Experiment to demonstrate mutual observed time dilation

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by superluminal, Apr 11, 2005.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    In one sentence you say the muon's proper time changes in its own frame. In the next, you say the muon can't detect any such change. Which is it?

    Poor confused MacM.

    Poor MacM. No model. Just a muddle.

    Your second post above makes my previous careful explanation to you a complete waste of my time. I will be wary of wasting my time in future explaining things to you, if this is the type of response I get.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Yes Mach, there is an obvious flaw, but it is yours, not James R's. Rather than just assert this (as you do all your false claims - about this and many other "facts" you assert, such as GPS supports your view despite the fact that the designers of GPS subscribe to and use the orthodox SRT interpretation when calculating the time dilations required for makng GPS work correctly. - They do not use your strange version with its "absolute rest" reference frame.) That is I will now demonstrate (to any reasonable person) that the prior velocity history of an observer has no effect upon his observations. The truth is,as JR states, only his current velocity is important.


    Consider "n" observers, all of whom have unique velocity histories. One of the "n" happens to be my twin brother (the astronaught who traveled at quite high speed away from Earth for many of my years on Earth and has now returned - a very different velocity history from mine). I know there is no point in my trying to convence you that he is still young while I am showing the weakness of old age, so I will not. All I want you to conceed is that each of the n observers can have very different velocity histories.

    Two months ago, I and all of these n observers gathered together at an astronomical observatory (A modern one where no one actually looks thru the telescope. All of us were watching the image displayed of a still distant comet on a large screen in the auditorium.) Surely you will agree that despite our different velocity histories we all saw the same thing on the large screen display. If you don't, let me tell you something I just learned last week - there was a problem with the telescope drive two months ago, and as some of the n observers were on the funding committed, the observatory director had a computer simulation of the comet approach made. We actually watched that simulation - he tricked us all, as he did not want to be embarrased. Now surely you will agree that we all saw the same thing despite our different velocity histories.

    Now let me tell you about last night, when we all gather at the observatory again, but not in the auditorium this time. Last night, the comet was close to the sun and there was no moon or clouds - perfect conditions for viewing with the eye directly from the parking lot and that is what we did. Each of us (n+1 observers with different velocity histories) taking detail notes and polaroid photos. After about an hour of this it clouded over and began to rain, so we went back into the auditorium to compare notes and discuss what we had seen.

    I hate to admit it, but you were right. Just as you predicted, our velocity histories made a hugh difference in what we observed! My twin brother's notes and polaroid photos showed the tail of the comet point towards the constellation Taurus. His friend's photos showed the tail pointing at Cancer. Another guy's photo had it pointing towards Libra. Several observers said the tail had not yet formed. Nine of the n observers were very disapointed as the comet was behind the sun. (They did not even agree that it was a dark moonless night, but complaind of sun burn and stiff necks!) In short, your theory that the velocity history of the observer makes a big difference on the observations was confirmed. Your theory is correct. - Even though all n of us were standing shoulder to shoulder and had the same current velocity, what we observed depended upon our prior velocity histories!

    At least that is what I thought until about an hour ago, when my twin brother awaken me. He was angry with me, and wanted to know where I had been last night. He said I was not in the observatory parking lot at all. It appear that I had had a few too many in the bar I stopped off in after work (four hours before dark). I had gotten so drunk that I forgot to go to the observatory. I spent most of the night passed out on a cot in the back of the bar. - I just dreamed the whole story told above. Problem is you are not dreaming - you are just obviously wrong about the velocity history making any difference in what co-moving observers observe.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2005
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    The very fact that you cannot understand the differance between being unable to detect ones own velocity and the fact that velocity affects tick rate; means local proper time can change on a universal scale and you would have no knowledge of it.

    "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence". Poor befuddled James R.

    The fact is I think there are many here that would appreciate if you did stop wasting our time. If you cannot post viable physics responses to the issues then at least don't waste our time with innuendo, slander, fiat, rhetoric, dogma, distortions, misquotes, irrelevant appeals to authority, etc.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Whoa Professor. Back it up.

    1 - You best go read up on GPS. GPS uses the ECI and ECEF frames. These are earth centered frames of referance. That referance is a common local "preferred" rest frame. At no time does GPS compute relative velocity between surface clocks and the orbit clock velocity. You sir stand corrected.

    2 - GPS uses a gamma calculation but it is not an SRT calculation. Get your facts straight.

    3 - In light of your past polite posts I will ignore this series of slanderous statements regarding my knowledge and posts but I must warn you that if you choose to continue such attacks I will respond accordingly.

    Certainly as long as you conceed that your conclusion of this story is also based on assumptions of SRT and with absolutely no emperical data to support it. In fact to claim he is younger due to his extended period of high relative velocity would violate SRT's mandated reciprocity.

    I fail to see any relevance of this story to the issues raised.

    Last edited: Jun 11, 2005
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    You best go read up on GPS. Then, come back with your explanation of what the ECEF frame is. Or do you want to have a guess right now?

    There's no meaningful distinction.

    According to who?

    According to A, or B, or your preferred invisible "third observer", C, who you'll try to introduce later on?
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Earth Centered-Earth Fixed. And I have no intention of repeating here what has already been posted a dozen times explaining what these frames are and how they are used. It is not I that needs to do some reading.

    I'll agree with you the moment you show me where the gamma calculation states each are at rest and that it is the other clock which dilates. The Gamma calculation does not include reciprocity. SRT includes reciprocity, not as an option but as a fact in every case of relative velocity under inertial condtions.

    What lost your reading glasses? It states according to who.

    What you afraid to give an SRT answer now are we? Because you know I can show that your answer is in error by defining the same relative velocity in terms of accleration induced velocity history or a third referance.

    Go ahead tell all these good people what is the relative tick rate of two clocks that have a relative velocity of 0.866c?____________.

    You advocate SRT and vouch for it's absolute validity - use it, go ahead.
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    I don't think I made any
    "slanderous statements" or any statement of any kind about your knowledge. If I did I am am sorry. I will readily admit your probably know much more about GPS that I do. I may have made wrong implications or statements about it - I have never worked with GPS, only helped to develop some of the satellites that it used (may still use) I have not the foggiest idea of how the details are computed.

    My only point in mentioning it very briefly was that whatever goes into the GPS calculations is the standard orthodox physics, not your special version, so you cannot honestly site GPS as supporting your non-orthodox view, as you often do.

    I will even (in the interest of friendship - I consider you one and a quite intelligent one at that, just wrong in some basic physics.) admit to using ridicule in by "demonstration" that the co-moving observers measure or observe exactly the same thing reguardless of their different "velocity histories" - I nearly fell out of my chair when I read your statement that James R was "obviously wrong" to not include the "velocity histories" when speaking of what co-moving inertial observers would observe.

    That was the entire focus of my post with "demonstration." I only mentioned GPS as I did here above to illustrate that you do unjustly claim support where in fact the people correcting GPS have probably never hear of your non-orthodox versions of physics. You often claim views contrary to yours are "obviously wrong." This case of your doing so about JR's statement that only the current velocity was important was such an extreme example of your "obviously wrong" being obviously wrong, that I could not resist comment.

    Sorry now I even mentioned briefly GPS as you have uesed that to essencially ignore (instead of defended) my challenge to your cliam that the "velocity history" must be considered to get the correct results.

    Your statement that JR was "obviously wrong" and needed to include the "velocity histories" etc was in itself so obviously wrong that I could not resist creating the story where "n" observers with very different "velocity history" viewed a comet and all reported the tail pointing in different directions even though they were standing "shoulder to shoulder" in the same parking lot while viewing. I thought it particularly amusing "fact" that nine of the "n" saw that the comet was behind the sun and complained of sunburn and stiff necks while others, shoulder to shoulder with them agreed it was a perfect night for viewing (no moon or clouds) but stated the tail had not yet formed. Even you must admit the story of how their different "velocity histories" made a big difference (as you claimed it would when calling JR "obviously wrong") was funny.

    I thank you for your advice to back up, but offer the same to you. At least drop the ridiculous claim that "velocity history obviously must be considered when computing what co-moving observers would observer" (Not your exact words, but exactly your claim) That is in no way "obvious." It is, in fact, ridiculous as my demonstration story shows.
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Maybe I over reacted to this :

    1 - It is not MY "strange version" of anything. GPS uses the ECI and ECEF frames. They ARE local common preferred rest frames. GPS does calculate gamma of the orbit velocity but it is not an SRT relative velocity calculation between clocks, it is the absolute velocity of orbit around the center of the earth rest referance.

    2 - This statement implies I am not a reasonable person.

    I primarily point out that the -7.2us/day dilation due to velocity is only correct for orbit velocity and that computing relative velocity between the surface at the equator and orbit yields an incorrect value of -5.8us/day. Further that GPS doesn't use the SRT relative velocity.

    I have added a note that gamma orbit/gamma surface yields the correct gamma effective for a -7.2us/day dilation but that is my concept and is not what GPS does.

    You mis-read the scenario. They were not co-moving. i.e. - A and B has 0.866c relative velocity what is the gamma that predicts the accumulated times of each clock?

    And I believe that is the case.

    I'll not debate you here but wait for you to give me the gamma for the above question.
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2005
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Is the ECEF a rotating frame? Yes or no? Does the centre of the Earth rotate, or only the surface?

    The formula for time dilation is:

    t = (gamma) t<sub>0</sub>

    where t<sub>0</sub> is a proper time, and t is the time in some other frame.

    Reciprocity is built into this formula.

    If A measures time ta using his own clocks, then ta is a proper time.
    If A looks at B's clock and sees it tick off ta', then ta' is not a proper time, because B's clock is not stationary in A's frame.
    If B measures time tb using his own clocks, then tb is a proper time.
    If B looks at A's clock and sees it tick off tb', then tb' is not a proper time, because A's clock is not stationary in B's frame.

    Regarding your statement "It says according to who", let me explain it slowly for you again.

    You wrote:

    Is A measuring the tick rate of both clocks? Or is it B? Or is it C, who is moving relative to both A and B?


    A measurement of a "tick rate" or a time interval or a distance is meaningless unless you specify a reference frame for the measurement.

    I have explained this to you too many times to count, yet you still don't get it.

    I can't give you an answer, because you haven't specified a reference frame. Clear?

    Who is measuring the tick rate?

    Give me enough information, and I will happily do so.
  13. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member


    At some time the A and B observers who are moving uniformly simply press the "print time of clock" in their respective inertial frames.
    A presses the print current time in A ship"
    A presses "print predicted current clock rate in B ship"
    A presses "print ground station current time"

    :[each observer on A and B are aware only of the original t = 0 simultaneously set in all three clocks.]

    A presses "print cirrent time on B clock.
    B presses "print predicted current clock rate in A ship"
    B presses "print current time in B ship"
    B presses "print ground station current time"
    B presses "print current time on A clock"
    (each have identical clocks that were synchronized at t = 0 at one time iin the ECI earth frame see below).
    Both A and B have been moving the same length of trime wrt the accepted common frame of reference the planet earth (ECI frame) where all three started from a common t = 0 reference point. When the ships are both equal distance from the earth ground station they each receive a signal "press all print buttons now"

    A and B each presses the print buttonms described above.

    Each has maintained a uniform speed with respect to the earth reference frame the ECI frame; A is moving at .86c and B moving uniformly at .14c wrt the ECI frame of reference.

    A and B are moving toward each other with their relative velocity measured wrt to the A and B inertial frame as well as the common ECI frame, though neither A nor B observers know of the ECI reference frame measurements, All the A and B observers know is their own speeds originally redioed to them from the earth ground control station. The earth to ship message said
    "A you are moving at .14c wrt the earth embankment."
    " B you are moving .86 c wrt the earth embankment"
    yes each ship is sent an eroneous speed wrt the embankment; eacnh has been radioed the other ships speed wrt the ground station. No observer compjutes any of the values of their respective measurements.

    What do the printouts on the respective ships "print lists" indicate?

    Each ship has a continous one second beep beep beep ,... signal sent where each beep interval is taken directly from the clock timing circuits measured by the sending ship. In other words each ship radiates what they think is a one second interval between beeps as measured on their own ship..​
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    You have to be joking. ECEF (Earth Centered - Earth Fixed). The center has no surface, it is a zero dimensional point. Even if you claim this point rotates it would have a velocity = 0.

    Not true but even if it were that would only invalidate the mathematics.

    t = (gamma) t<sub>0</sub> says nothing about recipocal application in complete disregard with the reality of the universe. It is merely a gamma function. SRT misapplies the principle by desregarding actual referance points that exist and limits relative velocity to only two points which creates the physically impossible condition of reciprocity.

    Once again try telling us something we don't all know. Knowing what the theory states does not make the theory correct.

    Don't be impertinent. Your responses do not justify it.

    Look. Instead of trying to pretend "I don't get it", lets concentrate on the fact that I posted a list of clock relationships. Every view was included. Go back and respond. You have been given the "In who's view" more than once.
    I sure as hell did. But you refuse to answer since you know my question has multiple answers and clocks only have one recorded accumulated time. You and your pet theory has a problem bubba.

    I'll repeat it one last time.

    A & B has a relative velocity of 0.866c. What are the respective tick rates of clocks which controls the accumulated time recorded by the clock?

    Clock A according to B__________Ticks/Tick

    Clock B according to A__________Ticks/Tick

    Now in terms of accumulated time recorded by the clock in 10 hours time:

    A = 36,000 seconds; B = ____________ seconds.

    B = 36,000 seconds; A = _____________ seconds.
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    I had to leave immediately after first post some things changed and final paragraph added more than hour later by edit.
    And I may not have read careflully enough. Mainly I read just your statement to JR that the SRT was "obviously flawed" if the "velocity history" was not included in the (SRT) calculations - a statement that was directly responding to JR's claim that only the current velocity need be used. (I of course agree with JR on this, but did not read all of your exchange with him, so some other things may have been implied.) I would like you to clearly "recant' the simple statement, that I ridiculed in my demonstration, if you can, or at least explain better how "velocity history" must be considered. (I used my twin brother, the famous astronaught of the twin paradox, as one of the n observers with different "velocity history" because all would accept his as a "very different hisrory" from stay-at-home-on-Earth me.)
    Perhaps you really did not mean the full "history" - perhaps 50 years of Earth time - that my twin brother had different from me needed to be considered when he and I were standing sholder-to-shoulder for an hour watching the same comet? I'll ask you flat out: Does his extremely different "velocity history" from mine make any difference in either his human observations of the comet or his instrmentl mesurements such as the photos taken by the polaroid camera he held and exposed at the same time I took mine?
    If your answer is "no" (and I sincerely hope it is) then don't you think, that on this small section of the exchange between you and JR that I read and quoted, you may have at least gotten "carried away a little" by telling JR that he was "obviously wrong" to not use the "velocity history"?
    If your answer is "yes" my twin brother's view and photos taken at the same time as mine, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with me are very different because his velocity history is very different, then I am sorry for you, so strongly holding a view, most people would consider not only "obviously wrong", but "insane" (in sense "out of touch with reality")I would also note that such a view makes all physic (all sciences in fact) impossible as when my twin brother measure the age of an old bone by radioactive carbon dating he gets, because of his different "velocity history" results I can not reproduce. If all observations depend on the observers 'velocity history" wen can even sensibly discuss which of of is correct about SRT - perhaps we both are and there is no unique truth to any science!

    In any case I am glad that we are not in danger of losing the ability to discuss civily. You know I have come to your defense in the past when others were needlessly attacking you personally and not your view. I will do so now again, but first want to qualify it by again stating I have read less that half of your recent exchanges with JR. From what I have read in JR's posts recently he has done discredit to himself, more than you, by things like "poor confused MacM" etc.

    I for one don't consider you confused - just wrong on some things. You seem to me to be able to defend your views with calculations etc. but I don't check any (too lazy in my old age to spend time on that). You may even have basis for claiming GPS supports your view, but I continue to doubt it does for reason earlier stated. I know nothing about the corrections actually applied by GPS authorities/ controllers, the reference frames they use,etc. and will not bother to learn. I have seen some classified films of tomahawk missiles, guided by GPS, hit a very small building after long flight from a submarine launch. If GPS is not using some very good approximation of the correct physics, that would not have happened.

    Be preparded for a long wait

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    My first priority with my time at SF is to enjoy myself trying to teach, especially if the person appears willing and egar to learn. Whe n I have more time to spend at SF, I plan to try to participate with Pete in PP, but probwbly only to ask questions, make suggestion, not do much of the work full participation in PP requires. The third priority is to correct any errors I note (related to first priority obviously) made by some one who is basically mainstream orthodox, as I am in everything except some philosphical subject related to who/what we humans are and how we perceive. WE all make these errors, especially when tired - I know I have twice posted some really stupid thing as true, once here and once at physicsform. fortunately some one noticed them both quickly. this is perhaps the most imprortant service on cn do here. I seem to recall that I corrected even Pete and JR at least once also.

    Finally (and probably never) I will do calculations suggested by the non-orthodox.

    On my questioning your intelligence (or what ever it was you said in reference to my "any reasonaable person" remark about the strength of my demeonstrion story - not looking at your tect as I write) you need not take it that way. I intened, and hoped, that you, being a reasonable person, might be persuadedby the "demonstration story" that your critisim of JR for not including the "velocity history" was at least poorly worded and did not literally reflect your view. I still intertain this hope, but I tend to think in the end the truth (my version of course

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) will prevail.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 12, 2005
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Great. I actually think the problem is you have a different view of what is meant by velocity history. Your scenario has the twin returning younger.

    We could debate that but what seems in error is that you are advocating each exists in a different present. The facts are that unpon return to the same FOR they will see and record the exact same things. They are not time shifted on his return.

    What I mean by velocity history is really this simple.

    If I simply give you a statement that there exists a 0.866c relative velocity between A and B, then you cannot realiably predict any relavistic affects because how that velocity was achieved changes the result.

    CASE #1:

    A is actually at rest (by that I mean it could be earth as a referance) and a cosmic muon penetrates the atmosphere. In that case the muon life time would be extended by a factor of 2.000.

    CASE #2:

    A and B are rockets sent in opposite directions from C at equal acceleration rates and for equal durations. C is the earth referance and each will have a relative velocity to C of 0.433c. From the perspective of A and B they have 0.866c relative velocity (ignoring velocity addition since it doesn't alter the conclusion but merely complicates the demonstration).

    Now to suggest that because A and B measure a relative velocity of 0.866c (gamma = 2.000) that they each will be time dilated (actually accumulate 1/2 the time of each other) is ludricrus. It does not happen and cannot happen and has never been observed nor is there data to support such nonsense.

    The gendanken is flawed since actually A and B are victums of an illusion since they are unable to sense their own velocity component that comprises the total relative velocity.

    The facts are that given the case you would normally agree that A and B "Mutually" dilate relative to C and therefore have no net systemic time dilation between them. But they dilate at a gamma of 1.109, not at the actual relative velocity of 0.866c or gamma = 2.000.

    So IT IS OBVIOUS that current relative velocity in and of itself is insufficient information upon which to predict the accumulated times of clocks. You must know which ONE (if either) is at rest and can never, NEVER, NEVER, do as advocated by SRT claim both can rightfully assume the rest position and that it is the other that has motion and then claim reciprocity of relavistic affects.

    That view is simply wrong. Sorry Einstien, you screwed up. (I'm not calling you Einstien, but am speaking to the deceased A.E.)

  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    You're doing the famous MacM Texas Two-Step again.

    I asked you a simple question - which reference frame are you observing clock rates in? You don't seem able to give a straight answer. Why? Can't decide? Don't know what a reference frame is?

  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Nor do they. In any single frame, they dilate only one way - just like you keep whinging.

    If you incorrectly mix frames, like you always do, that's when they start dilating at multiple rates.

    In other words, apply relativity correctly, and your problem disappears.
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    I'm not going to keep chasing you around trying to undo your repeated false statements and accusations.

    Just post the calculations.

    A and B have a relative velocity of 0.866c. What are the respective tick rates of their clocks. Post the results in the form of accumulated time compared to a standard undilated clock which accumulates 36,000 seconds.

    A ____________ Seconds.

    B ____________ Seconds.
  22. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    "a standard undilated clock"???

    What is that???

    A and B are the only objects you mentioned. What is the velocity of this "standard" clock wrt A and B???

    A can only say what he observes of B and vise-versa. They will both report the other's clock to be dilated by gamma, using v = 0.866c.
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Still dancing around. The MacM Texas Two step continues.

    Who is measuring the tick rates? A or B, or somebody else?

Share This Page