The Area You Suggested chroot, I only had time to read the section on Simultaneity. YOu going to post a response to the question?
The section on simultaneity depends upon the previous sections. Either you didn't read it, or you didn't understand it. Which is it? - Warren
Sorry, Mac, I don't have time to answer your question. I did, however, put it on my Favorites and will get back to it. - Warren *snicker*
Mac Stop changing the topic. You accuse us of going off topic when we can't answer a question, play by your own rules. Dis you read the fucking chapter or not, and if so did you understand it? stop avoiding the question.
lmfao... I think UniKEF predicted that you would say that... and that I will say this... and that MacM will call me 'sir' when he insults me for this postPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Never Happen Sir Persol, That would never happen Sir.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Answer chroot, ANS: I think we all know why you don't want to answer but if you ever do my response may surprise you. ryans, ANS: You are a fine one to say stop changing the topic. But in any case my question is directly related to the topic and the ultimate answer. I have already stated that I have read this before and to try and satisfy chroo, I re-read the section he pointed me to. I agree it is all linked together but that wasn't his request at the time. Now perhaps you have the courage to answer the question directly, I am giving you the priviledge of qualifying your answer. What is the problem? Question: As B's clock is approaching 6.61 hours and I have been watching C's clock rate running 66.1% of mine. Is not from my view clock C accumulating time which is running behind my clock? And if so when my clock stops at 6.61 hours (which we all agree it does) is not the accumulated time I see 4.37 hours? Yes or No? Now qualify your answer please. Thank you.
Okay, Mac, I'll answer your question. But first, I need a refresher. What exactly is clock C? Who is at rest? - Warren
In order to clear things up once more, here's another pair of animations. This time dealing with the Train/lightning scenerio. The first shows things as they appear to the person standing beside the track (As viewed from someone hanging in the air above him. Th ered dots represent where the lightning strikes the tracks, the white circles the light of the flash radiating out fromt he strike. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now here's what happens according to someone remaining stationed over the person on the railroad car. The lightning still strikes the same red spots. But now, the red spots move away from the centers of the radiating flashes. This must be the case if the person on the railway car is to measure the speed of light at c relative to him at all points of the wave front. Also, the wave fronts must strike both observers at the same instant as seen by either observer or you would have a contradiction. The only way for both of the above to be true is for the for the lightning strikes to occur at different times in this frame. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
MacM: Look at Janus58's animation, which is quite a bit better than my crude diagram. Do you still disagree with the explanation? Why? <i>Question: As B's clock is approaching 6.61 hours and I have been watching C's clock rate running 66.1% of mine. Is not from my view clock C accumulating time which is running behind my clock? And if so when my clock stops at 6.61 hours is not the accumulated time I see 4.37 hours?</i> Yes, it is. And Clock C continues to run after this time, as explained previously. <i>Question: Did you also have a problem understanding the polarized light presentation and where do you think it could have been made more clear?</i> The initial explanation was not totally clear, but I didn't think the details were that important. <i>When I post here I assume I am talking with knowledgeable people that can connect the dots without an absolute description using a general description view.</i> Often, especially in relativistic problems, you need to be very careful and very specific about things, or else your problem can have more than one interpretation and therefore more than one answer.
Janus58: These animations are very good. Perhaps we should stick them in a general FAQ thread on relativity.
How fucking cool are those animations? Great job Janus58. A picture is indeed with a thousand words. But guess what, Mac is going to say "Good graphics Janus58, but I disagree with you on one small point. What about this experiment?" So I hope you have plenty of spare time on your hands, because it looks like you will be doing the polarised light experiment next. I think that a FAQ sheet on relativity should be constructed and made sticky, with these animations included so that people who have genuine concerns about relativity can overcome these much quicker. Again, great graphics.
Or alternatively, you can remind people that there is this thingy called "search" and that these kind of problems have already been discussed for 20 times already on these forums.
Great Indeed Janus58, Your animations are great indeed. And I still would like to post them on my site but only with your permission. James R., ANS: Thank you James. You have just cleared the matter up all the way round after many months of unnecessary debate. Before making my next statement let me qualify it in these terms. 1 - I have conceeded the mathematical consistancy. 2 - But the "Yes" answer to my question still means my original premis is valid. Real clocks cannot display the times expected by observers. B sees 4.37 hours on clock C when his stops. A sees 7.5 hours on clock when his stops and C sees 10 hours when his stops. Recognizing that what A & B see are not real, that clock C is actually stopped at 10 hours and allowing clocks to run after their clock has stopped to make them read the real time is neither the question nor the answer. Relativity is only consistant if you first ignore the conditions of the test and my statement. Upon return of the clocks for comparison clock C would need to be able to display (3) different times to satisfy three observers view of clock C when the test ended (which is when their clock stops in their view). Views per terms of the test: ......................................For Clocks.................... BY.../..................A..................B...................C..... -----/------------------------------------------------------ A..../...............(8.66)............(6.61)............(7.50) B..../...............(8.66)............(6.61)............(4.37) C..../...............(8.66)............(6.61)..........(10.00) This may ultimately have nothing to do with mathematical consistancy but it darn sure has to do with Relativity being observationally invalid. To state that time is being dilated as a physical reality but to not address the fact that some observations of such time dilation is in fact only "Perception" and not physical reality to me invalidates the claims of Relativity. To say the least it makes it poorely articulated and defended. It seems my primary (I started to say "only" but that would have been untrue) error here was to post in the first instance the words "Relativity Sucks and is invalid". From that moment on Old Mac was a dipshit crackpot that didn't know anything. I'll accept my share of the blame here for perhaps not being as clear as I should have at times but you guys also need to take some blame for squirting off into other issues that were not on point of the initial premis, question and/or statement. ryans, And now to you. You have been exceptionally good at predicting what Old Mac knows, don't know, thinks or is going to say. So let me try my hand at being a fortune teller also: Ryans is going to say the above is BS and that I'm in error or have misinterpreted James agreement "Yes" answer to my question, because I'm to ignorant to understand and that Relativity is just fine. But at least I think we have finally layed out (3) Clocks for what it is. Either there is a paradox or Relativity is invalid. I stated months ago I would accept the paradox conclusion. But: chroot, You rejected the claim that 3 Clocks is a paradox. You may wish to still do so but I think that has become a matter of choice and no longer a fact. I do want to close by thanking all of you in that I must now go back and do some editing to properly cover the issue.
Re: Great Indeed No paradox, and No invalidity to Relativity. Just someone laboring under a severe mental block, Which refuses to let him see things properly. Sorry, But your inability to wrap your mind around the concepts involved to not invalidate Them. You are beginning to remind me of those people, that when presented with the "three salesmen" problem, Insist that a Dollar has come up missing. They hold doggedly to this view no matter how many times and ways the problem is explained to them.
Both ways Janus58, I wouldn't have expected anything more or less but at least for those out there that still have an unbiased faculty that still functions I think I have made my point. And your efforts to tag me as being the problem does fall short.
