1. Originally Posted by James R
Wrong.

If A is travelling at 0.3c west and B is travelling at 0.3c east, then the velocity of A relative to B is 0.55c west and the velocity of B relative to A is 0.55c east. Therefore, A's clocks will run slow in B's frame, and vice versa.

There's no "as if" about it. They have a relative velocity. Velocity is NOT the same as speed. Direction matters. And that's not relativity talking - it's basic week 1 undergraduate physics.
however accelleration data will place the dilation equally upon both observers relative to the initial starting point which no longer exists...
I tell you what if I can find the time I will work up a proper gedanken and post it in pseudo science to thrash it out...
as regards to alternatives to photon traveling the thread in question is
Does light move and it is in pseudo science...\$100usd is up for grabs [and has been for nearly a month] if any one can show effect evidence that clearly demonstrates a photon in transit and note the key words are "in transit" from any point A to B.

2. however accelleration data will place the dilation equally upon both observers relative to the initial starting point which no longer exists...
Acceleration data is irrelevant.

In the starting frame, both clocks are equally dilated, but that's just a different from from the frame of A and B. There's no problem for special relativity there.
\$100usd is up for grabs [and has been for nearly a month] if any one can show effect evidence that clearly demonstrates a photon in transit and note the key words are "in transit" from any point A to B.
To detect a photon means to absorb it, so your \$100 is quite safe. Once a photon is detected, it is no longer "in transit" - it has been absorbed by the detector.

But the idea that photons don't travel from point to point is bizarre. What's the alternative? How do optic fibres carry information from point to point?

3. Originally Posted by James R
Acceleration data is irrelevant.
it is if it effects the reality of dilation.

To detect a photon means to absorb it, so your \$100 is quite safe. Once a photon is detected, it is no longer "in transit" - it has been absorbed by the detector.
yeah I know ...aint that a shame...[chuckle]

But the idea that photons don't travel from point to point is bizarre. What's the alternative? How do optic fibres carry information from point to point?
yes it is bizarre isn't it?

and providing you with a brief description of process aint going to change that verdict I bet....until evidence that clearly demonstrates this proces and is easilly observable I don't think there is any point going into it at this time.
It does however predict universal constants as being exact and also invariance and why it is so. It also offers a ready explanation for how dilation can not be noticed by dilated observer and how cosmic expansion can occur in ways that still maintian universal constants
Either way it is off topic...and it has been discussed in various threads over time under the title of zero point theory.

4. To detect a photon means to absorb it, so your \$100 is quite safe. Once a photon is detected, it is no longer "in transit" - it has been absorbed by the detector.
so why assume it transits vacuumous space and is not some sort of entangled mass inertia phenonema?

5. OK it is realy quite simple and hardly deserves a thread on it's own so I'll use the following steps to explain my point.

Step 1.

The following image shows the initial inertial reference frame of both observer A and observer B.
Lets call this reference frame Initial RF.

The reference frame consists of two observers back to back with high explosives packed in between them. It could just as easilly be some sort of weird super drive or booster but explosives will do.
So correct me if I am wrong please.
both observers in this Initial RF have identical ticking clocks and can consider themselves at rest relative to each other. So relative velocity = zero between observers.

Question:
Is step 1 assessed correctly?

6. Step 2.

The following image shows the two observers ungoing identical accelleration. at no point is their velocity different. The only difference is their vector.
During this step the observers could be said to still maintain a relative velocity of zero at any point in their simultaneous acceleration.
As their relative velocity at any point during acceleration is zero and at no stage do the clocks tick out of synch as both observers are experiencing exactly the same acceleration conditions.
Important Note: The Initial RF no longer exists yet is still relevant.

Question is this a correct assessment for step 2?

7. Step 3.

The ships have now stopped accelerating and are now at a steady velocity that maintains a separating v of .6'c'
At no stage are the clocks ever out of synch.

And this I expect would be the reality of the clocks because dilation is present would be only part of the relationship they HAD with the Initial RF that no longer exists.

Is this a correct assessment for Step 3?

8. QQ:

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
so why assume it transits vacuumous space and is not some sort of entangled mass inertia phenonema?
Because I've never heard of an entangled mass inertia phenomena. What's that?

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
The reference frame consists of two observers back to back with high explosives packed in between them.
I explained what a reference frame is above. A reference frame is not an observer or an object. But I'll accept that you're using a reference frame that has the observers at rest initially.

both observers in this Initial RF have identical ticking clocks and can consider themselves at rest relative to each other. So relative velocity = zero between observers.
Yes.

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
The following image shows the two observers ungoing identical accelleration. at no point is their velocity different. The only difference is their vector.
Wrong. Velocity is a vector, as I explained above and you ignored.

Two objects moving in opposite directions have different velocities, even if their speeds are the same.

During this step the observers could be said to still maintain a relative velocity of zero at any point in their simultaneous acceleration.
No. They may have the same speed, but that's not the same thing. Also, their accelerations are different, because acceleration is also a vector and they are each accelerating in different directions.

As their relative velocity at any point during acceleration is zero...
It is never zero except right at the start, before they start moving.

and at no stage do the clocks tick out of synch as both observers are experiencing exactly the same acceleration conditions.
Acceleration has nothing to do with it.

Also, the clocks tick out of sync in the frame of either of the clocks. Only in the initial rest frame do they continue to tick in sync, and only then because time dilation depends on the speed and not the velocity.

Important Note: The Initial RF no longer exists yet is still relevant.
A RF cannot cease to exist. Did you read my post above at all? It is quite insulting to have to repeat myself because you do not do me the courtesy of reading my posts.

9. Step 4

On board both observer ships a SRt'ist wakes up and makes his typical SRT assessments granting relative tick rates and relative velcoity to the two observers involved.
Now the captains of both ships get into an arguement with their respective SRT'ists about what is actually happening.

The big question then is:
Who wins?
The Captains of the ship privy to acceleration data or the SRT'ists. for surely they can not be both right.

10. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Step 3.

The ships have now stopped accelerating and are now at a steady velocity that maintains a separating v of .6'c'
At no stage are the clocks ever out of synch.
Wrong. The clocks were/are in sync only in the original reference frame. They are out of sync in the reference frame of either of the clocks, due to the relative velocity in either of those frames.

11. Originally Posted by James R
Wrong. The clocks were/are in sync only in the original reference frame. They are out of sync in the reference frame of either of the clocks, due to the relative velocity in either of those frames.
and that JamesR is the nub of the problem regarding this thread. bingo!
The initial RF is still to be used so both observers are at relative v to the initial RF...yes even if that frame no longer exists?
if so are the observers at relative v also to each other? I presume from your answer above that yes they are at relative v to each other and the initial RF.

12. The question that comes to mind is why dilation would be physically determined by vector?

13. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Step 4

On board both observer ships a SRt'ist wakes up and makes his typical SRT assessments granting relative tick rates and relative velcoity to the two observers involved.
Now the captains of both ships get into an arguement with their respective SRT'ists about what is actually happening.

The big question then is:
Who wins?
The Captains of the ship privy to acceleration data or the SRT'ists. for surely they can not be both right.
There's no need to know anything about acceleration data. Only the relative velocities are needed, and SR applies as usual. Any disagreement based on acceleration data is because some ignorant person doesn't know relativity.

14. Ok I had a shot at it....and you win....as I said earlier I am really only trying to extrapolate the issue that has been presented in this thread. I had thought my gedanken would be show the obvious but as you have pointed out this is not correct.
It couldn't be more clearer.....thanks james

15. QQ:

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
and that JamesR is the nub of the problem regarding this thread. bingo!
I don't think that even MacM will be cheering you on, but we'll see if he agrees.

The initial RF is still to be used so both observers are at relative v to the initial RF...yes even if that frame no longer exists?
You can use whatever frame you like. This idea of destroying reference frames, which are theoretical concepts to start with, is nutty anyway.

if so are the observers at relative v also to each other? I presume from your answer above that yes they are at relative v to each other and the initial RF.
YOU said that the observers each travel at speed 0.3c relative to the original frame, but in opposite directions. Do you want to change what your own scenario says half way through the discussion?

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
The question that comes to mind is why dilation would be physically determined by vector?
I have no idea what you're asking here.

16. No. They may have the same speed, but that's not the same thing. Also, their accelerations are different, because acceleration is also a vector and they are each accelerating in different directions.
I didn't think that G forces experienced had anything to do with vector?

17. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Step 3.

The ships have now stopped accelerating and are now at a steady velocity that maintains a separating v of .6'c'
At no stage are the clocks ever out of synch.

And this I expect would be the reality of the clocks because dilation is present would be only part of the relationship they HAD with the Initial RF that no longer exists.

Is this a correct assessment for Step 3?
no I said the above..... that they had a separating v of .6'c' no mention of relative v of .3'c' in this step.

18. The initial RF only existed because the two observers where holding hands so to speak which they immediately stopped doing once they BOTH accelerated experineceing the exact same G forces due to the explosion so no the RF was not destroyed, just becoming non existant except as historical data instead.

19. There's no need to know anything about acceleration data. Only the relative velocities are needed, and SR applies as usual. Any disagreement based on acceleration data is because some ignorant person doesn't know relativity.
or
special relativity doesn't reflect reality.....I am not trying to apply special relativity just simply trying to find the reality.

Two clocks undergoing indentical accelleration experiencing the exact same G forces are told that they can't be because they are pointed in the wrong direction so according to SRT they are out of synch. I wonder why this was decided to be the case by what's his name....Lorentz or Einstein..or both......hmmmmm...me thinks they are using a pseudo mathematically derived ether but declaring it doesn't exist...

20. First actual velocity is also a relative term but it is only relative to some fixed rest reference.
Can you use any fixed reference?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•