Does Reciprocity Falsify Special Relativity?

If a space craft has a clock at rest and synchronized with a clock on earth and then is launched to planet X which happens to have a relative velocity of 0.866c to earth, then upon arrival on planet X the space craft clock will tick at the rate of planet X which is 1/2 the rate of the clock on earth.

The problem becomes that now the space craft is at rest on planet X according to Special Relativity it is the earth that is receeding from planet X at a velocity of 0.866c and for the space craft to return it must once again accelerate to catch earth (not decelerate), Further having achieved a relative velocity to planet X and returned to earth it must now be ticking at 1/2 the rate of the clock on planet X which is ticking at 1/2 the rate of the earth clock.

So that once back on earth Special Relativity would require that the space clock is ticking at 1/4 that of the earth clock that it was originally synchronized to and which is now in the same frame.

Being in the same frame it must tick at the same rate, not 1/4 the rate.

The fact that it ticks at the same rate is an absolute velocity affect where the clock accelerates and then declerates and not a relative velocity affect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which reference frame are you using here? Who would observe this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

przyk,


This statement is a collection of the sequences of Special Relativity>

1 - Spacecraft clock going from earth to planet X dilates relative to earth to planet X rate which is 1/2 tick rate (at 0.866c) of earth.

2 - The same clock must now dilate once again because according to the relative velocity view it is now the earth that is receeding from planet X at 0.866c and the craft must once again accelerate relative to X to return to earth.

3 - So the craft clock must now dilate relative to planet X clock to 1/2. So since planet X ticks at 1/2 earth rate and the craft must dilate to 1/2 X it must now tick 1/4 the rate of earth.

But we know it ticks at the same rate as earth once back in the same frame.

This is a conflict of theory vs reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have you ever been right about what SR claims? You pretend to be some free-thinker objecting to relativity due to some flaws that only you are perceptive enough to spot. And yet, you never can accurately state the SR analysis of anything. This fact exposes your antipathy towards SR for what it is: prejudice. You have rejected it before you ever learned enough to understand it. What don't you like about SR? Is it just the word "relativity"? Is it just Einstein? One thing is for sure: it isn't its predictions, because you have no clue what those actually are.

Do the math yourself this time. It would really benefit you a lot. Sit down with the Lorentz transform and work out how (according to SR) a clock could possibly move in order to run slow on its return.

-Dale

 

After being so much on the attack you should at least be correct.

(A).........................................................................\(B)----->0.866c
(S)------------->

(S) moves from being synchronized at (A) and ticking at the (A) rate to ticking at (B's) rate which is gamma = 2.000 or only 1 tick for two ticks of (A).


0.866c<-----(D)...................................................................(C)
...........................................................................<--------- (T)

(T) is synchronized with and ticks at the rate of (C) but having accelerated and landed on (D) now must tick at 1/2 the rate of (C).

Yes or No?

 

Mac,

You continually draw your diagrams and then analyze them from the perspective of one looking at them from a priviledged frame (your desk chair). This is the source of ALL of your confusion. Think about it.

P.S. You have a nack of making me violate my own self-imposed rule to stay out of this stuff.

 

I am correct because I always use the full Lorentz transform to determine what SR predicts. You, on the other hand, try to use only a third of the theory in order to pretend that SR predicts your nonsense. And no matter how many times you are publicly shown to have made the exact same mistake you keep on repeating your idiocy.

No. Use the Lorentz transform and any course changes you wish. Acccording to SR, when the rocket-clock returns to Earth it will tick at the same rate as the earth-clock.

-Dale

 

Don't be dense the craft is on the launch pad, unless you know how else to have it also at rest relative to the earth clock. Read more carefully.

I believe this shows that the clocks do run at different rates in both cases when in motion.

Now simply point out that B & C are terminals on Planet X and A & D are terminals on earth and you have a conflict.

Of course once returned to the same frame it ticks the same, not the 1/4 rate, but that is the very point.

Returning to the same frame is not a relative velocity view it is an absolute view.

 

You should stay out until you learn a bit. You don't even see the issue here.

The issue is that the round trip is not a relative velocity view it is an absolute view.

 

Who said anything about what Earth sees. For the 100th time this is not about perception. It is about dilated time as accumulated on a clock.

If I had started from planet X and said earth was moving away at 0.866c you would have claimed that the craft clock dilated to 1/2 the X rate anad that earth's clocks also tick at 1/2 the rate of X.

Nothing changes just because it is a round trip.

 

Read more slowly and stop making the false assumption that I must be wrong. I am not. I made it clear that the clock actually ticks at the same rate on return. But the point is if you look at each leg of the trip independantly the clock must tick at 1/4 the rate.

The fact that it doesn't makes this an absolute view not a relative velocity view. That is the point. Try to stay on topic.

 

Because relativity would allow you to view the situation from any frame? Nope. Only inertial

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and you don't stick to one inertial frame in your analysis.

(DaleSpam: I know you can use relativity to calculate what an accelerating frame sees, but I assume you have to modify the maths appropriately; you can't apply the regular Lorentz transforms to a non-inertial frame once, right?)

 

ALL THREE NAY SAYERS:

Now tell me if I am from planet X and have never been to earth before that when I accelerate my spacecraft to catch earth now moving 0.866c away from my home planet, that my clock doesn't dilate relative to my home clock according to SRT.

Tell me that my clock is going to tick faster according to SR. BS Absolute BS.

So now when I return to earth, I happen to bring a planet X'r back with me and my clock speeds up while his slows down. Har Har Har what a bunch of BS.

 

No it doesn't. Do the Lorentz transform and try to show that. You will not be able to. You are assuming that the Lorentz transform is its own inverse which it is not. You would know that if you ever bothered to actually do any math instead of just waving your hands all the time and spouting your ignorant prejudice against SR.

Try to actually be right for once when you claim what SR predicts.

-Dale

 

I should learn...HaHahaha!!! I just got done telling you that there is no priviledged (absolute) view of things and you post this. Hilarious if it weren't so sad. It's only absolute from your desk chair. You are well and truly stuck old chum.

It's one of the postulates of SR that there is no priviledged or "absolute" frame of reference. This has been demonstrated repeatedly not only by experiment, but by common sense. You antiSRTists have yet to tell me where I could stand to make an "absolute" measure of something. A place or condition in which all else in the universe is based on me.

So why don't you start with the FACT that you can't sit at your desk and make pronouncements about the "absoluteness" of your diagram.

 

My ignorance prejudice claims that this is an absolute view not a relative velocity view. Stick to the issue.

 

Both earth and planet X are inertial. :bugeye:

From earth X is receeding at 0.866c.

From X earth is receeding at 0.866c.

Like SRT both frames are equal.

That is where the clocks are ticking on the respective planets which are both inertial.

What these twit loud mouths don't appreciate is that I could be from planet X and have never been to earth and according to SRT my clock will dilate when I accelerate from planet X to catch earth going 0.866c away from X.

That physically is the same trip made by an earthling making a return trip where they now use different mathematics to restore tick rate rather than dilate it.

They talk big but they are not nearly as smart as they want others to believe.

 

Dip. No priveleged frame means earth and X are the same.

1 - That X receeds at 0.866c from earth and,

2 - Earth receeds at 0.866c from X.

Both cases are inertial and both cases require acceleration to catch the other and in absence of KNOWN round trip conditions, BOTH result in time dilation.

Please post ONE case of demonstrated reciproicty or stop making false claims about what has been proven or demonstrated.

Not a requirement to properly analyze the fact that relative velocity is not true physics.

You might try the same thing with regard to expousing rhetoric. But then you would be forced to actually think and that seems beyond you.