Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

MacM · Nov 3, 2004

The following is the culmination of two years endeavor to point out what I see as a fatal flaw with the Theory of Relativity.

As can be anticipated that effort has been met with less than welcome fan fair. It has resulted in lengthy flame wars and abusive name calling and personal attacks which had nothing to do with the issue.

This is an important issue and I feel it is appropriate to place this at the top of a thread so as to not have it buried deep in such diatraibes as described above.

I leave the readers conclusion unto himself. Whatever vile comments this may generate just keep in mind they must properly address the issue or it stands.

Due to the high readership of this topic in several threads I am making this a vote thread. Hopefully the many readers which have not joined in the verbal debate will post an opinion.

For those voting "No" it would be advantageous if you give a bonafide response explaining why not. Note "Bonafide". Off topic personal attacks WILL NOT BE RESPONDED TO.

The issue has to do with the physical reality of claims in Relativity. It is my time dilation test case being answered by James R. A well respected member here quite knowledgeable in the issues of Relativity.

******************** Case and Response *********************

MacM said:

“ Two clocks A and B are seperated in space at relative rest and are some acceptable distance apart with a start controller located midway between the clocks. ”

“ That controller sends a signal to each clock, when received it sets timers in each clock to a time based on an acceleration schedule for clock B such that from each clocks perspective once B has reached 0.9c and stopped accelerating both clocks start according to the precalculated time. ”
Click to expand...

James R said:

Let me make sure I have this right. A remains stationary. B, upon receiving the signal, accelerates towards A until it reaches a relative speed of 0.9c. The instant it reaches 0.9c, clocks A and B both start to tick. Is that right?

Now, we just need to know in whose frame they start to tick simultaneously to complete the specification of the test. When the clocks are started, clocks A and B are not in the same location, and they are travelling at 0.9c relative to one another. Relativity therefore says that they cannot start simultaneously in both frames, but only in one frame.

For now, I will assume they start simultaneously in A's frame, but not in B's, unless you want to change this. Remember, you have agreed that they cannot be started simultaneously in both frames if relativity is correct, and you have given no reason to suppose that relativity is not correct, so far.
Click to expand...

MacM said:

The test is designed such that the acceleration ends and timing starts when the moving clock is 9 light-hours seperation between clocks. This results in the 10 hours test before the clocks collide. ”
Click to expand...

James R said:

In which frame is the 9 light-hours measured? A's frame, or B's frame? Because, as you are aware, length contraction effects in relativity say that the distance measured in two co-moving frames will be different. Again, unless you say something to the contrary, I will take it you are measuring the 9 light hours in A's frame, but not in B's.
Click to expand...

MacM said:

“ What does each clock display the instant they collide and certainly stop simultaneously.? and what time does each clock observe the other clock as displaying at the instant they collide? ”
Click to expand...

James R said:

In frame A, given the above assumptions:

B needs to travel 9 light hours at speed 0.9c, which will take 10 hours.
Clock A will read 10 hours at the time of collision.

In frame B, given the assumptions:

A needs to travel 3.92 light hours at a speed 0.9c, which will take 4.35 hours.
Clock B will read 4.35 hours at the time of collision.

At the instant of the collision, both observers will agree that clock A reads 10 hours and clock B reads 4.35 hours.

In B's frame, clock A was started before clock B, which accounts for the longer time displayed on that clock, even though clock A runs slower than clock B as seen by B. Similarly, clock A sees clock B running slow, but A and B were started simultaneously, which accounts for the longer time displayed on clock A in this frame.
Click to expand...

Some posts later James R responded to one of my replies to another member with the following:

James R said:

In which frame?
Click to expand...

What follows is my response to James R

****************** MacM Response *********************

[post=703574]Both Frames[/post]

****************** Extract from James R Post ******************
At the instant of the collision, both observers will agree that clock A reads 10 hours and clock B reads 4.35 hours.
***********************************************

You stood by that statement [post=704076]Here[/post] when asked specifically about reciprocity in both frames.

**********Extract from James R Post ***********************

With all the assumptions I established in my post addressing your new scenario, I stand by my analysis of that scenario.
*****************************************************

You tried your double talk [post=704113]Here[/post] by claiming in the observers view the clock must have ran slow. That is playing hide and seek with the truth and ignores your established fact that B clock accumulates less time because "A" traveled less distance. Your response goes to "Illusion" not "Reality". That is the issue, not if an observer can be fooled by an illusion of motion..

********************* Extract from James R Post ****************

No. It's simply a matter of which frame you choose to look at the problem in.

From A's point of view, B has to travel 9 light hours, which takes 10 hours. A explains the final reading on B's clock by saying B's clock was running slow during the 10 hour trip.

From B's point of view, A has to travel 3.92 light hours, which takes 4.35 hours. B explains the final reading on A's clock by saying that, although A's clock was running slow, it was started long before B's own clock was started, giving it enough time to catch up to and overtake B's time.
********************************************************

You try again [post=704638]Here[/post] to claim duality of clock displays by claiming the observers subjective view vs actual cause. There can be only one cause, which is it. If spatial dimension is valid as you calculated the clock display is satisfied by the lesser distance traveled in that view and the display is only correct if the clock's tick rate remains unchanged by relative motion.

************** Extract from James R Post ********************
They agree on final displayed times. They do not agree on total elapsed times since the start of the test. B says the test took 4.35 hours. A says it took 10 hours. The only way they can disagree about this is is time dilation effects occur.
*******************************************************

You repeat and compound your error [post=704921]Here[/post] by showing the time dilation calculation produces the same result.

***************Extract from James R Post ******************
t2 = t1 sqrt(1-(v/c)2)

Plug in t1=10 hours, v=0.9c, and you get t2=4.35 hours.

There you go. Time dilation!
*******************************************************

You fail to realize that you have not also computed the fact that the clock traveled less distance to produce that result.

I repeat BOTH cannot be physical functions. One or the other MUST be "Illusion of Motion". Which is it. You can't have both. It violates the clock displays in reality to assume both are physically real functions that must coexist simultaneously during relative motion.

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS: After two years of BS about this issue it comes down to the fact that I have been right. Relativists have no sound arguement to declare BOTH spatial contraction and time dilation as BOTH physical realitites.

IFSPATIAL CONTRACTION IS PHYSICALLY REAL THEN THE TIMES ON THE CLOCK DISPLAYS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR BY DISTANCE TRAVELED BY THE MOVING CLOCK, D = VT AND CLOCK TICK RATES MUST REMAIN CONSTANT AND THE TWIN PARADOX IS A FRAUD AND HOAX. IT BECOMES NOTHING MORE THAN ME DRIVING 10 MILES OR 4.356 MILES AT THE SAME VELOCITY IN WHICH CASE MY AGE HAS NOT CHANGED DUE TO THE SHORTER TRAVEL TIME.

IFCLOCK TICK RATE IS DECLARED PHYSICALLY REAL THEN TIME DILATION COULD BE REAL AND THE TWIN PARADOX COULD EXIST BUT SPATIAL DIMENSIONAL CONTRACTION CANNOT.

CONSIDERING THAT THE TWIN PARADOX CREATES TEMPORAL COMPLICATIONS IF "EITHER" RELAVISTIC FUNCTION WERE TO BE CONSIDERED REALITY; WHICH IS NOW SUTIABLY DRAWN INTO QUESTION, THEN O'CAMS RAZOR WOULD FAVOR LORENTZ CONTRACTION AND NOT TIME DILATION AS BEING THE ONLY PHYSICAL REALITY.

Note: Amended to clarify.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R · Nov 2, 2004

MacM,

Your conclusions are incorrect. The reason is that you are mixing up different reference frames. Before I go into detail, here is a brief summary:

A's reference frame

A is stationary. B is moving at 0.9c
Initial distance between A and B = 9 light hours.
Time taken for B to travel the distance = 10 hours.
Final reading on A's clock = 10 hours.
A's clock time is not in any way dilated in this frame.

The final reading on B's clock is 4.35 hours.

A explains this reading by saying that B only measured 4.35 hours when he should have measured 10 hours. Therefore, B's clock has run slower than A's clock.

B's reference frame

B is stationary. A is moving at 0.9c
Initial distance between A and B = 3.92 light hours.
Time taken for A to travel the distance = 4.35 hours.
Final reading on B's clock = 4.35 hours.
B's clock time is not in any way dilated in this frame.

The final reading on A's clock is 10 hours.

B explains this reading by saying that although A was running slower than B, the clocks did not start ticking simultaneously in B's reference frame. In fact, clock A started ticking a long time before B started ticking.

Summary

In each frame, each observer sees the other observer's clock as undergoing time dilation. From A's point of view, B runs slow. From B's point of view, A runs slow. No clock experiences time dilation in its own frame.

Your post

Here are the errors in your post:

You tried your double talk Here by claiming in the observers view the clock must have ran slow.
Click to expand...

This is not double talk. This is what happened.

That is playing hide and seek with the truth and ignores your established fact that the clock accumulates less time because it traveled less distance.
Click to expand...

You're mixing frames. In A's frame, for example, B ran slow because of time dilation. In B's frame, B did not run slow - A ran slow.

You try again Here to claim duality of clock displays by claiming the observers subjective view vs actual cause.
Click to expand...

Each clock displays one and only one time at any given time, in either reference frame. The claimed "duality" doesn't exist.

MacM said:

James R said:

t2 = t1 sqrt(1-(v/c)2)

Plug in t1=10 hours, v=0.9c, and you get t2=4.35 hours.

There you go. Time dilation!
Click to expand...

You fail to realize that you have not also computed the fact that the clock traveled less distance to produce that result.
Click to expand...

Here, you have a basic misconception about when the above equation applies. It applies in a situation where t1 is measured by a clock stationary in one frame (in this case frame A - i.e. A's clock), and t2 is measured by a different clock stationary in a different frame (in this case frame B - i.e. B's clock). This equation tells you how time dilates between different frames.

It has nothing to do with distance. Both clocks are stationary in their respective frames. If they weren't, we'd have to use the general Lorentz transformations.

I repeat BOTH cannot be physical functions. One or the other MUST be "Illusion of Motion". Which is it. You can't have both.
Click to expand...

Time dilation and length contraction are the two most well known effects of special relativity. You can't pick and choose which parts of relativity you like and which ones you don't like. If you accept the reality of length contraction, you must accept time dilation, too. They go together, and are both logically derived from the postulates of Special Relativity.

If length contraction is a real effect, as you seem to be claiming here, then time dilation MUST be equally real.

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS: After two years of BS about this issue it comes down to the fact that I have been right. Relativists have no sound arguement to declare BOTH spatial contraction and time dilation as BOTH physical realitites.
Click to expand...

Once again, you had completely failed to understand the concepts you are supposedly debunking.

You make yourself look very foolish.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MacM · Nov 2, 2004

James R,

While I believe I can show that your post is fundlemental incorrect, I don't have time this evening but will return to it.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pete · Nov 2, 2004

I've said enough on this topic.

MacM · Nov 3, 2004

James R said:

MacM,

Your conclusions are incorrect. The reason is that you are mixing up different reference frames. Before I go into detail, here is a brief summary:

A's reference frame

A is stationary. B is moving at 0.9c
Initial distance between A and B = 9 light hours.
Time taken for B to travel the distance = 10 hours.

Only in A's view

Final reading on A's clock = 10 hours.
A's clock time is not in any way dilated in this frame.

The final reading on B's clock is 4.35 hours.

Because B sees distance reduced to 3.92 Light hours and is traveling at 0.9c

A explains this reading by saying that B only measured 4.35 hours when he should have measured 10 hours. Therefore, B's clock has run slower than A's clock.

I have no objection to the term "explains" by A's view

B's reference frame

B is stationary. A is moving at 0.9c
Initial distance between A and B = 3.92 light hours.

Correct, which is why the clock only accumulates 4.35 hours and to do so its tick rate must remain unchanged.

Time taken for A to travel the distance = 4.35 hours.
Final reading on B's clock = 4.35 hours.
B's clock time is not in any way dilated in this frame.

The final reading on A's clock is 10 hours.

B explains this reading by saying that although A was running slower than B, the clocks did not start ticking simultaneously in B's reference frame. In fact, clock A started ticking a long time before B started ticking.

And this is where you shuffle the cards and make stuff up. B accumulated 4.35 hours because it distance contracted, not because its tick rate changed. "A" thinks B's clock ran slow because "A" dosen't see the change in dimension. But what "A" THINKS is an illusion and not the reality of the tick rate of "B". The tick rate of "B" is cast in its final display by t = d/v = 3.92/.9 = 4.35 hours.

Summary

In each frame, each observer sees the other observer's clock as undergoing time dilation. From A's point of view, B runs slow. From B's point of view, A runs slow. No clock experiences time dilation in its own frame.

No disagreement. Other than the tick rate do not change any deviation in displays are a function of length contraction. Or the only alternative is to claim time dilation and say that length contraction is an illusion. BOTH cannot be physically real and coexist simultaneously other wise the clocks will read 10 hours and 1.9 hours.

Your post

Here are the errors in your post:

“ You tried your double talk Here by claiming in the observers view the clock must have ran slow. ”

This is not double talk. This is what happened.

Sorry. Not so. What happens if you assume length contraction real is that the clock has a reading equivelent to the distance traveled divided by the velocity.

“ That is playing hide and seek with the truth and ignores your established fact that the clock accumulates less time because it traveled less distance. ”

You're mixing frames. In A's frame, for example, B ran slow because of time dilation. In B's frame, B did not run slow - A ran slow.

And here is where you run into trouble if you stop shuffleing the cards and look at your hand pragmatically. If both run slow by an equal amount (which they must according to Relativity) then there can be no net measureable time differential in the final clock displays. HINT: No measureable time dilation between clocks and hence no Twin Paradox.

The falicy of claiming I am mixing frames is addresed below and has been clarified in my original post.

“ You try again Here to claim duality of clock displays by claiming the observers subjective view vs actual cause. ”

Each clock displays one and only one time at any given time, in either reference frame. The claimed "duality" doesn't exist.

Wrong. The clocks both coexist as part of a common relative velocity relationship. They do not read one time then another. Since stipulating frames is arbitrary you force clocks to display two different times arbitrarily. Clocks do not record arbitrary times, they record actual tick rates and will display only that tick rate, which is unchanging in its frame. The view of the other frame is nothing more than that "A View" a perception an illusion.

“ Originally Posted by James R
t2 = t1 sqrt(1-(v/c)2)

Plug in t1=10 hours, v=0.9c, and you get t2=4.35 hours.

There you go. Time dilation! ”

"Originally Posted by MacM
You fail to realize that you have not also computed the fact that the clock traveled less distance to produce that result. ”

Here, you have a basic misconception about when the above equation applies. It applies in a situation where t1 is measured by a clock stationary in one frame (in this case frame A - i.e. A's clock), and t2 is measured by a different clock stationary in a different frame (in this case frame B - i.e. B's clock). This equation tells you how time dilates between different frames.

No, more correctly it tells you how the clock will appear to dilate. The clock tick rate is unchanging and they will on inspection display only one time regardless of who is looking at them in a moving frame.

It has nothing to do with distance. Both clocks are stationary in their respective frames. If they weren't, we'd have to use the general Lorentz transformations.

Relevant only in that each clcok is always at rest in an inertial frame and always ticks at its local proper tick rate which remains unchanged by any moving observer, inspite of the fact that the moving observer sees an illlusion of motion caused by length contraction which would suggest the tick rate had changed.

“ I repeat BOTH cannot be physical functions. One or the other MUST be "Illusion of Motion". Which is it. You can't have both. ”

Time dilation and length contraction are the two most well known effects of special relativity. You can't pick and choose which parts of relativity you like and which ones you don't like. If you accept the reality of length contraction, you must accept time dilation, too. They go together, and are both logically derived from the postulates of Special Relativity.

If length contraction is a real effect, as you seem to be claiming here, then time dilation MUST be equally real.

False. For reason shown. These two do not coexist. They are one and the same calculation. If you assume length contraction is real then the result becomes the illusion of time dilation. If you assume time dilation the the result is the illusion of length contraction.

If both length contracted and time dilated then you would get 1.9 hours not 4.35 hours.

“ SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS: After two years of BS about this issue it comes down to the fact that I have been right. Relativists have no sound arguement to declare BOTH spatial contraction and time dilation as BOTH physical realitites. ”

Once again, you had completely failed to understand the concepts you are supposedly debunking.

Once again- False.

You make yourself look very foolish.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

Quantum Quack · Nov 2, 2004

I have voted yes to the question, in that I believe that relativity is fundementaly flawed. I say this with no pleasure or delight and understand that whilst it is flawed it has advanced our understanding of mathematics and most importantly the nature of time and how if not absolute we would understand it.

I believe at thi spoint that the fundemental nature of light and gravity will eventually irrevocably change our view to a more simpler and yet more sophisticated view of the universe and time.

It is in some ways saddennig to see so much work go on in areas that have failed to be premised properly and it is here thatthe challenge remains and that is to premise our theories in more fundementally correct ways.

Areas of fundemental concern are:

1) Light acceleration and deacceleration from source to reflector.
2) Proving that light actually has velocity formally and completely.
3) Learning how we have built an industry to support a theory in ways that have made the theory so complex that falsification is virtually impossible.
4) Einstiens inspiration about light has been adapted to existing thougth and adpated further on with lorentzian math etc, to make that adaptation complete.[even Einstien was guilty of this bastardisation of his own inspiration]
5) Our inability to accept that light may very well be a gravitational pheno.
60 our inability to grasp the absolute nature of the Now [present] adn allow dilation due to velocity to co-exist.
6) by dis-allowing a common inertial frame and depending only a lopsided 'single frame at rest' perpective.
7) Inability to deal with fundemental errors in our observations, such as electron jumping and casmir effects on energy and force.
8) Not understanding or even allowing for fundemental insight into magnetic force and gravity that come into dispute with SR.

The sheer strength in the attempt to justify Sr means that we have closed our minds to alternatives and shut the door on any forward post GR SR era.

if Sr and GR can't work in any area of physics then the laws of physics do nopt apply equally to all frames of referrence thus the theory is flawed becasue this is one of it's primary postulates.

The laws of physics apply always to all frames of reference........this is a fundemental logic yes?

well even JamesR has admitted that SR breaks down at quantum levels and extreme distances...so this alone invalidates this theory by it's own postulate.

Quantum Quack · Nov 2, 2004

I am sorry if I have mixed up Sr and Gr but all the same.........the theory stands invalid by it's own postulate.

MacM · Nov 2, 2004

READERS and James R,

While it is not true that I am mixing frames, I can see where he makes that arguement. I have left things to be understood from a pragmatic level and didn't tie them down explicit enough. It doesn't alter the conclusion but has left the door open to his claim and that is bad.

CLARIFICATION:

When I said that "B" accumulates 4.35 hours due to d = vt, that does not mean that "B" is in motion. In that view it is "A" that is in motion but the accumulated time is based on d = vt until collison of the clocks.

It matters not which clock is in motion the accumulated time is the same but to keep Relativists happy when "B" accumulates this time it is "A" that is moving.

The case was drafted as collison of the clocks to stop the arguement about simultaneous stopping of the clocks.

Clearly no clock continues to run in any frames view.

Lets see some votes by the silent majority of readers here. Take a position be you professionaly qualified or not.

Pete · Nov 2, 2004

Mac, no matter how many votes are cast, I suspect that you will always cling to the belief that there is some "silent majority" out there who believe in you...

Do you have any real reason to suspect that this is the case?
Do you consider it possible or probable that no such silent majority exists?

Persol · Nov 3, 2004

I think it's sad that this is there are 2 or 3 polls that MacM stated to see if 'people believe he is right'. There's a reason they never turn out in your favor.

You post tons of stuff out of context... JamesR and others correct you in detail... you claim they are wrong and start to pout....a few come in and make fun of you to at least make the thread entertaining since it isn't educational.

And you still can't figure out reference frames.... just give up pretending you know what the theory is actually about.

To draw a parallel, this is sort of like the election happening today. You have the far left, the far right, and the rest. MacM falls into the far X category. No matter how much things are explained he will never change his mind. He will completely ignore opposing facts... or will twist them to say what he thinks they should mean. Debate is pointles; all you can do is point and laugh.

MacM · Nov 3, 2004

Pete said:

Mac, no matter how many votes are cast, I suspect that you will always cling to the belief that there is some "silent majority" out there who believe in you...
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point. It is not a matter of believing in me. It is a matter of trying to get all those readers that haven't participated in posts to cast a vote.

Do you have any real reason to suspect that this is the case?
Do you consider it possible or probable that no such silent majority exists?
Click to expand...

Possible but not probable. Readership is to high vs posts. Also the vote will have no affect on my position either way. The facts are absolutely clear and I could be the only person left on earth to say so and it would not change the facts, hence nor my position.

It really is high time that other address the facts and stop reciting the theory.

chroot · Nov 3, 2004

The number of times a thread has been viewed has nothing to do with the number of people who are viewing it. There really is no contigent of devoted yet silent MacM supporters here. Much like your arguments on relativity's flaws, it's all in your overactive imagination.

- Warren

MacM · Nov 3, 2004

Persol said:

I think it's sad that this is there are 2 or 3 polls that MacM stated to see if 'people believe he is right'. There's a reason they never turn out in your favor.
Click to expand...

As I said to Pete it is not a matter of seeing if I am beleived right but to see what generally people believe.

It is undrstood that most of the poster here will disagree because you are all Relativists. I want to see a general concensus, not just Relativists views expressed .

Perhaps if these people realized that they vote annonomous and do not need to post they will vote.

You post tons of stuff out of context...
Click to expand...

False.

JamesR and others correct you in detail...
Click to expand...

False.

you claim they are wrong and start to pout....
Click to expand...

False.

a few come in and make fun of you to at least make the thread entertaining since it isn't educational.
Click to expand...

False. You post BS because you cannot actually address the issue.

And you still can't figure out reference frames....
Click to expand...

False.

just give up pretending you know what the theory is actually about.
Click to expand...

Pretending would be to say anything you have said has any merit. Don't you EVER tell the truth? Do you always just make shit up?

To draw a parallel, this is sort of like the election happening today. You have the far left, the far right, and the rest. MacM falls into the far X category. No matter how much things are explained he will never change his mind. He will completely ignore opposing facts... or will twist them to say what he thinks they should mean. Debate is pointles; all you can do is point and laugh.
Click to expand...

And you can remain in your cacoon blissed by ignorance.

Persol · Nov 3, 2004

Off topic personal attacks WILL NOT BE RESPONDED TO.
Click to expand...

Seems your memory has faded again.

MacM · Nov 3, 2004

chroot said:

The number of times a thread has been viewed has nothing to do with the number of people who are viewing it. There really is no contigent of devoted yet silent MacM supporters here. Much like your arguments on relativity's flaws, it's all in your overactive imagination.

- Warren
Click to expand...

Third time. NOTE: This is not about MacM supporters. And it is about physical realities and not mumbo-jumbo physically impossible realities which you seem willing to accept and laughsaying "Gee it is so counter intuative"..

"Impossible is not the same as Counter-Intuative". Nothing posted by any one of you here has physically resovled the issue I raise. All the dancing around the issue simply shows you have no valid answer.

Do I expect to see any one of you ever agree. Hell no. But I do expect that those many readers are at least being given information they would not otherwise be given by Relativists.

However, I just realized that the readership can't post. The list currently shows 20 members and 240+ guests. Guests can't vote and that is a 12/1 ratio. Come on "Join and vote damn it."
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So the only voters here seem to be Relativists in a majority, so the results of such a poll shouldn't be surprising since Relativists refuse to acknowledge physical realities and choose to play "Find the Token".

MacM · Nov 3, 2004

Persol said:

Seems your memory has faded again.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Yours was a borderline post. I actually thought about just letting you blow off your mouth.

Persol · Nov 3, 2004

MacM said:

Not at all. Yours was a borderline post. I actually thought about just letting you blow off your mouth.
Click to expand...

Well my response just then was nowhere near borderline.

You'll also note that why you've addressed the personal attacks, you've left JamesR's explaination of your errors completely untouched.

Seems your memory has faded.

MacM · Nov 3, 2004

Persol said:

Well my response just then was nowhere near borderline.

You'll also note that why you've addressed the personal attacks, you've left JamesR's explaination of your errors completely untouched.

Seems your memory has faded.
Click to expand...

Don't you ever consider telling the truth?

[post=706659]Truth[/post]

Persol · Nov 3, 2004

And to think I was about to ask the same thing...

James R · Nov 3, 2004

MacM:

And this is where you shuffle the cards and make stuff up. B accumulated 4.35 hours because it distance contracted, not because its tick rate changed. "A" thinks B's clock ran slow because "A" dosen't see the change in dimension. But what "A" THINKS is an illusion and not the reality of the tick rate of "B". The tick rate of "B" is cast in its final display by t = d/v = 3.92/.9 = 4.35 hours.
Click to expand...

You're mixing frames, as I said. A clock's "tick rate" never changes in its own reference frame. It does, however, change in other frames. In this case, B's tick rate slows in A's frame, and A's tick rate slows in B's frame.

You are relying on the fact that B's tick rate doesn't change in B's frame to deduce that it doesn't change in A's frame. Unfortunately for you, you can't draw that conclusion from that reasoning.

If both run slow by an equal amount (which they must according to Relativity) then there can be no net measureable time differential in the final clock displays. HINT: No measureable time dilation between clocks and hence no Twin Paradox.
Click to expand...

This is false. Please review the explanation already given. In A's frame, the final time difference results from time dilation alone. In B's frame, the final time difference results from time dilation plus the fact that clock A started running before clock B.

Wrong. The clocks both coexist as part of a common relative velocity relationship.
Click to expand...

This is a MacM fantasyland concept which has no meaning in the real world.

They do not read one time then another.
Click to expand...

Every clock in existence reads "one time then another".

If you assume length contraction is real then the result becomes the illusion of time dilation. If you assume time dilation the the result is the illusion of length contraction.
Click to expand...

Which do you assume is real?

It is strange that you, the great detractor of relativity, are suddenly agreeing that length contraction exists.

Have you half-converted to the Church of Relativity?

Or is this merely another argument of convenience for you? When can we expect the next bait and switch?

If both length contracted and time dilated then you would get 1.9 hours not 4.35 hours.
Click to expand...

Not in this scenario.

Log in or Sign up

Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

Is Relativity Shown Fatally Flawed?

Yes

Mostly Convienced

No Opinion

Mostly UnConvienced

No

MacM Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

MacM Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

Is Relativity Shown Fatally Flawed?

Yes

Mostly Convienced

No Opinion

Mostly UnConvienced

No

MacM Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

MacM Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

MacM Registered Senior Member

Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches