Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    OK. We must stop here and resolve our differences. The rest of this issue is meaningless unless this is suitably and scientifically resolved in terms of physical realities, not just SRT claims, for it is the validity of SRT that is being evaluated. You can't use Relativity to prove Relativity.

    1 - I historically have presented this arguement and the response was "You cannot do the test because it is impossible to stop ALL clocks simultaneously per clock "A". Since you cannot control the clocks to perform the test it is an invalid test and isn't physically real hence is non-scientific and you must stop here.

    2 - I appear to have gotten you to agree that All clocks do indeed stop simultaneously PER the control clock of the test "A", and that the scenario can in fact be achieved. So now the test may advance.

    3 - Now we reach this point reference the view from clock "A".

    a - Clock "A" has accumulated 36,000 seconds.

    b - Clock "A" view of clock "B" is that it has accumulated 35,820 seconds.

    c - Clock "B" is in agreement with that figure and registers by its clock that the test was prematurely terminated at 35,820 seconds and did not have the full 10 hour duration.

    OK, so far. Yes or No?

    4 - Now during this 35,820 second test run, clock "B's" monitor counter for clock "A" can only accumulate ticks at a rate of 0.995 that of its own rate because of Relativity the Gamma function for "B's" view of "A" is 1.005.

    This mandates that at the moment that clock "B" and its counters shut down (which you have already agreed to) it will have accumulated only 35,642 seconds as its view of clock "A".

    True Yes or No.

    If yes we can proceed.

    If "No" explain in plain english how it is you think you can justify claiming that clock "B" and its counter monitors are going to continue to monitor clock "A" after it has agreeably already been shut down physically.

    Remember this issue has nothing to do with "B's" view other than the physical fact of its own clock tick rate and its counter monitor of "A's" clock tick rate during the period of the test while it is physically running. Once shut down it simply cannot be allowed to claim it is continuing to change its readings or those of clock "A" monitor by simultaneity. We are addressing actual physical facts of clock operations and there physically being stopped.

    Please! explain scientifically, in physical reality anyother possibility. Relativity of Simulataniety is not a physical fact capable of by miracles cause a stopped clock to continue to accumulate time, nor its monitor what has stopped continue to accumulate time, since the clocks are now going to be returned in their stopped condition to compare accumulated times and projected times per Relativity for the duration of the actual test while "A" allows them to operate.
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    In frame A only, all clocks stop simultaneously.

    Clock B agrees that it was shut down after 35820 ticks.
    But at the time clock B is shut down in frame B, clock C has been shut down for some time, and clock A is still running.

    Yes. In B's frame, when B shuts down, A has accumulated 35642 ticks - and counting.

    The SR model is clear:
    In B's frame, clock A continues to run after clock B shuts down.

    Your words seem to imply that clock A can't accumulate ticks unless clock B is monitoring it - that's not what you mean, is it? We're addressing physical facts of clock operations - clock A's operations are independent of any monitoring or lack of it by clock B.

    We really seem to be stuck on the universal instant problem.
    You appear to be insisting that if the clocks stop simultaneously per clock A, then they must also stop simultaneously per clock B.
    Are you able to consider for a moment the possibility that this is not the case?
    Are you able to consider that even though the clocks stop simultaneously per clock A, they do not stop simultaneously per clock B or clock C?
    If not, then we're at an impasse and can progress no further.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Some cross posted information on this issue has now arisen here:
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    I'll say it another way for you.

    The SR model says:

    For Clock A:
    clock A stops after 36000 seconds
    clock B stops after 36000 seconds
    clock C stops after 36000 seconds

    For Clock B:
    clock A stops after 36181 seconds
    clock B stops after 35820 seconds
    clock C stops after 32925 seconds

    For Clock C:
    clock A stops after 82590 seconds
    clock B stops after 75157 seconds
    clock C stops after 15692 seconds

    The calculations for these numbers are described in previous posts in this thread, particularly my long post of 12:52am today (do displayed times change for the user's time zone?)
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    I'll accept that even though it is a mis-statement. Because we are only interested at this juncture with clocks stopped simultaneously PER "A" accumulated time.

    Wrong!. Clock "B" and its monitoring counter observing clock "A" shut down. How does it know or care about other clocks any further. The fact is all clocks are running and "B" is monitoring clock "A" and "C" , likewise "C" is monitoring "A" and "B" until such time as "A" shuts them ALL down Simultaneous PER "A".

    At that point in time no clock is continuing to run and no times are changing any further because I used Relativity to shut them down "Simultaneously". That is the meaning of the term "Simultaneity" and "Simultaneous".

    The data as is is all there is. Otherwise you are defying "A" actually stopped the clocks and your are reading and correlating their data PER "A" stop time.

    Wrong. That only occurs if Simultaneity is involved. It isn't, that is the reason for using Relativity to "Simultaneously" stop the clocks.

    Wrong as per above. "B" can only continue to see "A" run IF it were to continue to run after Relativity shut it down. The acccumulated time at the time "A" shut it down and its monitor counter of clock "A" recording data stop at that point. "A" reads 36,000 seconds. "B" reads 35,820 seconds and "B" view counting monitor of "A" is recording "A" as being 35,642 seconds. They are all stopped and no further accumulation of time nor counting of observed time of other clocks is on going. Stopped is stopped PER Relativity.

    If they are stopped Relativity fails. If they are not stopped Relativity fails. I just love this scenario.

    Absolutely and that rule is applied to all clocks and monitors. But the point you repeatedly refuse to conceed is that clocks also do not continue to accumulate time after they shut down. NOT WHEN OTHER CLOCKS VIEW OF THEM SHUTTING DOWN BUT WHEN THEY SHUT DOWN. Shut down is shut down and they do not continue to run accumulating time because of another clock's view.

    I wouldn't use the plural term "We".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You are the one that seems stuck by the "Simultaneous" shut down test. It throws a monkey wrench in the nice neat mathematical consistancy issue of Relativity when viewed without critical analysis of what the mathematics is actually doing.

    Further it isn't an "Instant" problem. It is a "Simultaneous" problem and the problem is for "Simultaneity" and Relativity.

    Not at issue here. The issue is the data accumulated when the clocks ARE stopped by whatever means; which in this case is per control clock "A". Stopped means stopped. No more data. No more adjustments.

    It is either actually stopped or it isn't. If it isn't then Relativity fails because it failed to stop the clock. Stopped means stopped. When it stops, then read the data. that is all I have done. There is no trick here it is forthright physical reality. When the clocks stop, read their respective data.

    Considered. But the finding is "Stopped means stopped not running", "Dead means dead, not alive". This is no longer an analog problem where Relativity can gradually blend all it's flaws into the wood work masking the problem.

    I think you will find, when and if, all this actually soaks in, is I have considered in great detail what the possibities are and are not. For your clock "B" to see clock "A" reach 36,000 seconds, it must continue to run after it was stopped at 35,820 seconds and its monitor counter was recording "A" as reading 35,642 seconds when it too stopped. It can't because IT IS stopped.

    Relativity normally masks this fact by functioning in an analog fashion. When you give it actual discrete conditions "Stopped or Running" then and only then does the flaw become obvious.

    I agree until you understand and accept the physical reality of the above (last) example of data from clock "B" when it is indeed stopped and what that data tells you then it is a waste of further breath.

    I only hope you actually give this some serious tought because it is signifigant. And do not continue to illude yourself with "But according to SRT". This is according to SRT but under carefully controlled and discrete conditions.

    Relativity fails any way you try to manipulate the results.

    1 - It either fails because it requires physical clocks to possess multiple time accumulations simultaneously, or

    2 - It fails by requiring a clock stopped by Relativity to continue to run.
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2004
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    According to observer A, both blocks are stopped simultaneously. That is, they are REALLY stopped. No more adjustments.

    According to observer B, the clocks do not stop simultaneously. The signal to stop happens at different times for each clock. Of course, after each one stops, they are really stopped, no more adjustments. But only after they stop.

    Relativity doesn't stop the clocks. You are the one who specified when they would stop and according to whom.

    When the clocks stop according to whom?

    The point is, once you specify exact spacetime coordinates for a clock stopping in one frame, those coordinates are determined for EVERY frame. If you can tell me in just ONE reference frame, the spatial coordinates and the time at which any clock stops, I can tell you the spatial coordinates and time in any other frame you care to name.
  10. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    My understanding of this statement is that in A's reference frame, the three clocks stop simultaneously.
    That is the precise result of your method of stopping the clocks. They stop simultaneously in frame A only, as I have stated time and time again.

    What? Since when are the clocks monitoring each other? And how?
    I believe you stipulated that the stopping of the clocks was preprogrammed, not based on monitoring.

    If you want to base the stop mechanism on some monitoring method, that's a new scenario, which I'm happy to work through with you. Although one might wonder why, since you are ignoring my hard work in working through the current scenario. Have you even attempted to confirm my figures using the Lorentz transform yet? I can help you if you're having difficulty following it.

    Of course. In this scenario, no clock continues to run after it is shut down.

    This is close to gibberish. What does it matter what clock B sees? We're talking reality, not perceptions.
    How does the stopping of clock B affect clock A?
    Clock A stopped when it was stopped per its pre-programming, right?
    Why should clock A care if clock B can see it or not?

    I'm sorry Mac. It seems we've reached the edge of rationality and civility.
  11. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    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.
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    It is unfortunate that you choose to consume time not addressing the issue. You are simply showing how relativity functions when "Simultaneity" is involved. You must address the test of SRT by standards of the test and not rely on SRT being its own proof. My test shows SRT can not be physical reality. You must address the test not merely continue to quote the results of the theory being tested.
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    END. Stop. Halt. Whoooooooa! You just violated Relativity. All three clocks did and do indeed stop "Simultaneously" otherwise Relativity fails.

    Recall. I used relavistic mathematical calculations to preset the shut down timers of the onboard clocks. It Relativity is valid and works then the clocks must actually, physically and in reality ALL stop "Simultaneously" and "Instantly" relative to clock "A" the master control clock.

    If you claim at this juncture that they don't then you are claiming Relativity does not work and reading any further data is pointless.
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Well, yes.

    By this, do you mean that we must accept that relativity is incorrect a priori in order to discuss your scenario? Surely reality determines the result of your test, not the "standards of the test" itself?

    How so?

    All that is happening here is that you are claiming that what is simultaneous in one frame must be simultaneous in all frames. You are ignoring the verified results of relativity which say it isn't so. You are trying to reinstate some kind of Newtonian world with universal time. Such a thing doesn't exist, and wishing doesn't make it so.
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    We can easily clear this one up.

    I don't really care about the details of how you stop the clocks. All I need is the following information:

    For each clock, please provide the spacetime coordinates of the event "Clock x" stops, in one single reference frame.

    I'll make it simple for you. Please fill in the gaps:

    According to an observer travelling with clock A:

    Clock A stops when it is at x=0, t=___________
    Clock B stops when it is at x=__________, t=___________
    Clock C stops when it is at x=__________, t=___________

    Go for it.
  16. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    This has got to be one of the silliest things you have ever said. All you have done is show that SR does not adhere to what you think the rules of physical reality are or should be. But the universe is not obliged to adhere to your rules.

    Simply showing that that the Rules of Reality according to SR and the Rules of Reality according to you don't agree proves nothing. The only way to prove which set of rules actually prevail is to physically do the experiment.

    And to that end, the Rules of Physical Reality according to Relativity have passed every physical experiment thrown at them.
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    To avoid this discussion spreading over multiple threads, I will repost an explanatory post from another thread.


    Here is a spacetime diagram (click to view the attachment) showing two clocks travelling relative to one another.


    Clock A is stationary at x=0. It's world line lies along the time (vertical) axis of the graph.
    Clock B is travelling in the positive x direction at 0.8c, as seen by a stationary observer. Its world line is indicated on the diagram.
    Also shown is the path a light ray would take if emitted from the origin at time t=0.

    Lines of simultaneity are also shown on the diagram, and this is what is important for the problem at hand. Clock A's lines of simultaneity are shown in blue. Each blue line connects events which Clock A regards as simultaneous.

    Clock B's lines of simultaneity are shown in green. Each one of these lines connects events which a person travelling with clock B regards as simultaneous.

    Note that the relative scales on the two time axes are not shown.

    Suppose both clocks are (somehow!) set to stop ticking at exactly the same time as measured by clock A. That time might, for example, correspond to the blue line which is highest on the graph. At that particular time, an observer in clock A's frame of reference says both clocks stop ticking. The two events at which the clocks are stopped are connected by the blue line. One event is on the ct axis (clock A stops), and the other is on B's world line.

    Notice now that these two events are NOT simultaneous for an observer travelling with B. According to this observer, clock A stops BEFORE clock B stops. Clock B stops at the event where the top blue line crosses B's world line, as we said before. But for B, this event is simultaneous not with the event on the ct axis connected by the blue line, but with the event on the ct axis connected by the GREEN line which passes through the event on B's world line.

    I hope this helps make things clearer.
  18. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Once more:
    I see SR as a complete model - I do not accept that it should be analyzed piecewise in the way that you want.

    There is no such thing as relativity without failure of simultaneity - it's an instrinsic part of SR. Have you look at the Lorentz transform yet?

    I do not think that we will be able to persuade each other on this point.

    Your test shows that SR and absolute simultaneity can not coexist.
    I agree!

    Your test shows that your twisted idea of SR can not be physical reality.
    I agree!

    You appear to be acknowledging that these:
    ...are the correct results of the theory being tested (ie Special Relativity)?
  19. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    You used the correct calculations to physically stop the clocks simultaneously in A's reference frame. Congratulations.

    However, you appear to be completely unable to consider the possibility that this does not necessarily mean that they stop simultaneously in other frames.
  20. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    I think I've had enough.
    Mac, you've got one more chance to show me you're not a blind dogmatist.
  21. Paul T Registered Senior Member

    Actually, I wonder what the heck this Mr MacM talking about those clock STOP thing? How to stop a clock??? Smash it on the floor? Hahaha.
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Of course not for you are starting to realize the consequences. But at the same time I have committed no violations of the Relativity or Simultaneity principle, so it is a fair test and exposes the failure of relativity to possibly be physical reality.

    Stop with the quotes and post actual proof. Just where and how do you claim there is any "Simultaneity" in this test when Relativity shut the clocks ALL down "Simultaneously" and "Instantly" in accordance with Relativity?

    You are talking in circles without putting your pencil down to plot your next step. We are reading data of the clocks at the oint they were shut down. Nothing more.

    Not if you don't do more than continuing to quote SRT without providing a physical means of having it being a function part of the resolution. Reading data from a stopped clock has noting to do with what a clock "Would" read if it were allowed to continue to run until IR\T saw some other condition./ That is not the condition of the test.

    Fantastic. We have made a major step forward. Now lets explore the consequence of that fact.

    Again fantastic. That is progress. However, I have yet for you to show how this test is in any fashion a twisted view of SRT. Tell us where I have violated or ignored any principle of Relativity or Simultaenity.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    How did it do that?

    And simultaneously according to whom?

    Look, it's a simple point: What is simultaneous for one observer is not simultaneous for another observer in relative motion.

    What's so hard to understand about that?

    PS I notice you've avoided answer my simple fill-in-the-gaps question above. Why?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page