Sit tight and think before you comment. But have fun. The challenge here is for relativists to produce ANY hard evidence in the form of actual data, not merely rhetoric, that show this scenario is not a valid conclusion. Don't bother saying "But that isn't what SR claims" because that is not at issue here. Anytime one attempts to rationalize SR they are met with a variety of objections to scenarios meant to casually show concerns. While perhaps such objections may be valid mathematically or at some technical level, they often merely confuse the issue and really have no bearing on the underlying concern. So over the years I have developed scenarios which I believe simplifies the issue and avoids the confusion from interjecting velocity addition, simultaneity, or acceleration or GR issues, etc., and give the actual predictions we should make. Given: A group of researchers that have full faith in relativity set out to conclusively prove the theory. Because they have faith in their mathematical model and can use it to do many calculations (predictions) they pre-compute a space flyby experiment as to what is expected of each clock using relavistic mathematics. The experiment uses a deep space monitoring station and a space shuttle craft such that there are no near by gravitational enfluences and the test will only be conducted during inertial flight so GR is not a consideration. A light beam trigger circuit is established for the shuttle to cross starting all clocks in the experiment and the shuttle will be first sent off into space where it makes a turn around and accelerates back becoming inertial just before crossing the light trigger at 0.8c such that all testing is done during inertial conditions. At that velocity gamma = 1 2/3 or the shuttle dilated clock will only tick 6 ticks for every 10 ticks of the station monitoring clock. All clocks are identical and functioning properly. The craft is equipped with some unusual control equipment based on understood relativity affects. Since relativity predicts that the shuttle clock will only tick at 60% the rate of the station clock, a computer program is used onboard the shuttle to produce a corrected count of ticks of the shuttle clock such that the control shuts down the shuttle clock when the station clock has reached 20,000 ticks and shuts down the test. If relativity is to be believed this causes both observers to time the trip over a universally equal period such that tick rate times duration will display proper accumulated time of both clocks. This of course will occur when the onboard shuttle clock reaches a count of only 12,000 ticks and the station 20,000 ticks - IF RELATIVITY IS A VALID THEORY and this proceedure for comparing motion affect on clocks avoids concerns of simultanety since we only care about tick rate not physical tick count. So when the shuttle crosses the light trigger all clocks are set to zero and the computer program begins tracking the trip. Both observers are equipped with the latest in long range vision equipment. Both the station and the shuttle have a light that flashes with each tick so each can count the flashes of the other clock and compare them to his own clock tick rate. The station observer notes that according to his observation of his clock and the shuttle tick rate that the shuttle clock is only ticking at 36% the rate of his clock. Not the anticipated 60%. Something is going wrong with the experiment. OMG! No! It can't be relativity is such a proven concept. There must be something wrong with the equipment. But we must finish this test and look at the data because this is really interesting. The shuttle pilot observes the station clock and notes that the station clock is not ticking at 60% of his rate as expected but seems to be synchronized with his clock. What is going on. This can't be, the test is falling apart.. This is unexpected and really concerns the pilot because it isn't conforming with the predictions of Special Relativity but he lets the test continue. When the station clock reaches 20,000 counts it stops and sends a coded light or radio signal to the shuttle stipulating that the test terminated and that based on the observed tick rate of the shuttle clock it should have stopped at 6,000 counts, not the 12,000 they expected according to SR.. The shuttle pilot notes that while his clock did stop just as it should using the computer conversion control at 12,000 counts and if SR is valid then the duration of the test was equal and tick rates should be different than what we observed. The shuttle pilot signals the station and tells them that against his expectation he now predicts that the station clock must have stopped at 12,000 counts instead of the scheduled 20,000 counts and fears something has gone wrong with the test because surely SR can't be that wrong. The boss orders the shuttle pilot to leave his clocks turned off and to return to base so they can compare them directly in a common frame and to review notes and try to figure out where they have gone wrong. Back at base in the conference room the astute pilot realizes had he actually observed the station tick rate to be 60% of his own as predicted by SR then the station clock could only read 7,200 ticks, not 20,000 ticks as it was supposed to nor the 12,000 ticks his observation suggested it would. But since the "Reality" on inspection is that his clock reads 12,000 ticks and the station clock reads 20,000 ticks, then it appears his clock indeed was ticking slower at 60% just as SR predicted it would. Wait a minute SR prediction is right but observation is wrong says the boss and it doesn't consider how simultaneity might affect the test. Certainly says the pilot. "You see there are two things at work here. Observational perception or an illusion of motion and physical responses of clocks to motion. But while it would seem that the clocks must stop simultaneously in a real-time universally, IF SR is valid then it is a moot point because the computer insures equal duration of the test. Since my clock was actually running slower at 60% of the rate of your clock you percieved it as running 60% of its proper tick rate which was the unexpected 36% you observed and since my clock had actually physically slowed down to 60% of yours and yours hadn't slowed at all, the fact that I observered your clock slow to 60% made my observation seem they remained synchronized. "But all this isn't according to SR theory" says the boss. "Then we must change the theory to match the physical reality of our test, keep in mind we have never before actually observed clocks in relative motion, we have only compared clocks after they have had relative velocity. What counts is that observations matche mathematically with the physical reality and the reality is only my clock ran slow and both our clocks only appeared to run slower than the actual proper tick rate that they were running at." SR perception predictions are wrong because they are based on symmetry of relative motion and not actual velocity induced by frame changing and physical data observation.
So you did all that with a very thin wire and a time machine? "Mac's special relativity", very catchy.
Hi Mac, Interesting though experiment. It's nice to know what Mac's relativity predicts for that experiment, even if you can't figure out what Einstein's relativity predicts.
Sorry Mac, "Special Relativity" has been trademarked. You need to change your title. BTW, have you found your flaw yet?
I'll merely note that none of the above is rebuttal data. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Rebuttal data? No, one does not need data; since your argument is fellaciouse, as I mentioned above, which you have not denied. -Andrew
Why bother rebutting an incorrect theory of yours when we already have a working theory with no problems at all?
Interesting. I noted that I wasn't claiming this but challenged relatvists to post data disproving it. As I suspected there seems to be no such data. Hmmmm.
You know someone is gonna say "guess what, you guessed the right ticks! You have won a huge chocolate cake!"
This doesn't make any sense. If you claim that (in the station's rest frame): The shuttle clock ticks at 60% of the rate of the station clock, due to the shuttle's velocity of 0.8c. Every time the shuttle clock ticks, the shuttle sends a signal back to the station. The signals travel at the speed of light. The only observation consistent with this scenario is for the station to receive the signals at a frequency of 33.3 % the station clock's tick rate, which is what STR predicts once you account for the Doppler effect. Any other observation implies that either (1) or (3) is wrong.
The experiment is disproved because it wouldn't happen in real life, where Einstein's relativity holds. In the MacM fantasy world, though, anything can happen, I suppose.
You have missed the point. The statement that the clock is ticking at 60% is based on the fact that it will display a loss in time based on that figure once it has terminated the test. It is the permanent loss of time that is driving the clocks not the perception of tick rate by other observers. Yes I did npt include doppler because it only complicate the scenario and doesn't alter the conundrum. Remember this isn't about claiming this is what happens but that you (if you support relativity) are supposed to post data which demonstrates this is not what happens.
Sorry James R thetoric is not accepted as data. Where is your data showing this is not what happens? Remember the scenario is based on the same ultimate time dilation emperically found.
MacM: I don't have data on the MacM fantasy universe. And since apparently you don't want a relativistic analysis, that leaves me nothing to do.
So you're claiming a tick rate of 36% during the inertial portion of the shuttle's trip and an average rate of 60% for the entire trip? Where's this 36% figure coming from, anyway? Why are you squaring the STR prediction? Well is this 36% tick rate supposed to be real or perceived? Let's say the shuttle's trajectory in the station's frame is \(x = 0.8 c t\), (t as measured by the station clock, with the station located at x = 0). Can you tell me the shuttle's x coordinate on its clock's first, tenth, and generally, n[sup]th[/sup] tick? If we assume that an observer on the station is instantly notified of each tick (no Doppler effect), Can you tell me at what time he measures the shuttle clock's n[sup]th[/sup] tick, and what he measures the shuttle's position to be at this time? No. It's your job to explain why I should adopt your complicated, untested, specific claim over the simpler, more generally applicable, and much better established theory of relativity.
You have two affects: 1 - Actual physical dilation of tick rate which is recorded emperically by ONLY the clock that has accelerated (or accelerated the most) = 60%. 2 - The SR illusion of relative velocity where EACH observer sees the others clock tick at 60% but is perception and contibutes no permanent time loss. Percieved but 50% real which is recorded emperically as the actual 60% accumulated time by the accelerated clock. Location would follow normal to the 0.8c velocity where actual position according to the shuttle pilot on the i.e. - 10th tick will be different than the percieved location according to the station observer. If follows proportionately from the ultimate conclusion where the station observer would also predict an incorrect accumulated time of the shuttle clock based on his observation of tick rate vs his tick rate and time of flight according to his clock. This is not meant to be some substitute theory with advantages for you to adopt but to merely show that different predicted observations still result in the same emperical data and what SR predicts may well be nothing more than perception and that there is some other underlying process causing the actualy physical time loss of ONE clock, since relative velocity is symmetrical and therefor should cause both clocks to dilate and accumulated less time equally such that no recorded differential would be emperically found. This view resolves the reciprocity issue of SR by making relative velocity time dilation an illusion with no permanent physical affect, yet still predicts the emperical time loss due to an accelerated (v = at due to some actual F = ma and not merely due to relative velocity) clock.
If the station observer sees the shuttle clock running at 36% of its rest rate during the inertial portion of its trip (accumulating a total of 7,200 ticks), but must have accumulated 12,000 ticks for the entire trip, the only way I can get a consistent result is by assuming that the station observer will see the shuttle clock tick extremely fast during the shuttle's deceleration at the end (bringing the "perceived" and "real" times back in sync as the shuttle's velocity drops to zero). If this is the case, I'd describe the same scenario more literally: the shuttle's clock *really* runs at 36% of its rest rate, then *really* runs faster during the deceleration period such that the average dilation factor was 60%. I wouldn't talk about "real" dilation plus an illusion, unless you can explain how each contribution could be measured seperately. As far as direct measurements of objects before and after a trip are concerned, maybe. I don't know of any experiment where anyone tried to directly observe the ageing rate of a process moving at relativistic velocity. But you're forgetting that clocks can't just tick at any old rate, and not any old "illusion" can get between the process of interest and the observer. The behaviour of moving clocks and shuttles is completely determined by the physical laws that govern the behaviour of their constituent atoms and molecules, and those laws are well tested and relativistic. Electromagnetic signals always travel at c in a void, which restricts illusions to the Doppler effect. Reciprocity, if you look at it more carefully, isn't as physically impossible as it seems, so there's no need to dismiss it as an illusion that "just happens". If you want, you can assume the following "theory" (let's call it "Absolutivity") is true: There exists a unique "absolute" reference frame, with respect to which we can define absolute quantities (in particular, we can define the absolute velocity). The length of any physical object contracts in the direction of its absolute motion in accordance with STR's length contraction formula. The rate of any physical process slows as a result of absolute motion in accordance with STR's time dilation formula. Light always propagates at an absolute speed of c = 299,792,458 metres per second in empty space. Believe it or not, this theory is experimentally indistinguishable from relativity. A while back I posted an example of its application ([POST=1375494]link[/POST]) predicting reciprocity. Anyone familiar with the properties of the Lorentz transformation can easily see that you must get "relativity-compatible" predictions from any such scenario that uses only the four rules above, but the specific example I posted should make this seem more plausible than an abstract (if more elegant) demonstration involving the Lorentz group.
OK. I'm skipping the blance of your post because you have a false start. The shuttle remains inertial throughout the testing. It is merely returned to embelish the story version. I could just as well have transmitted a signal about the accumulated times on the clocks after the test that is digitally encoded such that neither doppler nor simultaineity have any affect. The 0.36 is 1/2 half physical reality and the other half SR perception. What I have done is advance the notion that since ONLY the accelerated clock dilates it must be physically ticking slower and since SR predicts an "Observed" decrease of tick rate for both clocks due to relative velocity and the station clock doesn't experience any permanent physical loss of time then the relative velocity affect merely compounds the fact that the shutle is "Actually" ticking slower and the station then views 0.6 * 0.6 = 0.36 it's tick rate.
Hi Mac, The researchers haven't done their predictions correctly. They should have anticipated that he station observer would see the shuttle clock ticking at 33.3% the rate of his clock. Here's a question for you. During the approach (ie before the shuttle crosses the light trigger, but after it has finished accelerating), at what rate would the station observer and shuttle pilot see each other's clocks tick? And what would they anticipate seeing, according to SR?
