

I've paid too much attention already.

<i>I believe it has been shown that clocks tick at a local rate...</i>

Nobody disagrees with that.

<i>...and that the Relavistic view of what you think other clocks are doing is an illusion.</i>

As I said, this is merely your opinion, based on nothing other than wishful thinking.

<i>It has been shown that Pi does not change on a rotating merry go round for an observer on the merry go round.</i>

Again, this is not a point that anybody here has disputed.

<i>It can be shown that distance between moving objects doesn't change, when most say it does but when asked to measure the distance they find it has to measure the same because the ruler in motion has undergone the same contraction as the proclaimed distance change, hence no measurable difference exits.. That is not useless information.</i>

It cannot be shown. It <b>has not</b> been shown. Your failure to understand does not change that.

<i>There are physical realities and to many people have become so confused by Relativity they are making all sorts of erroneous statements and drawing incorrect conclusions of what it all really means.</i>

You have so far failed to point out any errors in the theory of relativity. It is all nothing more than wishful thinking.

James R,

That's a silly statement. If time doesn't exist, why do we talk about the past, present and future? What do clocks do? What stops everything happening at once?


Time is a similar concept to thought. Thought and consciousness are a result of complex physical processes, it's kind of there but try putting your finger it! You could argue that it doesn't exist! My opinion is that it doesn't , but hey, who cares what I think:D

For a start, you'll need to explain why the ether is less dense in the lab and more dense in the upper atmosphere.

Well, it's the other way round, actually! If you would have read and digested my 'Aether and a matter of time thread', you'd have known that. I don't blame you for not remembering this though, I fully understand that you will not consider anything other than the doctrine that Einstein has set!

James R.,

"About Changing Pi":
Again, this is not a point that anybody here has disputed.


ANS: WHAT? I can understand Ryans wanting to forget but there were other that initially claimed I was wrong and tried to give esoteric explanations (You were one of them as I recall). It was a long string. How can you say nobody here disagrees ?

(or should I say now "Disagreed").


It can be shown that distance between moving objects doesn't change, when most say it does but when asked to measure the distance they find it has to measure the same because the ruler in motion has undergone the same contraction as the proclaimed distance change, hence no measurable difference exits.. That is not useless information.

It cannot be shown. It has not been shown. Your failure to understand does not change that.

ANS: Again you seem to miss the point. I do not say that Lorentz Contraction doesn't occur. So your answer doesn't apply to me.

What I hve done is ask for an explanation of how distance changes when the ruler also changes and you will get the same measurement.

I did notice that you didn't answer that question.

That suggest that something may be missing here don't you think?



There are physical realities and to many people have become so confused by Relativity they are making all sorts of erroneous statements and drawing incorrect conclusions of what it all really means.

You have so far failed to point out any errors in the theory of relativity. It is all nothing more than wishful thinking.


ANS: There is a fine line between showing something in error and pointing out its short comings.

Until you or another Relativist explains the above question I think my understanding of physics and the short comings of Relativity are doing just fine.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
WHAT? I can understand Ryans wanting to forget but there were other that initially claimed I was wrong and tried to give esoteric explanations...
As I recall, the original question was ill-defined. The only bickering was who was the observer and how he was observing. Once that was actually clarified the solution was not difficult.

What I hve done is ask for an explanation of how distance changes when the ruler also changes and you will get the same measurement.
As was stated before the ruler is not alwasy in the same frame of reference.

There is a fine line between showing something in error and pointing out its short comings.
Well... no. An error is "you said [this] and [that] and [this] is wrong because of [evidence]." A short coming is "your theory is [this], but it does not solve when [that] happens." A poor argument is "your theory of [this] does not take into account the 'underlying truth'."

Ryans,

Originally posted by MacM
WHAT? I can understand Ryans wanting to forget but there were other that initially claimed I was wrong and tried to give esoteric explanations...
As I recall, the original question was ill-defined. The only bickering was who was the observer and how he was observing. Once that was actually clarified the solution was not difficult.


ANS: This is a clear case of selective memory. Go back and look at the thread. My complaint was clearly stated as an objection to Brian Greenes claim that observers ON the merry go round got different measurements when the wheel was at rest or moving.

You wasted several weeks argueing all sorts of things, none of which addressed the original complaint. As late as last week you still stated Pi changed but that I just didn't understand. Nice try but my question and your answers are recorded for history. You can't change either. Your choice is to finally admit you made a mistake.


What I have done is ask for an explanation of how distance changes when the ruler also changes and you will get the same measurement.
As was stated before the ruler is not alwasy in the same frame of reference.


ANS: Any first grader knows the ruler can be in any number of frames of reference but the question is clear.

The ruler is in the frame of reference. The same frame of reference that the rocket is traveling in.

That is the distance you claim changes. If it doesn't change then it is still the same distance for the rocket.

Hence the acceleration disparity does not exist because distance DID NOT change. That was my point of raising the issue. Either distance doesn't change (my view) or you now must explain the acceleration disparity.

Which do you want to choose?


There is a fine line between showing something in error and pointing out its short comings.
Well... no. An error is "you said [this] and [that] and [this] is wrong because of [evidence]." A short coming is "your theory is [this], but it does not solve when [that] happens." A poor argument is "your theory of [this] does not take into account the 'underlying truth'."


ANS: Talk is cheap. You just made a bunch of statements, none of which address the issue at hand and are fabricated crap on top of it. I haven't said a damn thing about my theory here.

You can't say anything about my theory because you know virtually nothing about it, except that it finds Relativity to fall short of being shown abolutely valid as opposed to some other more practical explanations for the same results.

I have asked you (the MSB) a question about Relativity and as usual I am not getting an answer. Wonder why?.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius

...as usual I am not getting an answer. Wonder why?.
Because nobody cares anymore. I will spend my time pointing out when you are wrong, but I'm not going to bother showing you wnhy anymore. You have demonstrated time and time again your ignorance. I'm surprised James spends as much time to give you as much information as he still does.

Persol,


...as usual I am not getting an answer. Wonder why?.
Because nobody cares anymore. I will spend my time pointing out when you are wrong, but I'm not going to bother showing you wnhy anymore. You have demonstrated time and time again your ignorance. I'm surprised James spends as much time to give you as much information as he still does.


ANS:Only a couple of things wrong with your post.

1 - You spend to much time trying to claim I am wrong but you normally are talking about a different issue, such as in the Quasar string.

2 - Your claim that I am ignorant only lowers your level. Since you have failed to provide actual valid answers to my questions, I suggest that I must be above you. Therefore if I am ignorant where does that put you.

James R., at least has learned to qualify his statements with "If", etc., you would do well to do the same.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Agreed, "if" is a very good qualifier. In that vein:

If you are not getting any answers, it is because nobody cares anymore.

Persol,

If you are not getting any answers, it is because nobody cares anymore.


ANS: Nice cop out but just don't relax yet. I have e-mailed a scientific source to comment on the four quasar data sets in question.

Sleep well.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM:

<i>ANS: WHAT? I can understand Ryans wanting to forget but there were other that initially claimed I was wrong and tried to give esoteric explanations (You were one of them as I recall). It was a long string. How can you say nobody here disagrees ?</i>

I thought we cleared up the incorrect use of language previously. "pi" is a fundamental mathematical constant, with approximate value 3.14159... It never changes. Nobody has ever argued, except when using the language in a very loose way, that pi changes.

What changes on the merry-go-round is the ratio of measured circumference to measured diameter (depending, of course, on who does the measuring and from what frame of reference). There is your disagreement. You say that ratio <b>never</b> changes. Everybody who knows anything about relativity disagrees with you.

<i>ANS: Again you seem to miss the point. I do not say that Lorentz Contraction doesn't occur. So your answer doesn't apply to me.</i>

Well, I could have sworn that was what your statement implies.

<i>What I hve done is ask for an explanation of how distance changes when the ruler also changes and you will get the same measurement.</i>

And I have told you over and over again that the length of a ruler will depend on your velocity relative to the ruler. That's basic relativity.

<i>That suggest that something may be missing here don't you think?</i>

No.

<i>ANS: There is a fine line between showing something in error and pointing out its short comings.</i>

You have failed to do either in the case of relativity.

<i>Until you or another Relativist explains the above question I think my understanding of physics and the short comings of Relativity are doing just fine.</i>

You have already been answered. Again, I say that your inability to understand a careful explanation does not make you right and us wrong.

James R.,

What changes on the merry-go-round is the ratio of measured circumference to measured diameter (depending, of course, on who does the measuring and from what frame of reference). There is your disagreement. You say that ratio never changes. Everybody who knows anything about relativity disagrees with you.

ANS: Wrong again I'm afraid James. I have never argued that Pi doesn't change under certain circumstances.

The entire string was about measurements being made by observers riding on the merry-go-round. Go back and look. We seem to be having selective memory here.

Pi (Nor the measured ratio) change for the observer on the merry go round. That was the case that was presented and Ryans disagreed (as did some others). I was right and you nor the others have every found the courage to admit it. But that is ok, as long as we keep the facts of the case correct others know who was right.

ANS: Again you seem to miss the point. I do not say that Lorentz Contraction doesn't occur. So your answer doesn't apply to me.

Well, I could have sworn that was what your statement implies.

ANS: It may seem to imply that but it was a simple question about Relativity and Lorentz Contraction.

What I have done is ask for an explanation of how distance changes when the ruler also changes and you will get the same measurement.

And I have told you over and over again that the length of a ruler will depend on your velocity relative to the ruler. That's basic relativity.

ANS: Yes and I agree. But that wasn't the question and you know it. To repeat "How does the distance change to the rocket pilot for whom you claim distance is changed, when his ruler says there was no change?

His after all is the only meaningful referance frame for if he measures the distance with his contracted ruler he measures no change.

Yes or No.


That suggest that something may be missing here don't you think?

No.


ANS: Then answer the above question and explain this answer.

ANS: There is a fine line between showing something in error and pointing out its short comings.

You have failed to do either in the case of relativity.


ANS: It does seem that since none of the Relativist here has answered this question that you are in error with that statement.


Until you or another Relativist explains the above question I think my understanding of physics and the short comings of Relativity are doing just fine.

You have already been answered. Again, I say that your inability to understand a careful explanation does not make you right and us wrong.


ANS: What a shame. Nobody seems to have the courage to admit that they haven't (and in my opinion can't) answer the question. What I get are discussion about other reference frames. Frames that have no bearing on the distance the pilot sees and has to travel.

All the double talk in the world can't hide the failure of the concept. You can't claim the distance for the pilot contracted at all because from his vantage point his ruler (also contracted) will measure the same distance and his is the only distance that matters.

And if I am at rest (orthogonal) to the rocket and the planet it is headed for I have no relative velocity and my ruler will show no change between the rocket and planet.

Repeating that I just don't understand doesn't make it so. And it seems clear to me that this case is unresolved.

Again, don't tell us about measurements made by others with relative velocity to the rocket and its ruler, tell us how the distance has changed for the pilot of the rocket since he is the one traveling the distance whatever it is.

I await a legitimate answer.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What changes on the merry-go-round is the ratio of measured circumference to measured diameter (depending, of course, on who does the measuring and from what frame of reference). There is your disagreement. You say that ratio never changes. Everybody who knows anything about relativity disagrees with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<i>Wrong again I'm afraid James. I have never argued that Pi doesn't change under certain circumstances.</i>

Yes, I'm the one arguing that Pi never changes. You are wrong if you say it does.

<i>The entire string was about measurements being made by observers riding on the merry-go-round. Go back and look. We seem to be having selective memory here.</i>

Not selective memory. Yes, we were talking about measurements made on the MGR. The question then becomes: from <b>where</b> on the MGR? Because points on the circumference of a MGR are a different reference frame from the centre of the MGR (they accelerate at different rates). Both a person at the centre <b>and</b> a person on the edge will find, if they measure things in a consistent way, that the ratio of measured circumference to diameter is not equal to pi when the MGR is rotating (as ryans and I have been arguing all along.)

<i>I was right and you nor the others have every found the courage to admit it.</i>

What arrogant nonsense.

<i>But that is ok, as long as we keep the facts of the case correct others know who was right.</i>

Indeed.

<i>To repeat "How does the distance change to the rocket pilot for whom you claim distance is changed, when his ruler says there was no change?</i>

Which distance are you talking about? Half your problem is that you are never specific enough about reference frames and observers.

<i>ANS: What a shame. Nobody seems to have the courage to admit that they haven't (and in my opinion can't) answer the question.</i>

Been there, done that.

<i>What I get are discussion about other reference frames. Frames that have no bearing on the distance the pilot sees and has to travel.</i>

You clearly have no idea what relativity is.

<i>All the double talk in the world can't hide the failure of the concept.</i>

Yeah, yeah, you're smarter than Einstein. Blah blah blah.

<i>You can't claim the distance for the pilot contracted at all because from his vantage point his ruler (also contracted) will measure the same distance and his is the only distance that matters.</i>

Same distance as what? Which distance?

<i>Again, don't tell us about measurements made by others with relative velocity to the rocket and its ruler, tell us how the distance has changed for the pilot of the rocket since he is the one traveling the distance whatever it is.</i>

If a rocket sets out to travel from, say, Earth to Mars, then as soon as it takes off from Earth the pilot will perceive the distance between the two planets to be shorter than it was before he took off, as measured by his rulers alone.

<i>I await a legitimate answer. </i>

Read my previous paragraph. There's your answer.

James R.,


MacM:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What changes on the merry-go-round is the ratio of measured circumference to measured diameter (depending, of course, on who does the measuring and from what frame of reference). There is your disagreement. You say that ratio never changes. Everybody who knows anything about relativity disagrees with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong again I'm afraid James. I have never argued that Pi doesn't change under certain circumstances.

Yes, I'm the one arguing that Pi never changes. You are wrong if you say it does.

ANS: You are giving me whiplash James. Please go back and look at those posts. If you didn't say Pi changed then you most certainly vouched for those that said it did.

Now lets clear the air here. You have said Pi is a recognized number and that number doesn't change. Nobody has a disagreement with that. But it has also been claimed that a value for Pi (i.e. the ratio for the circumference to the radius) does change.

I have already agreed with that based on different observers.

But that was not the issues, nor the discussion. The issue and I shouldn't really have to keep repeating this, was that it had been claimed that the observer ON THE RIM of the MGR would measure a change in circumference and an observer along the radius would not and that therefore the value of Pi would change.

My position was it would not. Don't keep moving the goal post, it won't work. My statement was correct and Brian Greenes was wrong and it was Ryan's (and others) that argued against my position claiming I didn't understand Relativity. It was they that assumed to much, as you now seem to be doing as well, and claimed I was in error and just didn't understand.

It was Ryans that brought GR into a changing radius but I also showed that that did not alter the results either since the ruler on the radius would also be affected the same amount as the radius and so that no measurable change in the value for Pi would occur.

End of story. All you guys have to do is admit your errors and move on.


The entire string was about measurements being made by observers riding on the merry-go-round. Go back and look. We seem to be having selective memory here.

Not selective memory. Yes, we were talking about measurements made on the MGR. The question then becomes: from where on the MGR? Because points on the circumference of a MGR are a different reference frame from the centre of the MGR (they accelerate at different rates). Both a person at the centre and a person on the edge will find, if they measure things in a consistent way, that the ratio of measured circumference to diameter is not equal to pi when the MGR is rotating (as ryans and I have been arguing all along.)

ANS: I have never said otherwise. At no time have I said the observer stood at the center of the MGR. It was clearly stated that he crawled along the radius and he measured the radius (not the circumference). Another crawled along the circumference and measured the circumference (not the radius) and they compared their measurements.

That was the Brian Greene example and what I objected to. Like it or not James I am right (and I think you know it but can't admit it) and all the arguements to the contrary have been distortions of the issues at hand. Not valid answers.


I was right and you nor the others have every found the courage to admit it.

What arrogant nonsense.

ANS: So being right is arrogant nonesense. The arrogance seems to be on the other foot here. An unwillingness to admit error for clearly you are refusing to state that the problem as introduced and argued was for the two observers measuring as stated and the conclusion I claimed was that Brian Greene was in error.