Mathematical Challenge to the Consistancy Claim of SR

Really, it amazes me that some professionals are capable of applying Lorentz contractions to see what A will observe as B flies by, since A assumes himself at rest, but stubbornly refuses to apply the same math to see what B observes as A flies by, since B also assumes himself at rest. They will each observe the other as having time dilation. In this respect, MacM is right, in that any other conclusion is a misapplication of the theory. MacM, however, is assuming that the theory predicts EACH clock shows BOTH values to BOTH observers. In reality the theory predicts that EACH observer will see his OWN clock as undilated and the OTHER clock as slow. A says B is slow, B says A is slow. As I said, the only way to make this paradox disappear is if they begin matching speeds, which involves acceleration, handled by General Relativity which brings in another paradox.
Question: What if each accelerates in the direction the other is travelling with the acceleration of the two observers being equal but opposite in direction? Answer: When their velocities match, the two clocks will be synchronized.
(try to) Prove any of this wrong.
Aaron

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with this, I was not intending to imply there were three frames, I just wanted to explain what the basis was for treating A differently from BC.

Cheers,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

QQ,
You said:
"Yuriy, I too think you will also be amazed by your crucial mistakes of judgement.
You ask at rest with respect to what?. The answer (who?) is at rest as regards to the other (which “other”?) frame.

IN the diagram I posted the ship can be deemed to be at rest or the frame AB can be deemed to be at rest but always in respect to the other (which one?) frame.

The ship at rest assumes that the AB frame has all (what all? Their are several velocities? How many?) the velcoity in the scenario and is at rest (in respect to whom?) and when you swap frames the AB frame assumes that all (what all?) velocity is with ships frame.

At rest is only relative to the other frame. If you wish to bring the universe into the scenario then it takes on (it takes on or it will be?) another frame (with center of coordinate where? Axes directed how? Speed in respect to what? Clocks all over this new RF synchronized with what clock?).

But in this scenario the universe is implied as being the rest frame (in respect to what?) shared (what means "shared" here?) with what ever frame you choose whether the ship or AB. “[/I]

Until you will fill up answers on all set up questions, your post will remain unrecognizable.
I am asking you for the last time: be very careful at posting, read and reread what you want post and do not miss information fixing the understanding of every relative notion you are using. This is the last time when I spend my time trying to understand semantic puzzles you are sending to us in this Forum…

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, I've read the rest of the pages now. The numbers I used were from the earlier pages. But still, we have a symmetric situation. A and B are approaching each other at a velocity v. From A's standpoint, A is sitting still and relativistic effects are occurring on B. Fine, you've thoroughly rehashed the math and concept of this. Then you go on to explain that these RELATIVISTIC effects are being EXPERIENCED by B, so that the distance B measures is different from what A measures.

Now suppose I made a mistake and labelled the two observers wrong, so that A is actually B and B is actually A. Then the same argument applies to the new A as it did for the old A.

Put it another way: We measure from A first and see that B's clock is going slower. Then we measure from B (who assumes he is standing still) and he finds that A's clock is going even slower than that. Then A finds that B's clock is even slower than that.... Ultimately, all time comes to a stop. The only way out is to assume that B's clock is slower than A's clock AS SEEN BY A, and A's clock is slower than B's AS SEEN BY B.

I think if you agree you won't be completely falling on your sword, since this answers the supposed contradiction of SR and you would be right that SR is consistent, but for different reasons.

If anyone disagrees, please let me know. I'd like to know if I need to change my understanding of these things in a drastic way, or if I can go on thinking I know something.

Aaron

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please point out why I am wrong in this, I just don't see why it would be wrong?

 

synergy,
now you are talking about Twins Paradox, so the best think is for you right now - to read this thread. There you find a lot about this paradox.

 

2,
I may have given that impression but I agree with what you are saying.
However , to take the other "points" perspective on ehas to take that perspective. And what has been happening is that that perspective has been corrupted by the other point in our frame.

 

synergy,

Does it matter to what [A] sees?
Does it matter to [A] what sees?

 

Clarification. I am saying the misapplication of physics by switching frames and creating the illusion of time dialtion, when coupled to the reciprocity of views, would create that requirement which proves what they claim is not possible in physical reality.

That is I am saying based on the view that each observers sees himself at rest and hence each would see the same undilated time, combined with their false arguement about the time dilation view of each other, creates multiple accumulated times to satisfy all views according to premisis of SR and that it is impossible, hence SR and its application is false.

A clock cannot simultaneously display its view of proper local time based on a rest observation and also display the dilated time predicted by Relativity for the other observers view.

 

Yes, QQ, we are in agreement then. I guess I was misled because you sometimes seemed to be speaking of the other 'point' in one frame as
another 'frame.'

 

by MacM:

"A clock cannot simultaneously display its view of proper local time based on a rest observation and also display the dilated time predicted by Relativity for the other observers view."
==========================================================

This is where you lose me, Mac. Are you saying ALL clocks should display the SAME
time from any 'view'?

 

Possibly it was the intensity of my understanding, finally, of the reasoning glitch in SRT that came across in such a way that the two frame perspectives split....ha....

For example:

What MacM has just posted is exactly the same position I have recently been taking but if you read it it feels different yet it says the same thing.
Where MacM and I are approaching it differently is that I assume no physical application of this SRT model and assume only that it is a thought experiment, abeit a very sophisticated one. SO i woudl not use the word illusion I would only use the word logical syntax or glitch or some such thing becasue to grant the error of reason teh status of illusion gives it credibility beyond just logic loop...etc.....
You see the illusion MAcM is talking about doesn't exist either, simply because the logic in use fails to get that far.

So MacM is implying with his words that SRT has both reality and illusion were as I am sayng SRT [time dilation and length contraction effects] has neither.
If you read macM 's post very carefully and attempt to uderstand what he is saying you will see that he explains the conundrum really well. But to accept what he says you have to accept that the very basic premise in use by SRT'ist is flawed. And that is where I focus my attention.

 

No. Clocks actually show a slowing due to motion. That means clocks must be reacting to absolute motion in contrast to the claims of SR that there is no such absolute state.

It is SR that creates the misinformation that each clock has a view of being at rest by eliminating an absolute background, which thereby causes each clock to see itself at rest and hence must record undilated time.

Since clocks do infact dilate with motion the removal of the absolute view was in error.

Inaddition it is in error to try and account for such dilation by then claiming that A's view of B clock causes B clock to change time. That violates the other SR condition which states B at rest must record a different time.

Infact it is outrageous.

What appears to be the reality is that there does exist an absolute background. That clocks without any definition of relative velocity to anything (including an unseen background, where there may be relative motion), that the clock ticks at a given rate called its local proper time.

Local proper time varies with motion relative to the absolute background.

So all individual clocks in motion all over the universe are ticking differently in relation to this absolute rest background. There is no need for relative velocity between clocks to cause an apparent time differance. It already exists but can't be compared until you bring in a second clock.

Now introduce a second clock and you have measureable relative velocity. Still in absence of any measurement of the background it is impossible to say who is in motion. But that does not mean you can claim both are at rest because there IS relative velocity between them so one must be in motion and one at rest (disregarding that each actually has some motion but not the same) relative to the background.

LR allows you to pick either one as being at rest and the other is in motion. The one declared as in motion cannot claim to be at rest. This can be done because declaring one at rest is nothing more than an offset zero calibration against an unknown background. The relative motion becomes the relative differential in tick rate.

SR allows you to declare either one is at rest and hence both have a view of undilated time. It is a subtle but very important differance in views. LR matches our observations using absolute referances and absolute tick rate against an unknown background. SR disallows absolute referances and has this duality of accumulated times as a result.

For example we now know that we have a general motion in the universe as a velocity of approximately 300 km/s. Assume an earth clock which has this motion ticks just as we measure our clock to function. But another clock moving at 0.866c to earth would be moving 0.866c + 300 km/s to the background and hence would have a tick rate of 0.5 of the earth clock.

But that tick rate differance is due to motion through the background and only indirectly has a relationship to the other clock. By setting earth as a local absolute rest frame you now shift the clocks to earth time as being standard and the other clock simply being 0.5 of the earth tick rate.

Same result but disregarding the actual cause which is motion through the background. The differance is you cannot in the same experiment claim both can be viewed at rest. If B is declared to be the clock in motion then the physics are that B sees the motion he does not see himself as being at rest.

That is opposite the conclusions of SR.

Hope this clarifies.

 

My interpretation of MacM's post:

Keeping in mind that all dilation effects according to SRT are according to a flawed SRT reasoning does not discount the real time dilation effects that occur in nature due to velocity. It is just the SRT interpretation and application that explains these effects inadequately. In nature time dilation has a background of absolute motion but again SRT fails to recognise this

It is the logic of SRT that creates this SRT virtual reality and is not to be confused with the yet to be explained properly real reality.

Clock A's view can not change B's perpective view.

And since B's perspective is always at rest then dilated time etc cannnot be recorded as it can't experience what A's view sees.

Thus A's view of B is an illusion created solely by the flawed reasoning of SRT logic in use. If SRT was applied correctly the reasoning flaw becomes obvious.

I hope you don't mind MAcM

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have come to agree with you that clocks in motion do slow with regards to a clock
that is not in motion. The 'views' stated by SR is based upon a false premise, though,
in my unprofessional opinion. It has nothing to do with 'the speed of light' per se, but
motion through an 'energy' field, whether that field is a gravitational field or an ether
field or possibly even an electromagnetic field of some type. The clock in motion is
much the same as a clock in a different gravitational field, the field itself is what affects time, not just 'relative velocity.' In fact, now don't anyone slap me too hard,
but I think if one could slow down a neutron star's rate of spin, its GRAVITY would
decrease somewhat. In my opinion, this 'field' is the key to everything, the very thing
Einstein wanted to eliminate from physics.

 

2,

It is SRT that likes the idea of evesdropping on someoneelses clocks.

And then attempt to force the other clock to show what it sees.

SRT by virtue of it's inherant logic is being inconsitantly applied by extrapolating velocity onto a clock that is at rest.

Accordong to the SRT logic in use the answer would be no, but that is simply because the logic is flawed.

The important thing to remember is that becasue of the logic problem SRT is now just a thought experiment loosely tied into reality.

We don't realy know what we would see, as no valid theory exists to help us determine that question.

I think the use of absolute velocity will in the end show as necessary.

But until this occurs we have no framework to work with because the SRT model appears to be fatally flawed.

 

Not at all. Just trying to clarify to 2I's request.

 

Precisely.

 

I reject your interpretaion of my view. Only that I do not contend SR has reality. It is only by using a correct formula taken from an ether theory LR that it produces any actual predictions. That is the dilation rate of clocks with motion.

That is not an SR concept. It is an LR concept adapted by Einstien into SR. Where Einstien went wrong was to remove the absolute background and create the reciprocity of two observers in relative motion both being at rest.

AND.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

and people have been applying a LR logic sub set or routine when they use SRT.

When they deem the other clock sees dilation they are applying LR by assuming that their own frame is absolute.

And I would suggest that that is exactly what Einstien was trying to avoid but failed to do so. Because to do so means that SR makes no predictions at all.
If the LR subset logic is removed and SRT is applied correctly the Theory provides no benefit except as an excersise in relative velcoities, in a void of no other references, such a deep space or in a vacuum of nothingness.

It certainly can not predict dilation and length contraction when all frames are treated identically.