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

    Messages:
    10,104
    Simple. the fact is I should be allowed to simply for thought experimental purposes stipulate it. But people have resisted that.

    I should be able to theoretically claim using particle entanglement to in some fashion control the clocks but since we have not yet achieved mastering actually using the instantaneous nature of particle entanglement, you (meaning this board) would not allow that either.

    I should be able to establish a light control system and precalculate travel time at specified velocities and systemmatically transmit a signal that would arrive so as to achieve an actual simultaneous stopping of clocks per clock "A" the master control clock. But due to the invariance of light factor, Lorentz Contraction and Velocity Addition considerations it becomes far to complex to compute such a function and to argue all the variable points.

    So that leaves the process of precalculating, assuming relativity to be valid, the onboard times with time dilation considered such that preset timers will shut down the clocks. Now that admittedly is stupid. (and a stroke of genius at the same time if I must say so for myself, since I wouldn't expect others here to conclude that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    We are presetting the clocks control timer to cause it to stop at the time we want to show that time dilation would have it produce if it was somehow stopped "Simultaneous' and "Instantly" with clock "A". By doing so overcomes the arguements which have been disengeniously used to preclude analyzing the Theory of Relativity as to the validity of time-dilation for linear velocity.

    One can correctly state that by doing so we cannot actually be testing time dilation. But to take that position one is also stating that if the accumulated time is not correct then Relativity is flawed. Further that if the clocks do not actually stop simutaneously and instantly per clock "A", then relativity is also flawed. The test was designed to test the mathematics and not the physical time change in clocks. So this is a very valid approach.

    What this tatic does is pave the way to actually look at what numbers and physical conditions in real time, Relativity places on physical clocks in reality.

    Which was the purpose of the test in the first instance.

    Clock "A" the master contol clock on earth.

    Normally maybe. But not in this case. Simultaneity has been eliminated by the use of precalculated relavistic values to control the clocks. If the clocks do not shut down "Simultaneously" and "Instantaneously" with clock "A" then Relativity has failed.

    So make up your mind. Do clocks in such a situation stop per clock "A" Simultaneously and instantly according to SRT?

    Who said anything about hard? It simply is not addressing the conditions of the tests and/or data from the test. We don't need lessons in other claims of relativity but only to analyze the consequences and validity of this test.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    10,166
    It seems obvious to me. The consequence is that SR directly implies that absolute simultaneity does not exist.

    How many times must I repeat myself?
    Relativity dictates that in B's reference frame, clock A continues to run after clock B stops.
    Do you acknowledge that, or will you continue to ignore the principles of Relativity?

    So you accept that the theory being tested (ie Special Relativity) does not suggest that any clock shows more than one time?
    You accept that no matter which way you look at it, clock A stops after 36000 ticks, clock B stops after 35820 ticks, and clock C stops after 15692 ticks?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    At least you appear interested and perplexed by my little test and not pissed off as is the norm around here.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Show me where and how.

    For as long as you fail to show that clock "B" is not stopped simultaneous and instantly with and by "A" clock when it shut down using the jprinciples of Relativity to achieve that feat. Relativity either works and they do in fact stop simultaneous and instantaly and your scenario invalidate Relativity for failure to stop the clocks or the clocks stop according to Relativity and Relativity fails because the data shows that the requirement is for clocks to possess multiple time accumulations simultaneously. A physical impossibility, not an counter intuitive result or illegoical result but a physical reality impossibility.

    I think you would agree that neither my views NOR Relativity can be embraced if they in the process proclaim to achieve the physically impossible.


    I acknowledge what Relativity claims and I have not violated or ignored any principles of relativity. If you think I have show where and how.

    This is not a yes or no question. It is a yes and no question. Relativity as generally applied results in mathematically consistant data. But that is because you allow physical impossiblities to occur mathematically which are not exposed in a typical scenario. If you isolate the mathematical process so as to see how that is achieved you then can understand that it does not and cannot happen because it requires clocks to achieve physical impossible feats in reality.

    Without going back and verifying clock "C" is 15,692 per clock "A" then yes that is "A" view of clock accumulated times.

    Do ou agree that when "A" stops the clocks that is the time they will resister? Do you agree that if Relativity is valid that ALL three clocks stopsimultaneous and Instantly with clock "A", per "A"?
     
  8. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    I wonder why?
    Let's say I wanted to disprove UniKEF.
    Easy! All I need to do is stipulate that the Universe is infinite.
    I should be allowed to simply for thought experiment purposes stipulate it, should I not?
    (Note - MacM's site states that "no inverse square or change of gravity of any kind would be possible" under UniKEF in an infinite Universe).

    You might as well invoke magic. We have not yet achieved mastering actually using magic for instantaneous information transfer, but that shouldn't stop you using it in theory.

    Actually, its quite easy if you know how to use the Lorentz transform and spacetime diagrams. You should learn!

    And, as I have repeatedly stated, the clocks will shut down simultaneously in A's reference frame, since that is the frame you chose to use for your calculations.

    However, Relativity does not suggest that this implies the clocks will shut down simultaneously in B's reference frame, or C's reference frame.

    You have no idea what you're talking about. All the precalculated values do is ensure that the clocks stop simultaneously in A's frame - not in any other frame. The simultaneity implications of SR are in no way eliminated.

    In A's reference frame
    But if the clocks do not shut down simultaneously in B's reference frame, then relativity has succeeded.

    You're making it seem very hard. You remind me of myself as an obstinate and closed-minded teenager insisting that the teacher was wrong. (actually he was wrong sometimes... but I was equally obstinate during the times I was wrong)

    Come on, Mac, it's easy - try this:

    The clock timers are precalculated to shut them down simultaneously in frame A.
    But when we precalculate when to shut them down simultaneously in frame B or frame C, we get different numbers (try it!)
    Now. We can't make one clock shut down at two different times... so, we have a choice:
    We can have the clocks shut down simultaneously in frame A, or simultaneously in frame B, or simultaneously in frame C, but not simultaneously in more than one frame.
     
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Are you thick?
    It is a principle of Relativity that simultaneity is not absolute. That simultaneity in frame A (as enforced byt he preprogrammed clock timers) does not imply simultaneity in frame B.
    You are ignoring this fact, and violating it every time you claim that in B's reference frame, clock A must stop after 35820 seconds.


    Look, you say that you accept the correctness of this table:
    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​

    Do you realise what it means?
    Do you see where it says that for clock B, clock A stops after 36181 seconds?
    Divide that by 1.005 (time dilation) to determine how many ticks clock A actually accumulates before stopping.
    Do you see where it says that for clock C, clock A stops after 82590 seconds?
    Divide that by 2.294 to determine how many ticks clock A actually accumulates before stopping.

    Keep going, and tell me when you find a conflict.
     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    We agree.

    Since the beginning of this test stipulation. And yes the clocks were preprogrammed to stop according to relativity and the monitor counters for the other clocks are stopped by the clock when it stops.

    I could work on a complex method of monitoring other clocks but as you can see that is not necessary, since we are actually only testing the mathematics of Relativity and not the physical operation of clocks. Therefor lets just ask a question.

    During the time that clock "B" is running and accumulating its 35,820 second counts during the 36,000 second (per "A") test duration. Since "B" sees "A" as having a relative velocity of 0.1 c, and hence gamma = 1.005. Will not "B" see "A's" clock accumulate 0.995 * 35,820 seconds or 35,642 seconds according to the Theory of Relativity, time dilations principles?

    Yes or No

    If you answer "No", please explain.

    If Yes then we should be able to simply stipulate it but if you prefer I will simply install a clock that runs at 0.995 ticks per second relative to "B" clock.

    That happens to be 0.990 times clocks "A's" rate or = 35,642 recorded seconds for clock "A" when "B" shuts down.

    Your figures are correct. They simply do not address the situation of the test.

    The scenario has not been changed. the primarty clocks are stopped as agreed by preset timers. But I also stipulated that each clock had monitors monitoring all other clock rates "While" it is running. Monitoring covered just above.

    Good. We again are making progress. Thanks. Don't get frustrated, you are doing fine. In fact the best of all I have tried to explain this to here in two years.

    Perhaps a bad choice of words. Sees in the sense of a monitor which records the clock tick rate of the other clocks from the primary clocks view point.

    It doesn't but Relativity time-dilation due to relative velocity between "B" and "A" mandates that "B" sees "A" running slower (at 0.995 times its own rate) See description of numbers above. 0.995 * 35,820 seconds = 35,642 seconds for "A" in "B's" relavistic view.

    Yes.

    The clocks don't care but relativity does and we are testing the mathematics of relativity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I can appreciate your frustration finding yourself in this uncomfortable and unusual position but like I said don't give up you are almost free.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2004
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Thanks. I have just downloaded you Zip Attachment. What program opens it to run? Wordpad or some other program. My computer doesn't seem to know and asked me. I don't know either.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    I'm sorry Mac, you can't have it both ways. You can't stop a clock twice.

    Are the clocks stopped by their preset counters, or are they stopped by some observed condition on the other clocks?

    If they are stopped by the preset counters, then any monitoring is completely irrelevant. Clock A is going to run until its preset timer shuts it off, which in frame B will be after 36181 seconds (as per the figures you seem to have accepted).

    If they are stopped by some observed condition, please explain what that condition is. Please do not forget to allow for the delay of signals passing between clocks.

    I see... so, (assuming some magical instantaneous communication that works in a special but yet to be defined way) clock B monitors the accumulation of 35,642 ticks on clock A before clock B shuts down.
    So what?
    Does this affect how many ticks are actually accumulated on clock A before clock A shuts down?
     
  13. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Excel. It's an Excel spreadsheet.

    I think you can download a free Excel viewer from Microsoft.
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I seem to be getting these massive number of posts out of sequence in that I have been resonding from my e-mail and they are not coming in in the same sequence they are osted. If that is confusing anybody, my opologies. It tends to make us repeat ourselves for things that have been already agreed.

    Yep. Otherwise Simultaneity masks the true nature of relativity and what it does and how it does it. It is the "How" that makes it impossible.

    I would rather keep my classical mechanical view I think. But thanks for the invite.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Unfortunately true. But my test suggests we should be looking. In the mean time Relativity is useful for as far as it goes so don't have a book burning party yet.
     
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Thanks.
     
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    They aren't.

    The primary clocks are stopped by the preset timers.

    The "Other Clock Monitors" (onboard clocks running at the calculated time dilated view of other clocks from the primary clocks view) only run while the primary clock runs. They aren't controlled by the remote clocks. They could be set to simply stop when they reach the preset calculated time dilated view of the clock being monitored in terms of the primary's clocks relavistic view of the monitored clock.

    Opps, you slipped here somehow. ALL relative to "A's" referance frame.

    "A" stops at 36,000 seconds per its timer
    "B" will have accumulated 35820 seconds per its preset timer.
    The "A" clock monitor aboard the ship with clock "B" will have accumulated 35642 seconds when All three simultaneously and instantly shut down.


    In frame "B" we have already determined that when it shuts off "A" reads 36,00 seconds but "B" only recordered 35,642 seconds.

    No clocks continue to run, nor are observed to continue to run because all clocks are stopped and the test is over. All needed now is to retrive the data and makes comparisons.


    They weren't. There are no control delay signals since all controls have been made local using present timers.


    No magic, no istantaneous communication. Onboard preset counters get rid of all that complexiety for the purpose of the test, which is to verify or falsify the mathematics of Relativity.

    SO what? So "B" disagrees with "A". I have said for two years that Relativity is peercepton and not physical reality. I have been hammered and it has been argued that it is not perception but that "B's" view of dilated time for "A" is physical reality. This shows that it can only be perception since "A" cannot possess two different accumulated times simultaneously.

    Other clocks views do not affect a clocks operation. Other observers views do not affect a bodies mass. Other observers views do not limit objects ability to accelerate. That is the point. Accept that and you can begin to get a vastly different view of the universe.
     
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I'm quite sure it might be an easier task but you wuld have to keep you stiulation scientifically consistant with phsyical reality and proveable.

    Infinte is not only NOT proveable it is not possible for physical things which acan be sub divided and counteed to become infinite.

    That is tre. If you therefore prove the universe is infinite then UniKEF has no posibiity of being valid. But I dare say your task is going to be a might harder than mine and testing Relativity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    For carefully arranged thought experiments, that would be perfectly acceptable because you are asking what if. And if the what if sn't readilay achievable it does not stop you from considering the consequence of what happens if it were.

    That is and has been the very basis of theoretical thought experiments. Nothing new there.


    They are not totally foreign to me but I would not be able to process them from memory, infact, I don't recall every using them. But I ceertainly recognize them and understand their fuction.


    That doesn't matter in this test. We only compare data generated from operation of the clocks in "A" reference frame in terms of tet period before the clocks shut down simultaneously and instantly via relativity.


    I believe this comment is antiquated in that in another post you have finally conceeded that ALL clocks do indeed stop simultaneously and that none continue to run (in this test).
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Actually I think many here are about to do just that. Damn those clocks, don't they just drive you crazy.


    This seems out of sequence, so I hope we are past that based on your other posts.
     
  19. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    I disagree. The simultaneity issue is an integral and inseparable part of relativity. Any concept of relativity that does not include it is not Relativity, but some inconsistent, invalid, and impossible model.

    Do you see? You are correctly arguing that "X" is nonsense, but "X" is not SR. You think that "X" is SR, but it's not... your concept of SR does not match SR itself. That's the crux of this whole issue - not whether "X" is nonsense, but whether "X" is, in fact, SR.

    What do these extra clocks have to do with anything?

    What?
    I can see no problem with what I stated. The table I derived earlier, and which you agree is a correct result of SR, states that in frame B, clock A stops after 36181 seconds. Applying time dilation to get ticks of A's clock reveals that in frame B, clock A accumulates 36000 ticks before it stops.

    Wrong again - in frame B, the three clocks do not simultaneously shut down. Remember? Your preset timers were set for simultaneity in frame A, not frame B.

    The A clock monitor aboard the ship with clock B will have accumulated 35642 seconds when clock B shuts down... but so what? Clock A is still ticking.

    If the A clock monitor aboard the ship with clock B keeps ticking until clock A shuts down, then it will shut down after 36181 seconds... and will register 36000 ticks.

    Don't you get it yet?
    SR says that in frame B, the time that clock A shuts down is independent of the time that clock B shuts down. Your preset timers were not set to shut down the clocks simultaneously in frame B.
     
  20. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    SR and absolute simultaneity can not coexist.

    Here is a common point of view.

    Let's examine the logical implications of this statement. Just from a purely logical point of view, casting aside all other assumptions.

    If premise A and premise B can not both be true, that means that:

    A implies not B, and B implies not A
    The possible situations are:
    1) A is false, B is true
    2) A is true, B is false
    3) A is false, B is false

    Or:

    1) SR is real, absolute simultaneity is not
    2) Absolute simultaneity is real, SR is not
    3) Neither SR nor absolute simultaneity are real

    Logically, there is no reason to prefer any one of these three statements.
    Do you agree?
    In fact, without empirical investigation, there is no way to determine which of these three statements is true.
    Do you agree?
     
  21. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Ah... so something that you find acceptable for arguing against SR, you find unacceptable for arguing against UniKEF. Interestig.

    Please, read my statements carefully.

    As I have consistently maintained from the beginning of the thread:
    The clocks stop simultaneously in frame A, but only in frame A.
    If I have said otherwise, please show me where.

    In frame A, all clocks stop after 36000 seconds.
    In frame B, clock C stops first (after 32925 seconds), clock B stops next (after 35820 seconds), and clock A stops last (after 36181 seconds).
    In frame C, clock C stops first (after 15692 seconds), clock B stops next (after 75157 seconds), and clock A stops last (after 82590 seconds)

    In the SR model, this is reality - it's not simply the perception of each clock, it's the reality in those reference frames.
     
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I agree with your Boolean analysis of the situation. I don't think I can agree on yur conclusion that it matters not which truth I select.

    No.

    Do you agree that all factors in relativity are relative?. I know that sounds like a stupid question but put it this way are all variables in relativity infinitely variable in an analog fashion?

    Yes or No.

    Comparison: F = ma

    If I make "a" = 0, does the formula cease to be valid. Of course not. No more than reducing one variable in relativity to "0" makes relativity invalid. When Simultaneity is reduced to "0" you still have Lorentz Contraction. You still have time-dilation, you still have the momentum or mass change. All gamma functions are still operative.

    All I have done here is to force you to look at the underlying mathematics of relativities component parts to that you can see how it actually achieves what it does.

    By reducing simultaneity of the test to "0" I can now do what I want which is to analyze the component part known as linear relative velocity time-dilation. It didn't cease to be relativity it simply became relativity where the underlying principles behind time-dilation becomes exposed and can be evaluated by making the observations physical reality without the simultaneity masking the process.

    Time-dilation seems to be out as a physical reality. You would have to go back an re-think relativity without time-dilation. See what pops up in terms of conflict with relavistic processes without it and observed data.

    It may be that the only conclusion would be that none are valid and all you have are useful algorithums and not something that describes physical reality - WHICH has been my arguement.

    All inspite of the fact that observation and data seems to confirm the impossible. What I expect to find is that all such data have acceptable alternative explanations and that some proclamations made by relativity such as v = c is not really a limit. That is aspects of relativiey which haven't been proven or supported by physical test data may be shown to be wrong.

    It will open up the door to many new things.
     
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I fail to see our correlation. What "What If" do you see I use against relativity but say doesn't apply to my own concepts?

    [quotePlease, read my statements carefully.

    As I have consistently maintained from the beginning of the thread:
    The clocks stop simultaneously in frame A, but only in frame A.
    If I have said otherwise, please show me where.

    In frame A, all clocks stop after 36000 seconds.
    In frame B, clock C stops first (after 32925 seconds), clock B stops next (after 35820 seconds), and clock A stops last (after 36181 seconds).
    In frame C, clock C stops first (after 15692 seconds), clock B stops next (after 75157 seconds), and clock A stops last (after 82590 seconds)

    In the SR model, this is reality - it's not simply the perception of each clock, it's the reality in those reference frames.[/QUOTE]

    I am not argueing against what SRT claims. I do argue that based on the physical impossibity exposed in reference frame "A" that it is nonsensical to talk about simutaneity of other frames.

    You cannot ignore the fact that controlled by "A": At an actual 36,000 sec count.

    "B" stops at 35,820 seconds.

    and that "B's" clock "A" monitor, by relativity and time dilation requires that clock "A" only have accumulated 35,642 seconds for time-dilation views to be correct as physical realities.

    "A" cannot physically have two different accumulated times simultaneously.

    This is the end of the test. We are not interested in anyother claims since they are not representative of a physically possible system.

    Your simultaneity adjusted view from "C" cannot occur because "A", "B" and "C" has been shut down simultaniously and instantly by "A", per "A" and at its shut down reads the acumulated time of 15,692 seconds.

    "A" is shut down and physically reas 36,000 seconds and is not going to continue to run up to your 82,590 second figure.

    You are stuck with:
    ......................................B.............C................A
    "A" = 36,000 seconds... /...other....../other /.........N/A
    "B" = 35,820 seconds.../ ....N/A....../..other/...35,642 seconds
    "C" = 15,962 seconds.../.. other...../...N/A.......6,840 seconds

    * other are other accumulated times per the primary clock for the remaining two clocks. It is late and I dind't want to actually compute or go back and look them up. And "other" does not equal "other" across the board. They are different.

    Nowhere in these STOPPED clocks do you see 82,590 seconds. The shear fact that these numbers show this is physically impossible to occur, it is shear nonsense to propose to re-introduce simulataniety and proceed to make the adjustments.

    If any aspect of a theory is shown to be physically impossible it is simply an invalid theory. Don't you agree?
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2004
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page