Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Pete, Sep 6, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    This is an extension of a discussion I'm having with MacM in the thread "Relativity Question"
    I decided to make a new thread to avoid confusion with the other thread, and because this post can stand on its own as a new discussion. Feel free to join in.

    You and I are in a spaceship each.
    You're floating through the universe, speed unknown, age 20.
    You have two 100 year stopwatches on board.

    You look ahead, and see another ship (it's mine!) drawing nearer at high speed... about 0.8 c. Thoughts flicker through your head... "Am I still, and he moving toward me? Am I moving toward him? Are we both moving?" You dismiss these thoughts as unanswerable for now, because I'm almost on you.

    As I pass, you start both stopwatches, activate the teleporter and transfer one of the stopwatches (labelled Pete) from your ship to mine. Instantly. No acceleration at all. "I love thought experiments!" you think to yourself, and feel a momentary resonance from the mind on the other ship before it sweeps past and is lost in the empty vastness behind.

    Time passes.

    Same ship, 10 years later.
    You see another ship approaching... This one seems to be going faster than the one you gave your timepiece to.
    "Maybe I can get my stopwatch back" you think, as you gather your belongings (including the other stopwatch, labelled Mac), prepare yourself for teleportation, then transfer instantly to the other ship. Oddly, it looks much the same as your old ship... someone must be trying to bore you to death?

    Time passes.

    Your new ship, 10 years later.
    There's my ship again, coming up fast at about 0.8c again.
    "There it is!" you say. "I hope he hasn't been fiddling with my stopwatch!".
    You grab your stopwatch and towel, and as you draw level with my ship you teleport over and grab the stopwatch from where it has been lying, untouched. You stop both stopwatches and see...​


    In reality
    1. What would the stopwatch you kept with you read?
    2. What would the stopwatch that took a ride with me read?

    Special Relativity says that in my reference frame...
    1. What time has passed between our meetings?
    2. At what time did you change ships?
    3. How would I calculate the time that you experienced on your first ship?
    4. How would I calculate the time that you experienced on your second ship?
    5. What does this mean for the times I see on the stopwatches?

    Special Relativity says that in your reference frame...
    1. What time has passed between our meetings?
    2. How would you calculate the time that I experienced during your first ten year trip?
    3. How would you calculate the time that I experienced during your second ten year trip?
    4. What does this mean for the times you see on the stopwatches?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    1 - First your scenario is no where near annotated well enough to really
    give an answer. You say "Another ship going faster. Then you conclude
    saying your ship. Just how does this ship keep reappearing at some higher
    and higher speed. Did you reverse thrust and cease to be an inertial system
    while deccelerting and re-accelerating back past me? Or did you somehow
    circumvent the universe, according to Einstein, so as to reappear back to
    your starting point?

    2 - Why is it when I posted the 3 Clock Paradox, others here insisted that
    the clocks couldn't be synchronized and that instant action or
    synchronization by stipulation could not be allowed.

    Because they didn't want to deal with the numbers that Relativity produces
    in the 3 Clock scenario.

    3 - Following your skit is impossible without more detail but if I haven't
    fell asleep at the calculator your 0.8c velocity first mentioned becomes a
    gamma of 1/0.6 = 1.6666666666n.

    Now the problem is all this is meaningless unless clocks actually measure
    time. Which they do not. They measure processes not time. Processes may
    change as a function of temperature, pressure, internal energy, etc. But
    that does not mean time has changed.

    In spite of Relativity, and even data, I suggest that all clocks (which
    could actually measure time) would read the same regardless of relative
    velocity to any other clock for any amount of measurement period.

    I have no intention of arguing mathematics other than to argue that
    mathematics do not create reality, they can only describe it but can also
    describe things that are totally make believe.

    Now lets try a version of the 3 Clock case which is properly written to
    easily explore the validity of the gamma formula for time dilation due to
    linear relative velocity.

    Three clocks:

    A - is on earth as a monitor

    B - is moving through space toward earth at 0.1 c

    C - is moving through space toward earth at 0.9 c

    The distances (direction is the same) such that clocks B & C pass earth's
    clock simultaneously and each clock has means of observing the other clocks
    so that they may record the tick rate and accumulated number of ticks on the
    other clocks as well.

    The test is for 10 hours per earth time Clock "A", and starts when clocks B
    & C pass clock A.

    What are the accumulated clock ticks:

    Per A:

    B = __________
    C = __________

    Per B:

    A = __________
    C = __________

    Per C:

    A =__________
    B = _________

    Feel free to either take delta v of B & C as 0.8c or use the Velocity
    Addition adjustment reference A because using it doesn't alter the outcome,
    only the raw numbers produced. It is simpler to not make the adjustment but
    knock yourself out.

    w = ( u + v ) / ( 1 + uv / c^2 )
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Sure it is. But we can let that go, and work on your scenario instead.

    I'm not clear about what you're asking.
    I think you mean:
    "In A's reference frame: How many ticks do clocks B and C register at the time that clock A registers X* ticks?" (*for consistency, you should use ticks throughout, not hours).
    "In B's reference frame: How many ticks do clocks B and C register at the time that clock A registers X* ticks?"
    "In C's reference frame: How many ticks do clocks B and C register at the time that clock A registers X* ticks?"

    Is that correct?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Tick rate would be fine but accumulative ticks at various rates for 10 hours produces an easier method of seeing the long term affect of relavistic time dilation. It is something more people are accustomed to considering than clock rate.

    I'm not sure you have the relationship proposed.

    The following is accumulated time for each clock in 10 hours testing based on only clock "A" master controller of the test time:

    Rest is the view of each observer vs other clocks.

    "A" at rest:

    "B" = _____________
    "C" =_____________

    "B" at rest:

    "A" = __________
    "C" =___________

    "C" at rest:

    "A" =__________
    "B" =__________
  8. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    You make it sound like "10 hours" is somehow a more absolute measure than some number of ticks. Is that what you mean? It's not something I accept.

    I am assuming that each clock ticks once per second in its rest frame.

    So in each frame, you want to know what the clocks read when clock "A" reads ten hours? (I'm still not completely sure that's what you mean)

    "A" at rest:

    "B" = 9.95 hours = 35820 ticks
    "C" = 4.36 hours = 15962 ticks

    "B" at rest:

    "A" = 10 hours = 36000 ticks
    "C" = 4.79 hours = 17244 ticks

    "C" at rest:

    "A" = 10 hours = 36000 ticks
    "B" = 10.93 hours = 39362 ticks
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    This diagram is interesting (not to scale):
    <img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3208&stc=1">

    The points of interest are:
    1. The three clocks pass each other
    2. Clock A ticks over to 10 hours
    3. This is Clock B's location when Clock A reaches 10 hours in A's reference frame
    4. This is Clock B's location when Clock A reaches 10 hours in B's reference frame
    5. This is Clock B's location when Clock A reaches 10 hours in C's reference frame
    6. This is Clock C's location when Clock A reaches 10 hours in A's reference frame
    7. This is Clock C's location when Clock A reaches 10 hours in B's reference frame
    8. This is Clock C's location when Clock A reaches 10 hours in C's reference frame

    Note that the space-time location of Clock A reaching 10 hours doesn't change with to reference frame - the lines of simultaneity change.
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    No that isn't the point. Scientifically ticks of 1/second or 1/milli-second would also be fine but showing accumulated high numbers of ticks aren't as easily assimulated by the general population as would be i.e. - 10 hours vs 8 hours/43 minutes/9 seconds. Delta = 1 hour/16 minutes/51 seconds.

    Instead of 36,000 ticks - 31,389 = 4,611 ticks. Working in ticks or tick rate requires slightly more vision for the average person. They know what hours/minutes/seconds are but don't know what milli-seconds are, etc.

    That is fine.

    Verbally you seem to have stated it correctly. However that is not what you did mathematically. Done to the nearest second.

    "A" at rest: 10 hours = 36,000 ticks = Gamma = 1.0000

    "B" = 9.95 hours = 35820 ticks = 9H:56M:58S = Gamma = 1.0050
    ********************************* "C" = 4.36 hours = 15962 ticks
    "C" = 4.36 hours = 15692 = 4H:21M:32S = Gamma = 2.2942

    Delta 11 = (B - C) = 20128 = 5H:35M:28S = Gamma = 1.6667 (Uncorrected)
    Delta 21 = (A - B ) = 180 = 0H:3M:0S = Gamma = 1.0050
    Delta 31 = (A - C ) = 20038 = 5H:33M:58S = Gamma = 2.2942

    "B" at rest: Test time = 35,820 ticks. Because the test was terminated by clock "A" at 36,000 ticks and "B" is running slow according to "A" so he only gets 35820 ticks before the test is stopped if "A's" view is valid physically.

    ****************** "A" = 10 hours = 36000 ticks
    ****************** "C" = 4.79 hours = 17244 ticks
    "A" = 9.9 hours = 35642 ticks = 9H:54M:2S Because "B" only ran for 35820 seconds and also saw "A" running slower by the same amount that "A" saw "B" running slow.

    "C" = 5.97 hours = 21492 ticks = 5H:58M:12S for the same reason

    Delta12 = ( B - C ) = 14328 ticks = 3H:58M:48S
    Delta22 = ( A - B ) = - 178 ticks = - 0H:2M:58S
    Delta32 = ( A - C ) = 14150 ticks = 3H:55M:50S

    "C" at rest: Test time = 15692 ticks since "A" terminated the test at 36,000 ticks, if "A's" view is physically valid.

    ******************************** "A" = 10 hours = 36000 ticks
    *******************************"B" = 10.93 hours = 39362 ticks
    "A" = 1.9 hours = 6840 ticks = 1H:54M:0S Because "C" only ran for 15692 ticks and also sees "A" running slower by the same amount "A" saw "C" running slow.

    "B" = 4.34 hours = 15614 ticks = 4H:20M:14S for the same reasons.

    Delta13 = ( B - C ) = -78 ticks = - 0H:1M:18S
    Delta23 = ( A - B ) = - 8774 ticks = - 2H:26M:14S
    Delta33 = ( A - C ) = - 8852 ticks = - 2H:27M:32S

    It should be obvious from the above that unpon returning the clocks for comparison after the test that each clock must display the following times simultaneoulsy to satisfy every observers time dilated view of the clock:
    ........................ Observer Clock ..................
    "A" = 10H:00M:00S/09H:54M:02S/01H:54M:00S
    "B" = 09H:56M:58S/09H:56M:58S/04H:20M:14S
    "C" = 04H:21M:32S/05H:58M:12S/04H:21M:32S

    Now comes the interesting part. These are uncorrected figures not using Velocity Addition for the 0.1c and 0.9c velocities relative to "A" to determine relative velocity between "B" and "C" in their view. Instead of Delta being 0.8c it would become Gamma = 1.09 instead of 1.005. While this will make a minor change the absolute answers, it does nothing to make the clocks accumulate equal amounts of time. So we needn't bother for our purposes here. Keep it simple.

    Now there are those here that will scream but you can't do that, the "Simultaneity of Relativity" keeps the clocks from being shut down simultaneously.

    That simply is not the case. Simultaneity is nothing more than a mathematical artifact generated to cause the time of clock operation to extend beyond the stipulated test conditions.

    They will argue you cannot synchronize the clocks so as to get them to shut down in that manner.

    The fact is there are several methods, at least for our thought experiment purpose of evaluating time dilation by relative velocity as a physical reality.

    1 - We could simply stipulate it. They won't allow that.

    2 - We could claim a link via particle entanglement (spooky action at a distance) control system which would cause the clocks to physically "Actually" stop the instant clock "A" reached 10 hours. But they won't accept that since they claim we have not been able to actually transmit "information" nor use particle entanglement in that fashion we can't claim to control the clocks in that manner.

    Again just a dodge from facing the mathematical result of the test. For theoretical purposes it should be more than acceptable.

    3 - You could precalculate the speed of light and have "A" send a signal enough in advance to reach each clock at the appropriate time but they don't want to do that because the speed of light is constant to every observer and because they want to insist on Velocity addition that causes clocks B and C to have a different relative velocity timing problem in viewing each other relative to the termination of the test.

    Oh my what is a person to do. Relativity is so complicated and you can't break the consistant mathematical cycle, so it must be valid.

    Hog wash.

    As I have pointed out before.

    4 - I am simply going to assume the validity of Relativity. I am going to precalculate the amount of accumulted time each clock should recieve per Relativity from "A's" perspective and have an on board timer shut down the clocks.

    Isn't it interesting that by assuming Relativity is valid you can cause the clocks to terminate the test at the desired 10 hours period per clock "A" simultaneously.!

    By making the assumption that Relativity is valid you can show that it cannot possibly be valid because physical clocks simply cannot display three different accumulated times simultaneously.
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2004
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    It would be interesting to see a graph of the clocks synchronized to "A" test time with Simultaneity properly eliminated by the synchronization of stopping the clocks instantaneously with "A".
  12. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Thanks for the correction.
    OK, so you are stipulating that all the clocks are stopped simultaneously in A's reference frame when A reads ten hours. That's fine.

    Much of the remainder of your work is not in accordance with the special relativity model.
    The most important point is that SR suggests that in B's reference frame and C's reference frame, clock C stops first, then clock B, then clock A.

    This is nonsense, both in the SR model and (as I'm sure you will accept) in reality.

    Not according to SR.
    SR suggests that when the clocks are returned, they will read:
    A = 36000s
    B = 35820s
    C = 15692s

    These numbers fall straight out of the Lorentz transforms, no matter which frame you work in.

    In the SR model, simultaneity is relative. If you are assuming the validity of SR for the purposes of this scenario, then you're assuming that relative simultaneity is real.

    Are you asuming relativity is valid for the purposes of this scenario or not?

    You can simply stipulate it as long as you specify a reference frame. If you simply stipulate it for all reference frames, then you're not working within the SR model, and the whole exercise becomes nonsense.

    I can't answer that one, since I'm not familiar with the QED model.
    Are you?

    If you're working within the SR model, you can't just ignore bits.

    Not quite.

    By making the assumption that some selected parts of Relativity (time dilation) and not others (simultaneity, relativistic velocity addition) are valid you show that it cannot possibly be the case, because physical clocks simply cannot display three different accumulated times simultaneously.

    On the other hand, if you make the assumption that Relativity is valid (relative simultaneity and all) you can show that it leads to consistent results. That doesn't mean it's real, of course, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
  13. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    What do you mean?
    Tell me what variables you want graphed against each other, and I'll produce it.
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Try and be specific here. I think you object to the concept that if "A" runs 36,000 seconds and sees "B" run 35820S, that "B" is not going to see 35820S as the test duration. When in fact he does "IF" you properly control the clocks so as to eliminate the affects of Simultaneity.

    That is achieved by using the #4 method of controlling the clocks. A bit bizzar admittedly. But by using Relativity to preset a timer on board to stop the clock in accordance to the time that "A" claims clock "B" has accumulated, you insure that all clocks are in fact stopped "Simultaneous and you have eliminated the affect of Simultaneity.

    Simultaneity does nothing more than defeat the true test run times as stipulated to show the actual affect being claimed by Relativity by artificially extending clock times.

    Think about it. If Relativity claims that clock "A's" view of clock "B" is real and physical, then when "A" shuts down (at that instant, not some delayed factor of simultaneity later, then "B" must read 35820S. Otherwise "A's" view is not physical reality.

    Not at all. I am very much aware of what this test shows and of what is claimed for Relativity but the two are incompatiable. Either "A's" view of clock "B" is real or it isn't. If it is then "B" must read what "A" claims at the end of the timed test according to "A". To insure we trap that physical time we must stop the clock physically instantly with 10 hours on clock "A", not some time later according to "B's" view of "A" due to Simultaneity. We are only interested in verifying that "B" physically reads what "A" claimed it should AND LOW AND BEHOLD RELATIVITY WAS RIGHT "B" READS 35820 JUST LIKE "A" SAID IT SHOULD. For that to not be true then Relativity would have to be wrong in the precalculated timer setting.

    Doing so has "B" seeing the test as 35820S. But since it also sees "A" running slow during that time it see "A" running even slower as calculated., etc.

    Take a deep breath and think about it. I know full well what is claimed but I also know full well when you keep your wits and don't let all the variable clutter your mind that it simply does not work.

    Lets take this one step at a time:

    1 - Do you agree that for Relativity to be valid that when "A" stops, according to "A" that "B" reads 35820S?

    2 - Do you agree That if I precalculate "BY Relativity" that this is the figure the relativity math suggests should show on "B" at that instant and that the test is then at that very moment stopped that "B" will read 35820? (Of course it does because we preset a timer to stop the clock by Relativity to insure "Actual" instantaneous termination according to clock A" time.

    I agree but therein lies the problem. You did not stop the clocks instantly you applied Simultaneity delay to keep the clock running after "A" otherwise you would not arrive at any figure but what "A" says is physical. The other clocks must now be analyzed without the delay of simultaneity. i.e. they ran so long according to "A" and saw other clocks run slower, so their view ???Physical??? or not requires comparison of what they claim each clock reads. And when they are properly stopped "PER A", it shows the falicy of the system.

    Using Relativity to control the clocks establishes proper comparison for the test per the stipulation, so as to compare clocks on a unified basis per one control clock to see if time dilation by Relativity actually can be real.

    Recall I did assume Relativity valid and the property of Simultaneity was dealt with by using Relativity so as to actually stop the clocks at the same time without simultaneity delay so that the test is per the view of "A" only for the duration of the test.

    Absolutely. Show me where I have not.

    By using the preset timer according to Relativity to control the onboard clock, will or will not "B" physically stop at the same instant (as in particle entanglement) that "A" stops?

    If so what does clock "B" read? ___________

    No. You can clearly stipulate that you are stopping the clocks instantaneously, as though particle entanglement has been mastered and is being used for control. You are stipulating "What do the clocks read, in "actual instant time" when clock "A" stops".

    With particle entanglement enough to know that if it were used to control the clocks the calculations will be as I have indicated. There is a lot more to QM than just particle entanglement.

    The only thing that has been ignored is Velocity Addition in that to include it complicates the calculations but does not alter the end result.

    The affects of Simultaneity has been considered and to not permit it to circumvent the physical relationship of the test stipulation "To instantly stop all clocks to take a physical look at their accumulated time, and their view of other clock times, when "A" reaches 10 hours and actually physically stops" by using the control method that has been employed.

    Do you agree that clock "B" will read 35820S at the instant "A" stops - Not some time later according to "B" when "B" would think "A" stopped but actually when "A" stopped?

    To put this statement into proper context it says

    "If you do not maintain absolute conditions of stipulated relationships of your test and allow arbitrary mathematics to alter your test conditions you cannot prove Relativity wrong".

    It says "If you use Relativity without analyzing its component parts and what they are actually doing you cannot prove Relativity wrong."

    Nothing I have done here violates anything. I wanted to determine what clocks would read according to time dilation on a real physical level of absolute instaneous time. I have successfully done that by using relativity to properly stop clocks at a physical "actual" instanteous point in time in accordance with only the control clock.

    Relativity has proven itself correct in that the times on the clocks are those predicted from the view point of "A". But they do not agree on the times they each say other clocks should read under that condition.

    Relativity therefore is false and cannot be physical. The only way to make the accumulated time to come out correct is to allow the clocks to continue to run after the test time has expired according to the control clock using relavistic mathematics desinged to simply maintain mathematical consistancy but destroy the true physical link to clocks.!!
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2004
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member


    HeHeHe. I really want to see the graph of clock readings and their view of other clocks when the clocks are properly "Physically - Actually" stopped instantaneously with the control clock "A".
  16. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Mac, you clearly don't understand the SR model.

    If you try to work out scenarios in SR using only the time dilation equation, you will get nonsensical results, because it is only part of SR.
    Time dilation without the complete SR model is simply not SR.
    If you want to do this properly, try using the complete Lorentz transformation, of which the simple time dilation equation is a special case:

    Your final method of stopping the clocks is fine. All clocks will be stopped simultaneously in A's reference frame. In B's frame and C's frame, clock C will stop first, then clock B, then clock A, ie they don't stop simultaneously in any frame except A's. This isn't a mathematical fudge - in SR, this is reality.

    If you assume absolute instantaneous time, then you violate the conditions of the SR model - you are obviously not assuming relativity is valid.

    Your "actual" instantaneous point in time is only instantaneous in one particular reference frame (according to SR).
  17. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    I don't understand. What labels go on each axis?
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Wrong. I understand perhaps better than many others, which is currently being demonstrated.

    Your statement goes like this, you can't analyze SRT, you must accept SRT. Because if you analyze it it falls apart.

    Now be more specific. Detail your objections to the test as described by showing where the statements of facts are in error, other than merely saying you can't do that you must use SRT in its complete form (which I have, I merely reduced the Simultanitey to "0" to take a look at the physical clock accumulations in an "ACTUAL" instant in time by one control clock.

    What I showed was in absence of the altered (shifted) timing of the time (duration) of the test Relativity is not valid. It is not real. There is nothing what-so-ever invalid taking a look at clock accumulated times from all views for a given instant in time per the control clock.

    Did I or did I not succeed at stoping ALL clocks "Instantaneously per clock "A"? Yes or No?

    Does or does not doing so show that clocks to agree with Relativity must therefore at such "REAL" instant per the control clock possess "Multiple" time accumulations simultaneously? Yes or No.

    Is it possible for physical clocks to display multiple accumulated times at the same instant in time? Yes or No?

    These are the only valid questions and areas for discussion in this topic. Not what SRT when applied without maintaining simultaneity by instant time claims. that is the problem not the solution.

    What do you not understand about that?

    You must agree that there is such a thing as an "Instant in time" do you not. For it is your habit to apply Relavistic Simultaneity (deliberatly shift an Instant in time) to create multiple times for the test to make the numbers remain consistant.

    Analyzing Relativity simply shows that it is perception and not reality.

    I'll look but I can assure you it doesn't resolve the issue. I'll get back on this one.

    That is a mis-interpretation of Simultaneity. You are mistakenly writting another level of Simultaneity. Normally when "A" stops, "B" does not see "A" stop and continues to run. That is simultaneity but stopping the clocks in this manner to have the test truely "PER" the control clock "A" precludes you from claiming further Simultaneity delays. We are only looking at the accumulated clock times When they are stopped, not when other clocks would normally think "A" stopped. You are simply lost on this issue.

    Let me suggest that you compute the run times of clocks "B" and "C" according to "A" with simultaneity considered. You will find what I am saying is true. Stopping the clocks - stops the clocks. There is no more simultaniety consideration and the redorded (accumulated times on the clocks must be as calculated if "A's" relavistic view is physically real.

    That is to say if "A's" Relativity is real the viewed accumulations by the other clocks at that instant must also be as calculated assuming Relativity is real. But to do so produces the multiple times problem. At that controlled instant according to "A" their viewed accumulated times do not match.

    Try it. You will see.

    Last edited: Sep 8, 2004
  19. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    You certainly are demonstrating your understanding.

    I don't think so.
    You can analyze SR. You can't analyze it successfully if you choose one little bit and ignore the rest. That's like analyzing an elephant by examining its trunk and concluding that it is some kind worm.

    Your scenario is not analyzing SR. It is analyzing a bastardized model that you seem think is SR. It is not.

    SR is more than the time dilation equation. Do you agree?

    Yes. All clocks were stopped simultaneously in A's reference frame.

    But I can't resist adding:
    The clocks were not stopped simultaneously in B's reference frame.
    The clocks were not stopped simultaneously in C's reference frame.



    Well, what I personally believe isn't really relevant, but we'll pretend for now that my view of reality is defined by the relativity models.
    So... Not universally, no.
    I agree that there is such a thing as an event - an instant at a location.

    It's more than a habit - it's the rules if you want to use the SR model to analyze a scenario.

    Oh, please. You can "assure" me before you even look.
    You claim to understand relativity better than I do, but you appear to be unaware of its basics.

    Back at you, Mac. You really have no idea what relativity of simultaneity is.
    I suggest you read up on it.
    Note that your term "simultaneity delay" doesn't make sense, and reveals your misunderstanding of the model.

    Once more.
    In your scenario:
    For A, all clocks stop simultaneously.
    For B and C, clock A stops last

    I will do the maths for you in the following post.

    The heart of the matter.
    You hold, as an article of faith, that instants are universal.
    Fine - you are welcome to do so.

    If we begin with the premise that instants are universal, that simultaneity is not relative, then the conclusion must be that SR is nonsense.

    I can sympathise with you. It took me a long time before I was open minded enough to consider the possibility myself.

    Please forgive me if I don't trust your understanding of quantum electrodynamics.

    It is true that the SR model is illogical if you assume that instants in time are universal.
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Not hardly. I can appreciate your confusion and reluctance to be lead in this case and there is no antimosity because you are being respectful and we are having an actual conversation on the issue. Congratulations to you. I believe this is the firt thread of this sort that I have been involved in two years here that has conducted itself in the correct manner.

    Now to the actual issue. Step by step.

    1 - You have already agreed that using the method I proposed ALL clocks stop simultaneously (as in physically, actually instantaneously) the same real time moment PER clock "A"

    Yes or No?

    2 - Do you agree that omitting Velocity Addition between clocks B & C only alters the ultimate numerical value in a minor way but for our limited purpose here does not alter the conclusion of the test?

    Yes or No.

    3 - Do you agree that physically the times on the three clocks. when physically stopped are:

    A = 36,000 sec
    B = 35,820 sec
    C = 15,692 sec

    Yes or No?

    At this juncture based on your responses thus far I anticipate you have answered "Yes" to each of the above. If not we need to go back and discuss the difference of opinion.

    Assuming this is the case I must now ask you this. Since "B" actually, physically has accumulated 35,820 ticks during the test and the fact that it sees "A" as having a velocity of 0.1c relative to it as those ticks of test time are accumulating, does not "B" see "A" operate at a gamma adjusted tick rate of approximately 1.005?

    Yes or No.

    Does not that gamma rate mean that "A" can only accumulate ticks at 0.995 the rate of "B"?

    Yes or No?

    and is not that number equal to 35,642 ticks?

    Yes or No?

    Now since this has all been agreed in the light and sense of actual physical test time and consistant with the predictions of Relativity does it not mean that clock "A" (the master test control clock) must possess two different accumulations of time simultaneoulsy to be correct since we know its own clock says it will be 36,000 sec and the counter aboard "B" where its clock accumulates only 35,820 seconds of actual testing and that during such a test relativity states that it will see running "A" equally slow such that in 35,820 seconds time observing "A" as having a gamma function of 1.005 "B's" counter will have physically established that "A" stopped his clock at 35,642 seconds and falsified the test scheduled to have been 10 hours or 36,000 seconds.

    Yes or No.

    Yes but therein lies the problem. It is a collection of algorithums to specifically correct internal flaws when considered in hard physical step by step analysis as above.

    Good because that is all that we have considered. We have only considered the times on each clock in that reference and their view of the other clocks at the moment you agree that they were physically stopped. This in fact exposes what Simultaniety does to reality when arbitrarily used.

    It distorts the realitity already specified by Relativity in the first cause instance. Its sole function seems to be to achieve the goal of mathematical consistancy and not to describe reality because the reality of Relativity fails in the first cause instance.

    I won't argue against that claim based on the false claims of SRT measurement although on proper analysis it simply is a falsehood since considering ONLY the clocks and counters per "A's" view they cannot physically operate in accordance to Relativity. If they cannot operate physically as seen by "A", the control clock, then Simultaneity is merely masking the failure and making an unrealistic adjustment to recover from the obvious failure of time dilation as described by Relativity at the most basic level.

    Then you really should give up your statement made immediatley above in that you are actually saying "I believe in Relativity" thefore it is valid "Inspite" of its obvious failure to meet a physical review challenge". Not a sound scientific approach.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Your position only actually says "You can prove Relativity using the mathematics of Relativity" "The fox guards the hen-house" is a more correct expression. The individual steps of Relativity such as the physical correctness of clocks and counters PER each single clock individually must be possible before you can compensate via Simultaneity to produce the over all SRT answer.

    How do you prepose to adjust something that is impossible in the first instance of physical analyzsis to produce the constant relavistic answer using simultaniety?. You can't. If "A" test conditions are impossible there are no times or clocks to adjust. It really is that simple. If they cannot physically exist you cannot adjust them.

    You seem more astute than most here in discussing this issue. I have little doubt but that giving this a bit more thought you will soon come to realize the truth of the circumstances.

    So then anser the above point by point. No verbal waffeling just Yes or No and back it up. See which of us has a viaable view physically (ie.e - as being actually possible).

    I am not claiming that relativity is not mathematically consistant. I say it violates a most basic scientific premis. If according to clock "A", the control clock, it is not physically possible for all clocks to agree on time accumulation it is shear heresy to proceed with the Relavistic view. You cannot adjust that which is impossible to exist. It is grammatic heresy to equate "Physically impossible" with "Counter intuitive". Counter intuitive is a coverall mask for saying don't actually analize the process.

    That is what Relativity does. It adjusts a physical impossiblity so as to make it appear mathematically consistent but on inspection it can be seen that the end result cannot be valid since the underlying principle (Per Relativity) is impossible). You cannot adjust the simultaneoity of cxlocks which cannot physically exist!

    What you are doing is not unlike claiming:

    I am going to drive 100 miles in exactly 30 minutes while traveling at a constant 50 Mph speed during the trip, When it is pointed out you say oh did I forget that the road was also moving 50 Mph in the opposite direction at the same time.

    While that description satisfies the mathematical consistancy issue it violates the claim that you were traveling 50 Mph, toward the destination point, which if properly stated would be a relative speed of 100 Mph.

    It is a bait and switch of data reference points. It is not physically possible - Sorry.

    No problem with that my understanding is very limited but I do understand the claim of "Instaneous" and "Spooky action at a distance". However, this is not a relavant fact here since I have not used #3 method to synshronize the clocks. I have used #4, which you have already agreed with does as I have claimed.

    You already have and as I have pointed out it is less thanscientifically accurate to describe someting as "Illogical" when in fact it is "Impossible".

    Go ahead take the step up to the palte and face reality. It really is a relief once you make the adjustment. You begin to realize any number of alternative which otherwise you tend ot exclude. In the end the universe is not nearly so clutterd with"Counter Intuitive" physics.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Sep 8, 2004
  21. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    The scenario:

    time unit = seconds
    distance unit chosen so that c = 1

    In frame A:
    Clock A at rest
    Clock B velocity = 0.1
    Clock C velocity = 0.9​
    All relative velocities and gamma factors:
    (v<sub>XY</sub> means velocity of frame Y relative to frame X)
    (L<sub>XY</sub> means gamma factor between frame X and frame Y)
    v<sub>AB</sub> = 0.1
    v<sub>AC</sub> = 0.9
    v<sub>BA</sub> = -0.1
    v<sub>BC</sub> = 0.879
    v<sub>CA</sub> = -0.9
    v<sub>CB</sub> = -0.879

    L<sub>AB</sub> = 1.005
    L<sub>AC</sub> = 2.294
    L<sub>BC</sub> = 2.098

    Clocks synchronized at t=0, x=0 in all frames

    Clocks stopped simultaneously in frame A at t=36000

    The calculations:

    Frame A coordinates of each clock at the three stop events:
    A: t<sub>A</sub>=36000, x<sub>A</sub>=0
    B: t<sub>A</sub>=36000, x<sub>A</sub>=3600
    C: t<sub>A</sub>=36000, x<sub>A</sub>=32400​

    We transform these coordinates to frame B, using the Lorentz Transform:
    x<sub>B</sub> = L<sub>AB</sub>(x<sub>A</sub> - v<sub>AB</sub>t<sub>A</sub>)
    t<sub>B</sub> = L<sub>AB</sub>(t<sub>A</sub> - v<sub>AB</sub>x<sub>A</sub>)

    Frame B coordinates of each clock at the three stop events, transformed from frame A:
    A stopped at: t<sub>B</sub>=36181, x<sub>B</sub>=-3618
    B stopped at: t<sub>B</sub>=35820, x<sub>B</sub>=0
    C stopped at: t<sub>B</sub>=32925, x<sub>B</sub>=28945​

    Frame C coordinates of each clock at the three stop events, transformed from frame A:
    A stopped at: t<sub>C</sub>=82590, x<sub>C</sub>=-74331
    B stopped at: t<sub>C</sub>=75157, x<sub>C</sub>=-66072
    C stopped at: t<sub>C</sub>=15692, x<sub>C</sub>=0​

    Now, let's check by starting with what we have in frame B, and transforming to the other frames.

    Frame B coordinates of each clock at the three stop events:
    A stopped at: t<sub>B</sub>=36181, x<sub>B</sub>=-3618
    B stopped at: t<sub>B</sub>=35820, x<sub>B</sub>=0
    C stopped at: t<sub>B</sub>=32925, x<sub>B</sub>=28945​

    We transform these coordinates to frame A, using the Lorentz Transform:
    x<sub>A</sub> = L<sub>AB</sub>(x<sub>B</sub> - v<sub>BA</sub>t<sub>B</sub>)
    t<sub>A</sub> = L<sub>AB</sub>(t<sub>B</sub> - v<sub>BA</sub>x<sub>B</sub>)

    Frame A coordinates of each clock at the three stop events, transformed from frame B:
    A stopped at: t<sub>A</sub>=36000, x<sub>A</sub>=0
    B stopped at: t<sub>A</sub>=36000, x<sub>A</sub>=3600
    C stopped at: t<sub>A</sub>=36000, x<sub>A</sub>=32400​

    Frame C coordinates of each clock at the three stop events, transformed from frame B:
    A stopped at: t<sub>C</sub>=82590, x<sub>C</sub>=-74331
    B stopped at: t<sub>C</sub>=75157, x<sub>C</sub>=-66072
    C stopped at: t<sub>C</sub>=15692, x<sub>C</sub>=0​

    We can check again by starting with frame C, and transforming to frames A and B if you like... but I'll leave that to you as an exercise. No matter which path you take, you'll always find that the time at which clock C stopped in frame C is 15692, the time at which clock B stopped in frame B is 35820, and the time at which clock A stopped in frame A is 36000. No conflicts. No clock showing multiple times at once.

    I expect that you'll view the Lorentz transform with suspicion, because it looks scary, and doesn't look like the time dilation and length contraction equations. That's OK. If you play with some numbers, you'll see that time dilation falls out when you compare a change in t for constant x with the corresponding change in t'. Ditto for length contraction. Or, you can draw some graphs to get an even better feel for how the transformation works in real spacetime.

    For your reference, I've attached the Excel spreadsheet I used as a scratchpad for the transforms, and the raw text for this post so you can grab the HTML for the awkward subscripts if you like.
  22. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator


    In B's reference frame, yes.


    In B's reference frame, clock A doesn't stop until 36181 ticks of B's clock (if B's clock hadn't stopped). See tables in previous post.

    So, the number of ticks accumulated by clock A is 0.995 * 36181 = 36000

    This is interesting.
    Are you suggesting that the "algorithms" (simultaneity etc) conspire to "correct" SR? i.e. to remove the inconsistencies that you find when you don't include them?

    Does this not suggest that the "algorithms" are an essential component of SR?

    I'm not trying to prove that SR is true. I'm trying to prove that it is not nonsensical; that it does not imply that one clock reads two times at once.
    I don't see the failure of simultaneity as a compensation. I see SR as defined by the Lorentz transform. Time dilation, length contraction, relativistic velocity addition, simultaneity, and doppler shift are all results of the Lorentz transform - not adjustments.

    I think we are at a philosophical impasse.
    1 - I see SR as a complete model - I do not accept that it should be analyzed piecewise in the way that you want.
    2 - I find the failure of simultaneity to be horribly counterintuitive, but I accept its possibility in situations outside my experience.

    I do not think that we will be able to persuade each other on either of these points.

    I must congratulate you on your patience and ability to conduct a civil discussion - it has been a pleasure!
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2004
  23. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Yes. SR is impossible under the assumption that instants in time are frame-independent. But is that assumption truly necessary?

    I wonder if you would accept my invitation to pretend that instants are not universal, and face for a time the beauty of SR's elegance and symmetry?

    Alas, I fear that there is no hope of escaping the counter-intuitive, as long as mu-mesons reach the ground, electrons diffract and polarise, light produces the photoelectric effect , and quasars are lensed by galaxies and stars!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I can't find an intuitive and consistent model to map any of these - relativity and QED seem to be as good as it gets, so far. But, I'm keeping an open mind and a weather eye open...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page