Mac's Final Relativity Thread

Then you are telling us what is WRONG with SR. Clearly tick rate is NOT simply a matter of observer perception. That ludricrus concept has a clock physically ticking at an infinite different rates simultaenously.

Further it is inconsistant within itself. As I have pointed out given "A", "B" & "C" all at rest and synchronized. Accelerate "A" & "B" away from "C" equally and it makes no difference if their vectors are co-moving (no relative velocity to each other) or launched in opposite directions (maximum relative velocity to each other) .

The time dilation is not a function of relative velocity between "A" & "B" but only between "A" or "B" to "C". When co-moving you have direct comparison without any deceleration or turn around being required. They are side by side and remain in synch but equally dilated to "C".


The same result is true when they move in opposite directions. I have already given a scenario where "A" & "B" move out to an equal remote distance from "C", accelerate back toward "C" passing a start line where they fire a light signal toward "C" and set their clocks to zero.

They then continue to move inertially until they pass "C". When "C" receives the start light signal it knows the distance hence light time required for the signal to arrive and presets it's clocks to that amount of accumulated time so as to be synchronized with the start of "A" & "B" clocks.

When "A" & "B" pass "C" it will be seen that they both have accumulated equal but dilated time relative to "C" such that without question your assertion that their tick rate depended on their relative velocity to each other is completly falsified.

Granted if you merely consider "A" & "B" without "C" your math might predict that "A" & "B" would be dilated to each other but that prediction is unsupported by emperical test data and is utter nonsense.

Belief is such a system is a black mark on human intelligence.

Please restrict your postivie claims about physics to that which has emperical testing support and not some fantasy of mathematics that is at the surface not only ludricrus but physically inmpossible.

Impossible is NOTthe same as the "Counter Intuitive" state that they like to hide behind verbally to ignore the facts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Correct and that means "A" is ticking slower than "B". When "A" ticks off 6 seconds "B" has ticked off 10 seconds.

This is NOT a frame dependant function it is the physical reality in all frames.

Here is where you are lost. Yes in "A's" frame his proper time seems normal but his proper time has a different physical tick rate than "B's" proper tick rate. ta does not equal tb just because the observer can't tell the difference in his proper tick rate.

Not the physical reality. That is the "Illusion of Motion". "B's" tick rate has not changed because "A" now has motion. THAT is the physical reality.

Correct. In "B's" frame the "Illusion of Motion" IS the physical reality.

With one major difference. It would only be "B" that is actually dilated rather tha "A" which would have been physically dialted in the first case.

Permanently physically dilated means the clock that actually displays less accumulated time when directly compared without any "Illusion of Motion" percepton.

Put more directly a dilated condition supported by hard emperical data.

Sure there is. You install digital transmitters in "A" and "B" clocks to send out data about their respective accumulated times. You can then be in any frame "A", "B" , "C", etc and you monitor which clock is assumulating time faster or slower.

The slower ticking clock (accumulating time slower) will be the one with the greatest acceleration history and hence has the largest change in velocity universally.

Absolutely not.

You can't simply slip and slide away from the issue.

When you apply your "Who switched frames" criteria you are no longer merely considering relative velocity between frames. You are considering "Who has accelerated and changed velocity".

You are only correct in saying SR claims to only consider relative velocity. The fact is relative velocity is not used. As pointed out emperical data does not support the arguement that time dilation is an observer driven fuction that applies to two frames if both have accelerated but only applies to an accelerated frame vs an initial inertial rest reference frame.

It is only valid between clock when one clock remains fixed at the initial inertial rest reference - which is basically the case for all your accumulated emperical data.

Every thingelse is hypothetical speculation based on arbitrary mathematics

Read above. Your SR doesn't function by m,ere relative velocity no matter how hard you try to conceal the truth to the contrary.

Do you apply "Who switched frames to you data when computing time dilation?" Yes or No.

Do you have any emperical data to support the arguement that from the "Switched Frame" view point the resting clock is physically dilated or is that simply mathematical conjecture based on assumptions about the physics of relativity?

Lets keep this honest. You have absolutely no emperical data upon which to assert your claims are based on "True Physics" and you have proved no rebuttal to justify claiming my corrections as being "Fantasy Physics". Nice try but poetry may sound nice but it doesn't necessarily describe real life.

If you had installed digital transmitters on those clocks yes. You could begin to monitor at what rate each clock was accumulating time.

Unknown until actually tested. That has been my point you want to assert that they are gong to tick a 80% of "C" but they may not have accelerated from "C's" frame as a rest frame.

Your mathematics are shear speculation and that is all. Every test ever done and all data is based on known and fixed frames of rest and relative motion such as a particle accelerator.

Not known until actually tested.

Did above.

Since radar is based on timing signals out and back using an onboard clock the onboard traveling car radar will record the parked car as moving away faster than 50 Mph.

Hardly. However what they indicate may not be totally correct. Just as my radar in the traveling car saw you speeding whenn you infact were parked.

Do you think I should be able to drag you into court for speeding since you had a relative velocity to me in excess of the speed limit even though you were parked?

The result from the radar gun is a function of acculated time on the onboard clock attached to the radar. Such that what it computes is a function of it's physical tick rate.

That is speculation until tested. The only problem is that for most everyday motion time dilation plays no role and we do not see nor can measure the affect so we go along content that relative velocity truely measures symmetrical.

See above.

See above.

See above.

Center of the earth.

Possibly because I missed a typo. It should have read + or - not =/-. But in your SR mathematics you apply a numerical sign to tell the mathe to increase or decrease clock tick rate. That is how you get a clock that was accelerted away and become dilated to then return to normal tick rate when returned to its original frame.

This addresses my next question to you which was "I forgot to tell you that "A" & "B" had previously launched in a co-moving direction from "C" and that they then would be ticking at gamma = 1.66666n or 0.6 as fast as "C".

In the example I gave you we agree "A" is ticking slower than "B" as it leaves "B" but it is also ticking slower than "C" bu it must now also be starting to tick faster so as to return to "C's" original tick rate.

How do you justify a clock physically starting to tick slower and faster at the same time?

Correct. I understand that is your theory but that makes physical tick rate a function of observer perception and observers for "A" and "B" where they have relative velocity are not correct in their assumption that each is accumulating time slower than each other when in fact they have had equal acceleration from some common rest frame.

As pointed out when they pass "C" they are notr dilated relative to each other regardless of their hving relative velocity of not. Their tick rate is not a function of THEIR relative velocity but of thier velocity to the common inertial rest frame.

That would be true. Braking and accelerting backwards is the same thing.

Correct.

I don't follow your conclusions here at all. The problem is you like to mix everyday velocities with relavistic predictions. Most all velocities we deal with on a daily basis are not affected by relativity and relative velocity IS virtually symmetrical in our experiences.

Data suggests we have but only when generally orthogonal. That is remote objects have been timed at v>c but not in the line of sight. In the line of sight the physical dimensions of mass (but not space) do undergo Lorentz Contraction and therfore cease to exist physically to us.

We may have but it hasn't been recognized for what it is worth. Massive objects near the edge of the observable universe are approaching v = c but you see nothing beyond that. That does not mean massive objects have not exceeded v = c and vanished.

Virtual particles appear and disappear all the time. Universe appear to form as expanding bubbles it would be logical that they push each other and do not generally mix. That is an expanding wave of energy forming space pushes agaisnt other expanding waves of other universes forcing them to seperate not mix mass content.

I most certainly do.

WEBSTER:

"Postulate" - 2) to assume without proof to be true or real, or necessary esp. as a basis for arguement.

Hmmmm. Hardly an over powering arguement.

What I have been proposing is that the invariance of light postulate is based on our ignorance and that what we think we see (measure) is actually based on an illusion caused by physics we yet do not understand and that in lieu of being invariant photons we are seeing different photons being generated.

What we may be seeing that we call traveling photons may be an energy pulse along a carrier which is moivng at multiple velocities FTL such that you are actually seeing an energy based function at v = c to the observer.

Further that this carrier may extend toward infinity and is the connection driving particle entanglement.

And potentially if not likely flawed.

Did you go deaf. Every time this issue has been raised for years I have given the same asnwer as above.

Many have tried and they get the same circle jerk made here.

Covered above.

False unsupported innuendo.

Have many time but you choose to ignore the evidence and possibilities.

It applies to all potential universes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thankls for joing funkstar. I have missed your rather irrelevant postings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MacM:
Here's an analogy that I believe fits your point of view. Time dilation can be thought of in terms of film speed. Humans view video at a frame rate of about 30 frames per second (30fps), this would be considered the "common rest frame" for people on earth. If I record something using high speed photography and then play back the tape at 30fps, time will appear to slow down do to the high speed recording (high velocity). Likewise, when using time laps photography the frame rate is slower. When I play it back at 30fps, time will appear to pass faster (low velocity). The increase and decrease of observed time is directly related to the "common rest frame" of 30fps. If there truly is a "pnysical difference" in a second then we can look for it using the above analogy (the frame rate becomes the clock). If a second is always a second then 30fps will always be viewed as 30fps. The tapes may disagree when filming a common observation from different frames of motion but they will always match up when filming separate (yet identical) experiments within each observers individual frame of motion.

 

I did not envision that either of the frames A & B were accelerated form a common rest frame, but if you want me to assume that then that common rest frame was the frame in which the two cameras, C & D are stationary and separated by 1km along the X-axis. (which is alinged with the X-axes of frames A & B, but 5 cm separated from each of the camera frame's X-axis. Recall the XY planes fo A & B are parallel 10 cm apart, at least as measured by observer in the camera frame.) At t = 0 frame A begins to accelerate camera's +X direction and B with same magnitude of acceleration in camera's -X direction. Both stop accelerating at the same time for observers in the camera's frame when that observer notes their velocities are: A has v =0.9C and B has v=-0.9C. I.e. everthing is perfectly symetrical wrt to the observers in the camera frame which is mid way between frames A & B.

Because it is possible to produce exactly equally any "accelerations effects" on the identical in their construction clocks in frames A & B, I did not describe these details, but just assumed that the clocks in A & B had the same ticking rates when compared to identical in their construction atomic clocks in their own frame. I.e. a cesium atomic clock in frame A makes # of cycles in one second time laps on a clock in frame A, and # also is the number of cycles Frame B's identical cesium clock makes in one second laps on a clock in Frame B.

Yes that is how I started, but now to keep you happy, I have above described how the two frames A & B (really their two networks of clocks with zero relative speed, as "frames" are just massless coordinate systemes with no objective reality.) were symetrically accelerated from being initially mututally at rest in the camera frame.

I am just a guy pounding on my lap top keyboard

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

who imagines that there are observers in all three frames. Then "chief observers is in the camera frame, with assistents every where in that frame. The only role of the observers in frames A & B is to schnronize their own clocks. It the clocks were initially schronized at t =0 when at rest in the camera frame, I can not imagine anyway they could not still be schronized when they are moving at 0.9C wrt the camera frame. (If you think that identical accelerations applied to all can deschronized them you can assume they have been re-schronized after their acceleration period is over.)

I thnk I have already answered both to a large extent above. In geneneral I schronized two clock with zero relative velocity by flashing a light which is mid way between them and note what they indicate when the light flash. One clock the mastert clock, MC, is always showing the frame's time, FT. The clock being schronized to FT is highly unlikely to be showing FT when the light flash arrives at it so its error is corrected. For example if when the flash arrives at MC the FT = 15:13 and when at the other clock's display shows 13:34, then that clock is given the correction of -21 minutes so it next diplay after display of 13:34 is 13:14 or is now showing FT correctly.

Quickly, again: Test by comparing tick rates to # cycles of local cesium atomic clock.

yes. They are 1km apart on X-axis of plane midway between the to planes A & B which relative to the cameras have v = +0.9C and v =-0.9C respectively wrt the cameras.

 

Excellent analogy. I agree 100%. Not to deminish your proper thought process here but some years back others here can verify that I posted a virtually identical analogy. I filmed a sun flare and had the film frames moving at v = c past earth I then had space travelers moving away from the earth and sun observing the film which showed the rate of sun activity speed up or slow down based on observer perception due to relative velocity.

 

In this symmetric case all agree, I think that observer at C "see" both A and B's clocks have accumulated the same number of fewer ticks than his clock has.

However, I think you MacM are not undestanding what is being stated by we who claim there tick rate does depend on who is measuring it.

Tick rate is by definition the number of ticks, N, accumulated between "begin" and "stop" times, Tb & Ts.

The tick rate is N / (Ts - Tb).

Now as I understand you example, observer in frame C observes that A's Tb, which I desigante as ATb, was simulatneous with BTb. He also observers that ATs was simultaneous with BTs. Thus for him (ATs - ATb) = (Bts - Btb) or 100 of his time units. He is not suprized that the number of A's and B's ticks in this same lapsed time interval are equal (Na = Nb) as the clocks were identical. In ignorance of SR, he is surprized that the number of ticks his clock made, Nc, in his 100 time unit interval is not the same but greater. i.e. Nc > Na = Nb.

Now as I understand your scenerio Observer in A, Oa, and observer Ob were side by side when they stopped, simultaneously, their tick accumulation intervals and so agree that Ta = Tb. They each photographed the others clock's counters as they passed and even agree that both were showing the same number of ticks at the instant of passing, i.e. agree that Na = Nb.

Each (Oa & Ob) however is accusing the other of having cheated. I.e. Oa claims that Ob started his accumulation interval earlier than agreed and that is why Ob's slower running clock also accumulated the same number of ticks. Ob replies that is a lie I started my accumulation interal when I should have. You cheated and started earlier to compenstate for your slower running clock.

Obeservers in two different frames with relative velocity can only agree that both act "simultaneouly" when they passing each other side by side. When they were separated each sees the other as starting the accumulation interval earlier than he did.

If I did not undestand you senarior correctly peahaps they agree both started the accumulation intervals simultaneously but each tobserved the other as not stopping it when he did, but letting ticks to continure to accumlate duroing a longer interal.

The fundamental problem* is that only side by side when passing can Oa and Ob agree they acted "simultaneously" and "tick rate" need both simultaneous "begin" and "stop" actions. If your secenarior has both A and B beginning and stopping simultaneously for observer C, then all observer in all other frames do not agree both started simultaneously. Hence Oa & Ob are convenced that the other cheated by either starting to accumulate early or let the accumulation continue too long to compensate for the others slow running clock.

----------------
*recall years ago in anoher thread i had train with side mounted photo-electric triggered bombs at front an tail and also on ground posts that the train bombs just avoided hitting as they passed. Mid way between the post was a flash lamp ready to flash but lacking an electrical contact to the ground, which was provided by a copper hoop extending from the mid poin of the train. The post bombs exploded simultaneously (stopped the hands of the schronized clocks just below the bombs) but the train's schronized clocks, mounted on the train just below the train's bombs, did not explode simultaneosuly. The tail mounted bomb explode prior to the front mounted bomb as the front bomb was trying to escape from the advancing light front and the tail bomb was racing towards the light front. Both train and ground observers agree the flash was at the mid point between their bombs.

Point being that any two events which are simulataneous in one frame (or for this case, have interval of 100 time units between them) are not simultaneous in any other frame (or for this case, do not have 100 time units between them) in another frame.

To make this more exactly a time interval example, put the copper hoop flash trigger under the front bomb of the train and the flash on the same post as the first ground mounted bomb the train comes to. Then the train's front bomb and this first post bomb immediately and simultaneously explode to start the clock tick intervals. These intervals stop when the other bombs explode but both train and ground observers think the other did not stop the accumultions intervals when they stopped theirs. this is not an exact parallel to your problme still as one must include SR's length contractions. but again just trying to show that only the symmetric observer C can see both A & B have 100 time interavls between start and stop of the accumulation intervals.

 

No objection this is my "A", "B", "C" example but with out cameras already discussed. In my case I merely had accumulated time data cross transferred as "A" & "B" simultaneously passed by "C".

That would be correct except you must remember that there are only 10,000 1 second ticks on "A" & "B" for every 43,588 ticks of a clock at "C".

Yes I agree and what the cameras show is that they remain synchronized but are equally dilated relative to "C". It matters not if they move in opposition and have relative velocity to each other or are co-moving in the same vector and have no relative veloicty. Their accumulated time remains equal and dilated relative to "C".

What more does it take to get you and others to understand that means relative velocity between clocks is not causing time dilation?

They remain synchronized. I have said so many times here.

No problem with that but it is unnecessary. As I had "A" & "B" located at equi-distances from "C" and once moving toward "C" crossed a start line, also equi-distance from "C" and they set their clocks to zero and sent a light start signal toward "C". "C" upon receipt of the start signal computed the light travel time from the start line and preset it's clock to that time such that all clocks had the same start time.

See above.

yes. They are 1km apart on X-axis of plane midway between the to planes A & B which relative to the cameras have v = +0.9C and v =-0.9C respectively wrt the cameras.

Not from the point of view of cameras (observers) but from their common initial inertial rest frame. Remember that frame encompasses the entire universe not just the cameras.

No. We are talking about symmetry of moving clocks "They" means clocks "A" & "B".

So what indeed. You have made a break through. Do you agree that "A" and "B" at crossing with "C" (your midway camera) will display equal accumulated time and that those times will be dilated relative to "C" clocks?

If so now have a third moving observer in a frame at 0.05c pass by "C" simultaneously with the crossing of "C" by "A" & "B". Guess what the observer moving at 0.05c will get the precise same readings as the clocks at "C". Those readings do not change due to the moving monitoring clock's motion relative to the initial inertial rest frame of "A" & "B".

Not a valid assessment. I do not rely upon there being an absolute universal rest frame. I have said it is logical that there should be one but it in no way is required or is part of the issues I raise. I have said that every concievable inertial velocity is it's own absolute rest frame.

I got no idea what you are talking about here. "Trigger pulse M = 3456?????"

I only agree thatv "A" & "B" remain synchronized regardless of their respective vectors if they have undergone equal acceleration from their common initial inertial rest frame.

That symmetry remains valid for any observer with any velocity that takes emperical data from them at a common location or collects digital data at any time but can compute and add or subtract information delays from their data at the time of collection.

This unfortunately reminds me of why you and I did not continue to communicate. Your posts are far to lengthy and overly complex requiring unnecessary effort to respond if even possible.


KISS (Keep it simple stupid) Not meant personal here but in principle.

 

Not just this case but in every case where data is collected by an observer at the moment of "A" & "B" passing "C" regardless of the velocity of the motion of the observer taking the data.

Any observer any where in any frame can also determine that "A" & "B" are and remain in synch as long as he has the ability to add or subtract information delays of the digital information being received from or to the respective data.

This is nothing more than a simultaneity shift BS arguement. We have already established that the clocks were properly synchronized and launched simultaneously. Just as James R and other like to talk about what others "Think" you want to argue that the reality of symmetry suggest they didn't actually start their cocks simultaneously.

I voided that arguement hands down in this thread when I had "A" and "B" deliberately start at different times and showed that when they each crossed "C" they still have the same recorded accumulated times. So simultaneity of launch has no bearing on time accumulated over the trip course.

Ok folks I really hope you are awake here. Please note the red "sees". We do not care what other "Think", "see", "Percieve", etc. We only care about accumulated digital data and sound correct physics about what distance and accumulated time at different velocities acually means.

In that respect Both "A" and "B" were put on a course with equal distance to launch and achieve a specified velocity and cross a start line to synchronize all clocks by. It matters not if they start simultaneously, start sequentially after each other have finished their test or if they move in opposition having relative velocity or co-move with no relative velocity. The results are aslways identical.

They are identical for any observer in any frame if data is properly compensated for information delays between "A", "B" and the observer.

PERIOD.

?????? The case has been specified very simply and correctly. There are no simultaneity issues.

As shown this is all totally false.

 

So you keep saying. But, the fact is that this is what SR says, and that's where you should be addressing your arguments.

Any thought experiment in which you assume that SR does not say that the physical tick rate of clocks is frame dependent (like the one in the opening post) is a waste of time, because you are not addressing SR.

See, you're doing it again. SR clearly says that time dilation is frame dependent. It doesn't say that "A" has a specific time dilation depending on how it has accelerated, it says that the time dilation of "A" depends on what frame of reference you consider it in.

SR quite clearly says that in A ticks very slowly in B's rest frame, B ticks very slowly in A's rest frame, and they both tick slowly in C's rest frame. Asserting anything else in the analysis just means that you are not analysing the consequences of SR.

Nevertheless, it is exactly what SR says, and it is where you should be directing your argument. Anything else is a waste of time.

This is where the real argument is. Show that it is physically impossible for time dilation to be truly frame dependent as dictated by SR. Stop wasting time by showing the impossible consequences of something else.

Here's a challenge for you: Describe how your thought experiment pans out under what SR actually says, and explain why it is impossible.

 

I agree that relative velocity alone is not the cause. But operationally to measure "time dilation" Observer in A, Oa, must observe clocks in B tick as well as his own for some non zero time interval, Ia, as measured by A's own clocks (and conversely Observer, Ob, does the same for his time interval Ib).

To have these two intervals, there must be both a "begining" and "stopping" times in each of the two frames, A & B for letting your own clock run and feeding its tick pulses into a local electronic accummulator. I called these four times ATb, ATs, BTb & BTs. The "b" and "s" subscripts obviously are for begining and stopping the counting of ticks in the intervals. The interval in Frame A is Ia = (ATs -ATb) and in frame B it is Ib = (BTs -BTb).

To avoid correction calculations, we want both intervals Ia & Ib to be the same, for example both Ia & Ib are 1000 ticks or 1000 of the local time units.

This interval equality would be achieved if somehow we could be sure that (1) ATb was simultaneous with BTb and (2) that ATs was simultaneous with BTs. You do not seem to understand that there is no way both (1) and (2) can be achieved.

I know that there exists a third frame, C, in which both frames A and B have the same relative SPEED (either by VA = -VB or by VA = VB) that we measures simultaneous start and stop times. The VA = VB case is not interesting as then frame A is identical with frame B and you are only using two different names to refer to the same frame - not comparing anything between two differnt inertail frames. So, yes a frame C observer measures that conditions (1) and (2) are both satisified, but ONLY this frame C which has VA = -VB can satisfy both (1) and (2) conditions.

The best you can do in any other frame is to statisfy either (1) or (2) but not both. That is one can arrange for either simultanesous start or simultaneous stop conditions, but not both from the POV of observers in ANY FRAME not the same as frame C. Note that "ANY NOT FRAME C"certainly includes both frame A and Frame B. Thus observers Oa & Ob and either agree that they did start the intervals simultaneosly or that they stoped accumulating the clock ticks simultaneously but not that both start and stops were simultaneous. Both Oa and Ob will call the other a cheater.
For example, if they agree that they did start the acumulation intervals simultaneously then both claim the other let the accumulation run longer than the agreed 1000 clock ticks, (exactly enough longer so that the other's slower clock could also tick 1000 times.)

I think you have misunderstood my arrangement, so I can cannot understand your "pass by C" questions. I had two cameras, C & D, separated by 1km and both are always mid way between Frame A and Frame B's infinite extent and parallel XY planes. There are clocks everywhere on the parallel X-axes of both of A & B frames, which are 10 cm separated in the Z direction. Each camera has two lenses with 45 degree mirrors in front of it so can photograph the digital displays of the adjacent clocks simultaneously The cameras were trigger by a pulse generator located mid way between the cameras. I.e. with each pulse M what is showing on the display of four clocks is photographed. But I will try to switch to your experimental design. I do not fully understand it - in what post number is it well described (operational details)?

Each trigger pulse makes four photos as just again discussed. I only expanded my original two sentences (one was an example) as you said you did not understand.
----------------------
PS, later by edit after reading your red "see" comments.:

Yes I hate to use the term "see" in these discussions - that is why ALL observations in my thought experment were photographs made by the two cameras C & D, separated by 1000m, with one shutter trigger pulse from pulse one generator midway between C & D. (Two electric cables, each 500 meters long, deliver the pulse to cameras C & D simultaneously.)

One can analyse these photos a week later if you like. Each trigger pulse creates four photos, two by camera C, and two by camera D. (The simultanious photos are labled by the pulse number to keep them properly assoicated as many photos are taken. In a prior post I discussed the relationships between the four images of clock displays obtained with the exposure pulse 3456.)

I imagine these cameras are like the old two lens cameras that made steroscopic photos but have a 45 degree mirrors in front of each of the four lenses so that the digital display camera C photographs are the two clocks which are 10 cm separted in the Z direction (one in frame A the other in frame B) but at the same X coordinate at the time the shutter opens. (I have a very large number of clocks on the parallel X-axises)

 

I appreciate what you are attempting to say but it is not a valid position. To take your position it would become impossible to challenge SR. Pointing out the inconsistancies of the SR predictions IS addressing SR. That is when I generate a scenario where SR predicts one thing but we know emperically that the results are different then SR has been falsified.

i.e - "A" and "B" are at relative rest and synchronized. "A" launches away from "B" to some inertial relative velocity putting it in a frame with "C". SR claims "A" became dilated relative to "B" and is now in synch with "C".

Emperical data supports that conclusion.

But if I now add additional information for example that "A" first was at relative rest with "C" which has an inertial relative velocity to "B" and then was launched to join "B's" frame, then "A" is ticking slower than "C" and is in synch with "B". Emperical data would support that conclusion.

Now if when "A" launched from "B" it's vector was back toward "C" then it must increase tick rate.

So in one view it is decreasing tick rate and by the same change in motion it must also increase in tick rate but strickly as a matter of arbitrary added information.

That is there is nothing to say that "A" first launched from "C". "C" may have existed all the time and in the first case when "A" launched from "B" to "C" it decreased tick rate.

And that claim can be shown to be false. Add digital transmiters to your clocks that broadcast their accumulated times as they pass through a marked course.

As "A" and "B" move through the course at whatever respective velocties and vectors any observer moving at any velocity will record that "A" and "B's" tick rates are based on their respective velocities to the course and not to each other.

SR does say that but the point is that is not what happens.

1 - Those predictions are mere mathematical extrapolations without any supporting emperical data.

2 - As pointed out above they are inconsistant if properly analyzed.

I do still disagree. I have pointed out what SR claims but also point out those predictions do not produce consistant emperical data. Using digital tracking it can be shown that tick rate is not observer dependant but is dependant upon "Actual" motion" not mere "Relative" motion between clocks.

Even SR as actually applied is not relative motion between clocks. It requires you consider who switched frames (i.e. - accelerted to some new velocity). Doing so you are now only applying the SR time dilation mathe to the clock that had "Actual" velocity and never to the resting clock.

Applying the math to the resting clock produces a prediction but that is shown to be a logical falicy and there is no emperical data to support that mathematical extrapolation.

I do believe that is what I am doing.

In the scenario given above the tick rate of "A" can be predicted to both increase or decrease as a matter of arbitrarly added information about "C" frame but uses the same change in motion of "A".

The same physical cause cannot simultaneously produce opposite affects which is must since the issue of "C" being present or not is surperflous to the motion specified for "A".

 

Sorry to cut this short but I don't see the merit to working through your entire post since in the outset it can be disproved.

Given clocks are equipped with digital transmitters that broadcast their accumulated time and position in a marked grid course, any observer anywhere in the universe moving at any velocity, that recieves the data can tell that the dilation of clocks "A" and "B" are a function of their respective motion to the grid and not to any relative velocity between each other.

"A" and "B" need not even have been synchronized since the remote observer can compute the rates of change in accumulated time as "A" and "B" cross new mile markers.

Since the grid spacing is known the remote observer also knows his own rate of time accumulation from marker to marker. There is complete transparancy of process here and any predictions about relative velocities between clocks are shown false.

The only predictions that can be justified are those made relative to a common initial inertial rest frame. In this case the grid.

 

But Mac, when you simply state that A and B are necessarily synchronized in all frames of reference, you aren't addressing SR. You aren't acknowledging what SR predicts at all.

Almost.
SR claims that A's tick rate becomes dilated in B's rest frame. To say that "A becomes dilated relative to B" is an imprecise shorthand which can be misinterpreted.

SR claims that the changes A's tick rate is different when considered in different reference frames. In C's rest frame, for example, A's tick rate was first dilated, then increased.

An empty assertion, Mac.
That experiment hasn't been carried out, so you don't know what the result would be.
You haven't analysed it in SR, so you don't know what SR predicts.

If you so analyse that scenario according to what SR says, you will find that there are no inconsistencies.
SR says that any observer (including A and B) would find that A and B's tick rates are based on their velocity relative to the observer.

So you keep saying, but you never argue it.

No, you aren't analyzing it at all. You are simply not considering what SR predicts in the analysis of your scenarios, and until you do you are only wasting time.

Mac, it's quite clear from those paragraphs that you don't know exactly what SR claims, and you don't how how to apply it.
For example, in the case of an accelerated clock you can happily consider a reference frame in which the unaccelerated clock's tick rate is dilated, and the accelerated clock's tick rate increased from dilated to normal.

And yet you continue to demonstrate that you are not.

And this is the heart of the matter. You are not considering the possibility that tick rate (and simultaneousness) is a relative measure.

The same case can simultaneously produce opposite effects, if the effects in question are relative measures.

For example, consider applying the brakes on your car while traveling East at noon. What happens to the kinetic energy of the car?
In the obvious reference frame of the road, the kinetic energy of the car decreases.
But in the reference frame of the Sun, the kinetic energy of the car increases.

What's going on? What really happens to the car's kinetic energy?
The answer is that the kinetic energy of the car both increases and decreases at the same time, depending on the reference frame you choose to consider it in. This isn't an impossibility or a paradox, it is simply due to the nature of kinetic energy as a relative measure. And the same applies to a clock's tick rate.

 

Just how do you skip from "Illusion of Motion" comment to some disertation about whether a clock has accelerated in the past or not?

Your mathematical predictions are based on extrapolating emperical data for known conditions into cases of unknown conditons. I suggest rather that such predictions are without any scientific base and that inclusion of digital transmiters broadcasting accumulated time and grid postion proves such predictions are false.

Making declatory statements about what is real and referring to SR as the same proof is hardly a defense of the challenge to the issue. I wouldn't be saying what I do unless I knew what SR claims. It is those claims that are being challenged.

I would think since I have stated virtually in every thread the fact that time dialtion has been demonstrated as fact in thousands of tests might be one reason.

Of course I also hasten to point out that such data only supports the case where a clock has been accelerated and not the predicton that time dilation is a function of relative velocity between clocks such that a esting clock is physically dilated also.

Here is where you fall off the turnip truck. Granted hypothetically one (according to SR) cannot determine who has motion unless acceleration histories from inception are known.

However that is not the crux of the issue. The issue is that you proceed from that fact to then claim postiviely that time dilation must therefore be recipocal between frames, even though you have no emperical data to support that conclusion.

Such claims are no more valid than to claim as I do that if properly tested one will find that one clock is ticking slower than the other unless they have had equal accelertion histories.

But you say "That disagrees with SR". Well, , "I Would Hope So" because that is the point. The claim made in SR is baseless and unsupported by emperical test data. Your view is no more founded than mine. And mine is more rational than yours.

Re-consider the case where two clocks having digital transmitters are moving through a marked course broadcasting their accumulated time and grid location.

Any remote observer moving at any velocity can determine that the broadcasting clocks are dilated only by their motion to the grid and not each other.

Your unsupported, untested assertion that they are dilated realtive to each other does not hold water. Relative to each other means relative to their respective frames.

Why is it you always want to jump from the frying pan right into the fire? I have said no such thing. SR works fine but only for the accelerated frame (how you actually apply SR, test SR and have emperical data for SR). But it does not work fine to claim that because you don't know who accelerated that both frames must now become dilated relative to each other.

The only such dilation is "Illusion of Motion" while there is relative velocity and is not based on any physical reality. Absolutely like putting on those red glasses and then claiming the universe is actually physically red. The predicted reciprocity in SR, and by you, is without question not a physical possibility and is without any supporting emperical test data.

Why you continue to insist that it is real merely because it is predicted by SR is nothing short of amazing.

Absolutely untrue. You (and SR are the ones predicting things untested and unsupported. I am saying physical theory reuires you measurecto determine who accelerated. You wanted to claim that doesn't work but you have given no basis for that position.

My position agrees with SR data. That is that when the accelerted clock is known you can predict time dilation and it is emperically supported and that reciprocity physically exists is false.

You have no emperical data to suport your claim that I'm in error other than that is what SR claims. There is NO supporting data for reciprocity. So where do you get off trying to interject an untested , unsupported claim into our conversation as though it were absoute fact and I am wrong.

You can't and shouldn't. At most you should admit your limit and simply say but I prefer to believe in SR. You have absolutely no basis to claim I am in error.

Correction. I did mis-read your post. Yes if they are synchronized they do tick in unison. I read it as If they were (as in had once been synchronized) but then not knowing if they had moved do they sill tick in unison. My response was correct for my misinterpreation of what you had meant.

Your basis of operation for radar is correct but your remaining post is ludricrus. We all know that one does not drive at speeds sufficient to produce measureable shift in the onboard clock of a moving radar cop car.

The idea about a speed-o-meter is an interesting thing to look into. But only indirectly. That is since a speed-o-meter uses a mechanical gear rotating a cable shaft turning a magnet (orthogonal to the vehicle motion)
so as to create drag on a movable component beign supressed by a weak spring. It is unclear if the speed-o-meter woudl agree with a calculation by the traveling observer using his watch and the o-dometer to compute speed.

That is would a mechanical speed-o-meter be affected by time dilation - Hmmmmmmmmmm. You might be onto something here. You may have opened a real door to burying SR once and for all.

Technically correct but not a viable arguement since you are not radaring object from luminal moving radars, etc.

That's not the only problem. The effects of the radar gun's "true" motion may be very very relevant. Maybe when it is sitting by the side of the road, it is really travelling at half the speed of light relative to the special "common local frame of rest" that we need to know about to determine time dilation rates. [/quote]

Not a likely problem since it is know that our solar system is moving relative to the rest of the universe in a direction at aveloicty on the order of 300km/sec or enough to cause a time dilation loss of only -4.3E-8 sec/day.

Stop being silly.

 

I think you want me to assume the receiver of the digital transmissions is stationary wrt to the gird, or at least will not object if I do so, for clarity of discussion. I will call the receiver "C" and the velocity of A wrt C is Va and that of B is Vb. Also assuming, for clarity, that the speed of Va is greater than that of Vb but that their directions of travel are the same and that the clock of A is identical in construction to that of B (perhaps both are cesium atomic clocks).

Note the bold in your text. That implies accumulation from some time when the count was zero. or what I called ATb and BTb for the begin times of frame A & B's accumulation counters, but this is not important if C notes the differences in the digitally reported pulse counts that have occured say during the time reqired for the location (also reported in each digital msg) of A and B to have changed by exactly 1 mile on the grid. Let's call these pulse count differences Da & Db. It took C less time in C's time units to learn Da than to learn Db because Va > Vb and also, I think, because grid miles for A are more contracted than for B.

SR predicts that C finds that the clock of A is both running slower than the clock of B and both are running slower than his. (Slower = less ticks accumulated between mile marker crossings.) However the standard SR calculation for this time dilation does not give the observed results as the space between grid mile marker lines is less for A than for B.

Imagine that there are two mutually stationary grids in C's frame, one with broken lines (- - - - - ) and the other with solid lines. The space between the broken lines is shorter than between the solid line grid and that A uses only the broken line grid, and B only the solid line grid. Thus even if Va = Vb then Da < Db.

Point is, the way you have set the problem up is more complex to calculate. This difference in "grid contraction" must also be considered.

I gave the discussion above to clarify your new model and to make sure you understood the additional complexity (differential grid contraction) your new model introduces.

I must leave house now so will stop, but do not see how any of what you have stated contradicts SR or what I have stated.

Can you be a little more clear as to how this new "moving by a grid and digital transmission of current location and count" model shows SR is wrong or that I made some error?

 

I'm going to work up a tutorial that covers good old galilean relativity, so that people can learn about relative velocity, reference frames and spacetime diagrams without worrying about time dilation, length contraction, and simultaneity.

I think a lot of confusion about SR arises because not everyone has a good grasp of those basic concepts, and that many of us still struggle to escape the same mindset that Galileo was up against 400 years ago.

1600 A.D.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!