No Surprise James R., ANS: On this we agree. And the perception of the observers are: A = 7.50 hours for C B = 4.37 hours for C C = 10.00 hours for C And that is reality for the predictions of Relativity. To then extend the clock run time using simulataneity is to avoid the unacceptable results of the basic time dilation formula. I just said Relativity is mathematically consistant but it is also observationally invalid. I know you don't like that but that is just the way it is. Sorry you find it all a waste of time. It rather draws into doubt your sincereity of your signature line.
Look, MacM. I've tried to get across a very simple point about relativity to you. For the 5th or 6th time, since you seem to have missed it all the other times, it is this: <b>Events which are simultaneous for one observer are not simultaneous for an observer in relativity motion.</b> I have not "extended the clock run time". The clocks run until C tells them to stop. The "stop" signal is given simultaneously to all clocks from C's point of view, as you specified. But from A and B's points of view, the stop signal is not simultaneous. Until you understand this (if you ever do), you will never accept relativity. <i>To then extend the clock run time using simulataneity is to avoid the unacceptable results of the basic time dilation formula.</i> Wrong. Simultaneity is not an <i>ad hoc</i> solution to a contradiction. It is something which you must always take into account in solving a problem in relativity. There is no conflict between the relativity of simultaneity and time dilation; both are direct consequences of the theory. You, MacM, simply don't understand either of those concepts. <i>I just said Relativity is mathematically consistant but it is also observationally invalid.</i> Yes, and you were wrong again. <i>I know you don't like that but that is just the way it is.</i> If that was how it is, you would be able to explain why it is that way. So far, the only real explanation from anybody has been from the relativists. <i>Sorry you find it all a waste of time. It rather draws into doubt your sincereity of your signature line.</i> MacM, I am totally open to any new, supported ideas you want to throw at me. It is you who refuses to accept what is clearly explained over and over again, in many different ways.
Don't get angry James R., ANS: I do understand that issue. You even agreed that when their clocks stopped that they see the times I just tabled. At least I believe you did. My point is that is the issue and not that you can bring them into agreement via simultaneity upon return. My point was and now must still be that the observers based on their view cannot agree on what time clock C was reading when their clock stopped - End of test. ANS: Wrong again I do understand your view via Relativity. I just find it less than conviencing as being a reality. ANS: I cannot answer you here. You refuse to acknowledge my point or I am incapable of properly articulating it but lets see if my closure helps define my point on this. ANS: People are infact working to that end. I know that it is not yet proof of anything but did you not find the research regarding the discovery of the relavistic function (1-(v/c)^2)^.5 existing in sound waves being just a bit of interest. They too were cautious to not over state their finding but clearly said "If it can be translated to light propagation waves" that it has signifigant impact upon the viability of Relativity as a concept. ANS: I don't see this response as being on point but the point is mute in any case so pass. CLOSURE: I am assuming here that I understood your prior yes to my question to mean that you agreed that the observers see the times of clock C indicated in the table at the times that their clocks were stopped. If so now expand the test by not making clock C bound to earth but in a third space craft. All relative velocites shall be taken as the same in each case. I don't think we need to run numbers and generate tables here. I think we can agree that if we assume B to be at rest and use it as the control clock and then assume A is at rest and is the control clock, that we end up with three different values of time for the clocks due to time dilation. These times are a function of relavistic velocities between the clocks. In each case the velocities are the same but you have three different sets of clock times. How can this not be a problem in reality and why doesn't it relagate Relativity into an observatinal or perception category.?
Sometimes I start to think that MacM is just fleecing everyone. I have a really hard time believing that ANYONE could be this stupid. However, I can't imagine anyone of any intelligence carrying on such a hoax for soooo loooooong.... hum. - Warren
MacM: <i>CLOSURE: I am assuming here that I understood your prior yes to my question to mean that you agreed that the observers see the times of clock C indicated in the table at the times that their clocks were stopped.</i> I'm not sure what velocities you're using now to calculate those values, so I won't comment on specific numbers. My explanation of the general situation stands. <i>I think we can agree that if we assume B to be at rest and use it as the control clock and then assume A is at rest and is the control clock, that we end up with three different values of time for the clocks due to time dilation.</i> Yes, I agree. If you allow clock A or B to control the experiment, you will get different times on the three clocks when you compare them. But in that case you've changed the parameters of the experiment. <i>These times are a function of relavistic velocities between the clocks. In each case the velocities are the same but you have three different sets of clock times.</i> Yes, and three different clocks controlling when all the clocks stop. <i>How can this not be a problem in reality and why doesn't it relagate Relativity into an observatinal or perception category.?</i> Simple. Because the three situations are different.
Good James R., ANS: Good. I think we have made some progress, albiet not much. The fact that we may be able to discuss the issues without the need to run calculations I believe will be an advantage. Yes the test has been redefined and I certainly can see where one would expect to get different results via Relativity. But to me the lack of reciprocity wherein you are looking at the same set of conditions from different perspective and get different realities seems more observational than any possible physical reality. ANS: Answered above. ANS: DId you just say or mean to say, the same clocks under the same relative velocities will have three different "Realities" when viewed by three different observers? IF so you make my point. There can only be "One" reality.
MacM: <i>DId you just say or mean to say, the same clocks under the same relative velocities will have three different "Realities" when viewed by three different observers?</i> Assume that in all three situations, the relative velocities of the clocks are the same. In each situation, a different clock determines when the test stops. Depending on which clock stops the test, you will get one of three different sets of readings on the clocks. All observers will agree on the reading each clock shows at the end of the test (i.e. when all clocks have stopped according to all observers). There can be only one "reality" at the end of the experiment (i.e. after <b>all</b> clocks have stopped, which may not be simultaneous for all observers), with one set of readings on the clocks. The precise readings at the end of the experiment depends on which of the three clocks is in control.
This thread reminds me of my non deceased ex-wife. When you got into an argument with her, you had three choices. Tell her she is right no matter what you really think and end the argument. Kill her. Allow the argument to continue forever. The second alternative always tempted me.
Dinosaur, Hmmm... so... you're suggesting we should kill Mac. Why yes... that DOES seem an appropriate suggestion.... - Warren
Mac: You have still not understood what James is saying. He's said it like six times now, at least. Maybe you should really spend some time actually reading the things we say to you. It would be, I don't know, courteous? - Warren
Option # 2 Hey Guys, I'm sure option # 2 would give you great pleasure. But I'm afraid you are stuck with me. Lets go for option #1 instead.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually I would just rather see one of you provide a suitable explanation for my last question. Do or don't it will be my last question on this issue (assuming you don't attempt to stroke me with your answer). This is based on the same set of motion (the simultaneous views of each observer of clock rate of the clock assuming rest). Since none of them can sense their own motion and assume they are at rest, this give the total picture of time dilation as seen by the three observers. C at rest: C = 1 A = .75 B = .4375 A at rest: C = .75 A = 1 B= .9375 B at rest: C = .4375 A = .9375 B = 1 You now have multiple rates for each clock where the exact same motion is involved but is as viewed from different perspectives. Clocks rates reqired: C = 1/.75/.4375 A = 1/.9375/.75 B = 1/.9375/.4375 I still say such variable clock rates means Relativity must be observational and not physical reality. Physical clocks cannot posses different rates of time simultaneously and this rate view eliminates (I believe) your simultaneity arguement.
Re: Option # 2 Assume that in all three situations, the relative velocities of the clocks are the same. In each situation, a different clock determines when the test stops. Depending on which clock stops the test, you will get one of three different sets of readings on the clocks. All observers will agree on the reading each clock shows at the end of the test (i.e. when all clocks have stopped according to all observers). There can be only one "reality" at the end of the experiment (i.e. after all clocks have stopped, which may not be simultaneous for all observers), with one set of readings on the clocks. The precise readings at the end of the experiment depends on which of the three clocks is in control. (c) JamesR
Thanks Persol, Thanks but you missed the point that in this test we aren't stopping the clocks and reading accumulated time. We are only looking at the various clock rates. Now the rates dictated by Relativity are naturally dependant upon who's view you are taking as being at rest. Since each observer thinks he is at rest the list represents the observations of all three obbservers for clocks moving under the same actual conditions in space at the same time. For Relativity to satisfy all three views simultaneously the clocks must posses multiple time rates at the same time. Since physical clocks cant do that is it not observational and not reality?
My, my... it looks like, after months of patience and effort on the part of many sciforums participants, MacM continues to be stuck at the same place he's always been stuck. It's almost as if no one had ever said a word to him. I don't think it's a failure of those members who opted to help: James R, ryans, Crisp, Janus, Persol, et al., you've all done an excellent job teaching MacM about relativity. A deaf, mute, and blind monkey would have had little trouble following your pedagogy. I salute not only your skills as educators, but also your unfathomable patience. - Warren
Hi MacM, "For Relativity to satisfy all three views simultaneously the clocks must posses multiple time rates at the same time. Since physical clocks cant do that is it not observational and not reality?" The same goes for two clocks. You have just discovered time dilatation. Welcome to relativity. Bye! Crisp [ ps: I'll be gone for a week so I won't be able to reply to this post Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ]
Answer chroot, ANS: I could very easily take this to mean you don't have the answer. I know you wouldn't want that.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would be interested to see how previous answers apply in this case. Since the rates aren't changing but are steady, we can let the test run for eons. Simultaneity doesn't help you here (at least I don't see how).
So Everybody want to cut and Run ANS: I give you my final question on the topic and it seems everybody wants to cut and run. Must be something about the question that you can't answer (or don't want to answer). ************ Final Question Left Open ********** This is based on the same set of motion (the simultaneous views of each observer of clock rate of the clock assuming rest). Since none of them can sense their own motion and assume they are at rest, this give the total picture of time dilation as seen by the three observers. (Added: Velocities are with C at rest, A = 0.5c and B=0.75c) C at rest: C = 1 A = .75 B = .4375 A at rest: C = .75 A = 1 B= .9375 B at rest: C = .4375 A = .9375 B = 1 You now have multiple rates for each clock where the exact same motion is involved but is as viewed from different perspectives. Clocks rates required: C = 1/.75/.4375 A = 1/.9375/.75 B = 1/.9375/.4375 I still say such variable clock rates means Relativity must be observational and not physical reality. Physical clocks cannot posses different rates of time simultaneously and this rate view eliminates (I believe) your simultaneity arguement.
Mac, you should have become a journalist, they get paid to misinterpret and deform what people say. And if they don't like what someone says, they just don't include it in their story. Sounds like you exactly. You must be a jounalist, no one else can be so persistant and annoying at trying to get their WRONG view of reality accross. Everyone agrees with you Mac, the clocks can't simultaneously display 2 different times, but the time viewed on a particular clock is relative my friend.
