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

    That of course is your perogative. It is unfortunate for you however, in that you were actually starting to learn something about relativity which you had never considered. But the closer you got to seeing that it cannot do what it is claimed the more frantic you have become to find a flaw in the process.

    Once you finally conceeded that ALL clocks can and were correctly stopped simultaneously and instantly in the view under consideration and that it shows that data implies physical impossibilities, that infact either Relativity and/or Simultaneity would have to be invalid, you suddenly decide that it must be that under the test description I established that it is no longer Relativity.

    Which of course is an absurd position. It does however, grant you room to back out gracifully claiming that it is I that is the fool and that Relativity therefore continues to stand unchallenged which of course is simply not the case.

    I would suggest that your repeating the assertion that the problem is my understandings of Relativity is in fact just the opposite. My understanding has exceeded yours and I have demonstrated that here. You have not told me one single thing about the process or claims of Relativity that I do not and did not already know and understand. Howelse do you think I have been able to bring you to the brink of having to admit that it is in fact a flawed concept, cloaked by a circular mathematical loop of physical reality impossibilities.

    I will repeat, it is wholly a false accusation to claim that Old MacM does not understand further that there is a major and most important difference in not understanding and not accepting.

    It is your perogative to claim I am a fool for not accepting Relativity just as you and SO many more poor blinded sheep do but it is you that show yourself to be a fool when you assert that I do not understand.

    I also repeat that it is you that repeatedly ignore the point that "Simultaneity of Relativity" in this case is no answer what-so-ever since it does not and cannot enter the data stream being considered.

    Your arguement that to properly establish the conditions of the test such that simultaneity no longer functions means that it is no longer Relativity is a strawmans dodge. It is in reality merely Relativity at one extreme limit of it's operating range.

    You have never taken Relativity apart and looked at it, you have only relied upon it and applied it to day to day situations. Hence I actually have a better understand of its functions than you.

    This unfortunately is a two ways street. What you say is true. I do reject your improper effort to sweep under the rug the fact that the data shows the impossibility of Relativity by merely repeating "But not according to the Theory of Relativity". What is it about the scientific process that you do not grasp. That is that the Theory of Relativity is not its own proof.

    It makes a good God Damn what SRT states or predicts. It is the theory being analyzed. Showing that it cannot possibly do what it claims to do but then to claim that proof is wrong because the theory proven false claims it is right, but where such claims are outside the range being analyzed, does not invalidate the proof of failure of the theory.

    You inability to make that jusgement (or refusal makes you frankly the fool).

    Your continued attempt to supplement Relativity by applying such principles DOES NOT change the data at the regimes of operation which I have posed. It is a false arguement that only masks the truth by trying to rely upon the claims of the theory to prove the theory.

    You can apply Simultaenity in the case in question (indeed it is applied) and the data you claim is correct. What you fail to realize is that it is unacceptable nonsense because in the frame being analnyzed, relativity fails to be physically possible. It is therefor shear stupidity to claim that by ignoring an impossibility in that frame (indeed it can be shown that the same impossibility occurs in all frames) since collectively by turning a blind eye in the final analysis, since it corrects itself in a circular fashion that it is OK.

    IT IS NOT. The old adage "Two wrongs do not make a right" could not be more applicable anywhere that I can think of.

    An easy thing to say but a bit harder to make stick on deeper analysis.

    Just how do you see (assuming that I can not perform that exercise, which frankly isn't correct) in any manner alters the proof you have just been given that Relativity cannot function. I have agreed many times that the mathematics and data are consistant. That is not the problem, being able to derive the formulas does not alter what the formulas predict.

    My data was generated using the formula which have been derived. There is no mathematical error in my data. Your point is pointless and is a simple attempt to cast negative enuendos toward me to reduce the impact my findings should have. You have however, not altered those findings. They stand and they show the theory is flawed.

    This issue about not being able to derive the formulas themselves is identical to saying a person cannot drive a car if they cannot design and build the cars engine. It is heresy and a poor mans dodge. Shame on you. Either show my data wrong or be man enough to admit defeat.

    Do not hide behind enuendo and distorted inapplicable issues.

    It has been a good run. But it simply is not fair to assert because you failed to prove your point that it is I that am stuborn. You have failed to show flaw in my data and test. That test shows it physically impossible for Relativity to be reality. It does end there even though you do not want it to and even though you, by default, using statements alone are opting out of the box you found yourself by arbitrarily claiming somehow that the case established (which you accepted) under the terms of relativity, somehow no longer is Relativity when its shows a conclusion other than one you want.

    Good luck to you and no hard feelings although I am disappointed. You seemed to have been actually learning something.

    Perhaps you would be kind enough to give an honest answer at this juncture before we part paths on this subject.

    Did you or did you not learn some things here that you did not know before?

    One last comment. It is ironic if you properly interprete your introductory statement:
    Legally it actually says that you are removing me from being considered a fool.

    Thank you. Fool.


    Dismiss: (4) - To discontinue or reject a claim or action.

    To have said what you apparently wanted to say would have been"

    "I am dismissing you. You are a fool." But it turns out, for all your self proclaimed education, don't even know how to construct sentences which aren't opposite in meaning from what you want. Guess what that really says about you and your opinions.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    When you read this I just ask that you remember that you cast the first stone and if you think you will harrass me you will find that I can more than return the favor.
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Here is a slightly modified scenario for you to consider.

    There are two clocks. Clock A is stationary at x=0. Clock B moves in the positive x direction at a speed of 0.9c.

    Here is a spacetime diagram which matches the description below.

    With all measurments in A's reference frame, the following events occur:

    1. Clocks A and B are together at x=0 at time t=0. The two clocks are both set to t=t'=0 at this time. The two clocks are mechanically identical.
    2. At time t=3600 seconds, a signal consisting of a pulse of light is sent out from A towards B. When B receives this signal, he will instantly stop his clock.
    3. At time t=36000 seconds (10 hours), A stops his own clock.
    4. At time t=36000 seconds, B receives the signal from A, and stops his own clock. At this time, B is at a distance of 9.71 &times; 10<sup>12</sup> metres from the origin.

    All of these events are plotted on the spacetime diagram. A few things to notice:

    * The blue horizontal line at 36000s connects all events which are simultaneous for A when t=36000s.
    * The red dashed diagonal line is the path of the light ray emitted by A at t=3600 and received by B at t=36000s.
    * The diagonal black line is clock B's world line.

    Note in particular that in this thought experiment, clocks A and B both stop at exactly the same time according to A. There is nothing magical which stops the clocks. B's clock is stopped the instant he receives the signal from A, which A happens to have timed in such a way that B receives the signal at exactly the time that A has decided to stop A's own clock.

    Now, what happens in this situation from B's point of view?

    Here is B's spacetime diagram, showing the same events:

    With all measurments in B's reference frame this time, the following events occur:

    1. Clocks A and B are together at x'=0 at time t'=0. The two clocks are both set to t=t'=0 at this time. The two clocks are mechanically identical. A moves in the negative x' direction at 0.9c.
    2. At time t'=8258 seconds, a signal consisting of a pulse of light is sent out from A towards B. When B receives this signal, he will instantly stop his clock.
    3. At time t'=82590 seconds, A stops his clock. By this time, event 4 has already occurred for B.
    4. At time t'=15692 seconds, B receives the signal from A, and stops his own clock. At this time, A is at a distance of 4.23 &times; 10<sup>12</sup> metres from the origin, still moving and still ticking, since event 3 has not happened yet in this frame.

    Again, all events are shown on the spacetime diagram. Note:

    * The blue line connects all events which are simultaneous for A at the time A stops his clock.
    * The red dashed diagonal line is the path of the light ray emitted by A and received by B.
    * The diagonal black line is clock A's world line.
    * The horizontal green line connects all events which are simultaneous according to B with B receiving the message from A and stopping B's clock. Notice that in this frame, B is 4.23 &times; 10<sup>12</sup> m away from A when B stops his clock, as measured by him.

    At the end this series of events, once both observers agree that both clocks have stopped, the clocks are compared. The readings on the clocks are:

    Clock A: 36000 s
    Clock B: 15692 s

    There has been no mystical instantaneous communication between observers in this scenario.

    Observer A says both clocks stopped simultaneously according to him. Observer B says clock B stopped long before clock A stopped. B stopped his clock on receiving the signal at t'=15692 s. However, B had to wait until t'=82590 s before A finally stopped A's clock.

    Now, MacM, I am interested in what flaws you see in this scenario, if any.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    James R,

    Just a quick response from having scanned your presentation but not having had time (no pun intended) to fully develope the counter arguement.

    Your presentation seems absolutely correct in the case where finite speed of light has been introduced which is the root cause of Simultaneity shift in data.

    As I had mentioned in the outset of this thread, I proposed a simular system could be advocated but pointed out its potential falicies but did not want to invest the time to demonstrate why it shouldn't be employeed.

    I will respond in more detail later. I'm not blowing you off. I just want to make sure my rebuttal is as well structured as you have elequently presented your best arguement.

    Only one other comment with respect to the indirect enuendo you keep making with regard to my choosen control scheme. That is you refer to it as magical and involving the process considered impossible of being instantaneous communication.

    Please explain how preset timers in any way becomes magical? The fact that it presents a rather abusurd idea of testing time dilation by presetting the count that the clock will produce doesn't alter the fact that if you assume relativity is valid the data you are going to get is what should be produced.

    It is in fact the same data as you can see in your scenario. It suggests that all is equal but on closer inspection it seems there is a difference since one is produced using finite communication which does induce and include a simultaneity consideration and my proposed test is indeed equivelent to having a system of instant communication.

    The facts are agreed. To do so is not an actual physical test of time-dilation of a physical clock but it is a valid test of the theory mathematically which is the purpose of the test.

    I believe it can be shown that in your system you will have a much more difficult time linking the three clocks to function in a true instantaneous manner using light signals because of the finite speed of light combined with the affect of Lorentz Contraction, Velocity Addition between B and C, and simultaniety (relative shifted views) vs a true instantaneous control where these relavistic parameters are mitigated.

    Let me end here for now with asking you a question.

    Do you conceed that there MUST be a difference in the physical reality between your process where simultaneity is structured in and my system where it is defacto instantaneous with respect to all three clocks?

    At one point you asked why three clocks. There are three clocks because it is easier to show the difference in the two control system views. If we can agree that there IS a difference in reality in the two views then I think we are probably in full agreement as to both tests. We can then move to a more productive arguement addressing the instantaneous consequences upon Relativity and why or why not instaneous communication schemes should be considered.

    Now Pete advanced better than anyone historically has here to begin to understand the consequences. He concluded that indeed I have sucessfully created an instant communication control and that indeed it seemed incompatible with Relativity.

    But at that juncture his faith in Relativity caused him to conclude that it must be that to do so violates Relativity and hence is no longer a valid relavistic question.

    He then unfortunately took the position that the test was invalid "Because SRT claimed something different". As I have said many times the claims of a theory are not proof of the theory.

    My conclusion is that it is still relativity and that it shows a conflict which must be addressed rather than stomp off claiming the test isn't testing Relativity.

    I believe this is what Pete was unable to grasp and couldn't understand. The consequences are that Relativity of the system is still functioning and you get the same data but there is no on going simultaneity. Simultaneity has been rendered to a value of "0" and is eliminated from consideration. Then and only then can one see the conflict to which I have been trying to expose here for two years.

    Lets not screw this one up. It seems to have advanced further and better than past efforts. We have actually gotten to the root question and it deserves an answer. One of us is going to learn something by exploring this issue in its fullest.

    Don't answer this from your instinct. Think about it for a bit because I DO believe that is the difference and it IS signifigant as I have tried to point out.

    I appreciate your willingness to proceed with this in the professional manner you generally do. It seems unfortunate that others seem to become angry when they can't respond to the issue presented and want to cite SRT as it's own proof and when that is rejected they become beligerant and call people fools for not converting to their view.

    A theory is not proven by quoting the results of the theory. You have to dissect the data and how the data is generated. I think you will be able to visualize the following example without the need of a diagram.

    If I am an observer between two moving masses, using a stop watch (this event doesn't need to be synchronized to make the point) I could time how long it took them to simultaneously cross my location.

    I could get the same time result from an unlimited number of conditions. It would depend on where inbetween the masses I am located and the relative velocities of the two masses. So getting the same time interval result is meaningless unless we analyze in greater depth the reason we do so.

    This SRT test is a simular situation we can get the same data but the basis of its generation can be enitrely different and consequently project a different future of what will happen necessarily changes.

    It matters a great deal if we assume the masses start motion time is truely synchronized via instantaneous communication from my view or are synchronized by light speed communication.

    If in fact we ultimately jointly conclude that the instantaneous control does not eliminate simultaniety then I certainly would have to wonder why and would need to give all this a bit more thought myself.

    But I do see a conflict in the two views although they result in the same initial data. It is somewhat simular to comparing a "Premptive" strike to a "Retalitory" strike. They are both responses to attacks but the consequences are considerably different. In one you have already suffered the damage, the other you have avoided it. Simulataniety is the attack.

    To summarize my conclusions about Relativity in a form which may be understandable. It is mathematically consistant and useful (to a point) but should be used understanding its limitations in that it really is not dealing with physical reality.

    It is simular to claiming that there are two imaginary masses identified as i m1 and i m2 in collsion where their product -e1 * -e2 = +momentum or impulse. Such that a positive result, a true existing result has been created via two negative or imaginary inputs.

    That is a case of two wrongs making a right.

    When if we are true to ourselves and physical reality we should not accept this momentum product as being real since it is based on nonexisting imaginary inputs.

    Hope the above all made at least a little sense.

    Back later. Thanks.
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2004
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    James R,

    First a minor error but not a point of contention. Based on 3E8m/s it takes 33 1/3 seconds less to reach 9.71E12 Km.

    I looked at your first example and I noted that you have not considered Lorentz Contraction. I personally have argued against spatial contraction and all Relativists here (I believe including you) disagreed with me.

    At 0.9c "B's" distance assuming contraction would only be 4.23E12 Km and have required only 14,100 seconds for light to travel that distance since it is speed invariant. that would occur only 10,500 seconds after the 3,600 second delay before sending the signal.

    If Lorentz Contraction applies "B" will stop his clock at only 14,100 seconds.

    I then scrolled down and was going to see what you did in the second example and I saw the 4.23E12 Km number. I haven't disected it yet but will await your clarification regarding your distance/time numbers vs Lorentz Contraction of space by the moving observer vs the uncontracted distance of light with invariant velocity.

    To just comment briefly on the differances in the two control schemes:

    In my control the signals to the three clocks are defacto equivelent to instantaneous communication (i.e. - as though it were achieved by particle entanglement).

    In that case ALL clocks shut down simultaneously and there is no delay in the other clocks receiving the information that the other clocks have also shut down because the onboard other clock monitor counters also simultaneously shut down displaying the stopped condition of all clocks.

    There is no "Relativity of Simultaneity". There is not ongoing clock time and changing of the accumulated times on any clocks.

    In your case and in all conventional applications of Relativity, although you are correct in saying the clocks will shut down simultaneously, you still include the simultaniety delay communicating that fact to other clocks and allow them to continue to accumulate time.

    Actually the only problem with your system is that you glaze over the fact that NO clocks are running while that information is enroute between clocks. All clocks have physically stopped.

    Test over and my point still stands. It is only when you slip back into your "SRT says" mode and ignore the fact that stopped clocks don't accumulate time and in either scheme when the clocks are returned the data will not match.

    To make your system equivelent to mine you would need to precalculate the delay time for clock "B" to send an avanced signal back to "A" telling "A" upon receipt of this signal I will have shut down my clock.

    Work out that math correctly and both clocks shut down and both know the other shut down simultaneously and there is again no ongoing time accumulation in the system.

    Do that with my three clocks and you can clearly see that time dilation by Relativity is a physical impossibility since you are requiring a physical clock to posses and display three different accumulated times simultaneously.

    I really fail to see where anybody can argue with my proof. It is dirt simple. I used preset timers to insure I captured time dilations mathematically predicted by relativity and "STOPPED" all clocks at those numbers.

    You cannot ignore that fact and continue to insist that clocks are continuing to accumulate time because of Simultaneity per SRT since they are no longer running.

    You complain that my preset timers to simulate particle entanglement control is magic. I suggest there is nothing magic about the operation of a timer but to suggest stopped clocks continue to accumulate time - NOW THAT IS MAGIC.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I do believe this proves that Relativity is not representing physical reality. It functions by combining to or more physical impossibilities to produce a positive result.

    i.e. - The old principle of two wrongs making a right. While mathematically it may be a valuable tool, it simply cannot be accepted as physical reality.
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2004
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Not an error. I used c=299792458 m/s, which is the exact value, rather than c=300000000 m/s.

    You only ever have to worry about distance contraction when you convert between two different frames of reference. If you do all your calculations in the same reference frame, there is no length contraction.

    Notice on my graphs that distances in each frame are different for the same events. This is one of the results of length contraction as it applies to this situation.

    I think you're mixing frames here. The 3600s number is a time measured in A's frame. In B's frame of reference, the signal is not sent at time 3600s. According to the time on B's clocks, the signal was sent from A at time t'=8258 seconds. It was received at t'=15692. That gives a travel time of the light of 7434 seconds. In that time, the light covers a distance of 7434c metres, or 2.23 &times; 10<sup>12</sup> metres. At the time the light was emitted, clock A was exactly that distance away from B, as measured by B, so all the numbers are correct.

    As I have said, according to clock A in my scheme, both A and B shut down simultaneously. The signal timing is rigged precisely to make sure that is what happens.

    Your problem is that you fudge the simultaneity issue by assuming that any events which occur simultaneously in one frame must be simultaneous in all frames, which is not true. If, instead of my light signal, I simply programmed the two clocks to shut down at t=36000s (t'=15692), which is what you say you do, then exactly the same spacetime diagrams would result, except there would be no light signal involved.

    You can't just write issues of simultaneity out of existence like this. If you say the issue doesn't arise, then you are a assuming universal time, which also means the speed of light would vary in different frames of reference. That is not observed in reality.

    No. Clock A is programmed to shut down at the precise instant that its counter reads 36000s. After that, it does not run. Clock B is programmed to shut down the instant it receives the light signal from Clock A. After that, it does not run.

    According to A, clock B receives the light signal at exactly the same instant that A's counter reaches 36000s, so both clocks stop at exactly the same time, and afterwards do not run.

    According to B, B shuts down on receiving the signal at t'=15692 seconds. After that time, B does not run any more, but B continues to watch A's clock tick until it says 36000s, which is the time at which A's clock is programmed to stop. If B's clock had still been running, B would have seen A's clock stop when B's clock said t'=82590s.

    Notice that, according to A, B's clock runs slower than A's, which explains why B's clock only says 15692 seconds when A's says 36000s. According to B, A's clock runs slower, because A's clock only says 36000s when B's clock would have said 82590s (if it was still running).

    I haven't included events which occur after BOTH clocks have stopped, because for the purposes of this test it doesn't matter how long it takes to collate the readings from both clocks in one place after they have both stopped. It is true that it will take some extra time to send B's final reading of 15692s back to A so that it can be compared with A's final reading of 36000s, but all that happens after the experiment is over.

    No stopped clock accumulates time in my scenario. Once A is stopped, it says 36000s forever. Once B is stopped, it says 15692s forever. Both observers agree that there is only a single point in time when clock A stops, and a single point in time when clock B stops. But they disagree on what those times are.

    That is easy to arrange, and makes no fundamental difference to the scenario.

    I have already worked out the math correctly, in detail. I have drawn two correct spacetime diagrams, above. Everything you need has been presented for your analysis.

    If you think there is an error, show me where it is. The only assumption I have made is that the speed of light is the same according to both observers.

    You're falling back on old, unsubstantiated claims. Show me where, in my scenario, either clock possesses two different accumulated times at once.

    I used a preset timer for A, and used an actual signal to stop B. Can you find any fault in my method or conclusions?

    See above.

    Your preset timers are irrelevant, really. I have no major objection to them. However, if you use preset timers what does it prove? Nothing. If you preset clock A to stop when it READS 36000s, and preset clock B to stop when it reads 36000s, then when you compare the readings after everybody agrees the clocks have stopped, you won't be surprised to find that they both read 36000s. But that won't tell you anything at all about which clock stopped first or whether they stopped at the same time, because you don't know, in advance, whether they are running at the same rate or not. (And in fact, they do not.)
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I should respond to your earlier post too.

    Thankyou for agreeing. Do you wish to argue that the speed of light is not actually finite, then? Or that the speed of light is not constant for all observers? Because if so, we can have a real discussion. If either of these arguments are correct, then relativity MUST be wrong. But so far, that doesn't seem to be your argument.

    Hopefully, I've answered this in my previous post.

    Adding another clock only makes the situation a little more complicated. It doesn't alter the fundamental results or explanation. I could easily add another clock travelling at some different speed to my spacetime diagrams here, and still organise a light signal to stop all the clocks simultaneously from any particular reference frame. That would still mean they would not stop simultaneously in the other two frames, of course.

    Not really. My example was structured to show you how real simultaneity in one frame could be achieved. It shows clearly that simultaneity is not a universal concept.

    I hope so.
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    I agree.

    thanks for the clarification.

    Again we can agree.

    I have also agreed.

    You are only partly correct here. We agree as I stated on the shut down issue and we would agree if I relied on clocks operating until it saw other clocks stop, etc. But that is not what happens in a real simultaneous shut down.

    Don't forget not only did I shut down the clocks but the monitors of the other clocks also shut down displaying instantly the fact that the other clocks had stopped. there is no simulatainety issue for the clocks to continue to accumulate times. The data at shut down show not only the primary clocks time but the time it recorded for the other clocks. the data does not agree.

    But I did and I can. The system I proposed simulates control by particle entanglement. Particle entanglement is a real phenomena. You can't rely on the excuse that "But SRT says". It matters not what SRT says stopped clocks in this case do not continue to change their data. Relativity fails.

    I agree and just as my system shuts down both clocks simultaneously so does yours.

    I agree.

    As I said in my reply that is where you have gone wrong. You no longer are simulating an instantaneous control.

    In my control system. The monitor was shut down instantly along with the primary clock because it had instant information about the status of clock "A". The monitor showing "B's" view of clock "A" at the time it actually shut down is therefor recorded and does NOT continue to change.

    At shut down:

    A = 36,000 Monitor see's B as 15,692
    B = 15,692 Monitor see's A as 6,840

    All clocks and all monitors of other clocks have stopped and recorded the relavisticly predicted relationship. Clock A shut down B's clock "A" monitor instantly when it stopped. You keep missing that point in your examples.

    Clock A must now be able to have accumulated and display two different times to satisfy both observers view via relativity. It is not possible hence Relativity is flawed.

    You are including simultaneity delay by not instantly updating the remote monitor that A has stopped. You no longer are working in a instant control system network.

    All clocks stop with numbeers as agreed but you are wrong to suggest that B will record anything other than the 6,840 number for A. A told B "I have stopped" at the same instant that B stopped so B's monitor stopped recording B's view of a required time by relativity.

    AND IT IS WRONG!. Now what?

    So give a detailed explanation just how you accumulated anything but 6,840 on B's monitor of clock A.

    Easy to arrange yes. But makes every differance as stated.

    Wrong. You did not record B's view of A's time when A told it "I have stopped". You permitted it to continue to run until by delayed action it recieved that information via light speed.

    I believe I have pointed out the error.

    I have above. And you are falling back on "But SRT says" and then continue to apply it when no clock nor the monitor of each clock are running. EVERYTHING is instantaneous. B's monitor of clock Astopped the instant A stopped and it stopped at 6,840 as per Relativity.

    Clock A cannot read both 36,000 and 6,840 at the same time. So B's view (time adjusted per relativity) does not exist since clock A will read 36,000.

    I have as predicted in my initial response of the differences in the control. You are not instantly informing B's monitor of its Relavistic view of A that A has stopped. I do.

    This is a strawman's dodge. I have made it clear that the roceedure doesn't actually test time dilation physically since it is all preprogramed. But it is not inconsistant in that it produces the times per the mathematics of Relativity and permits us to simulate instant control, which you can also simulate if you complete the loop as I recommended by having B send an advanced signal to A saying I will be shut down when you recieve this signal and to also have you signal telling B to shut down to also inform its monitor of A that A has shut down so that it too will shut down.

    Everything will have shut down and there simply is no simultaneity to contend with. Only the fact that Relativity predicts that a physical clock possesses two different time accumulation at the same time.

    And that was the purpose of the test in the first case. To test the mathemataics of Relativity.

    Relativity fails that test.
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Your are attempting to distort my position. I have never suggested here that light speed is not finite. I have never claimed the speed of light is not concstant.

    The failure of Relativity is more basic than that. It requires a series of impossibilites to be combined to function.

    You however, have not addressed my stated issue which is with the three clocks and to also produce each primary cocks view of all other clocks you will need to accomadate the Velocity addition between clocks B & C.

    I would be interested to see just how you do that with a light signal. Perhaps multiple signals but it would be quite an exercise.

    It show you failed to produce instantaneous control of all clocks and clock monitors.
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Before I respond in detail, let me address the main point you make, so it doesn't get lost in a long post. You say:

    If you want to include monitors on both clocks, then I agree with these figures. You might also want to ask HOW clock A sees clock B, and vice-versa to make the picture complete. One way would be for A to continuously send a signal with its current reading to B. Then B would adjust for the calculated travel time of the signal to display whatever A would have read simultaneously with B's own reading. The numbers you havequotes above are completely correct.

    If A has a simultaneous B monitor, then when A's clock displays 36000s, A says that B's clock is simultaneously showing 15692s. This is due to time dilation: B's clock runs slow from A's point of view.

    If B has a simultaneous A monitor, then when B's clock displays 15692s, B says that A's clock is simultaneously showing 6840s. This is also due to time dilation: A's clock runs slow from B's point of view.

    All this means is that A's time of 36000s is simultaneous with B's time of 15692s, from A's point of view. And B's time of 15692s is simultaneous with A's time of 6840s, from B's point of view. The different lines of simultaneity for the two observers are drawn on both spacetime diagrams I gave above, and they show all this. The blue line on either diagram is A's line of simultaneity for the stopping events. The green line is B's line of simultaneity for the same events. The two lines are different.

    This is no problem at all for relativity or reality for that matter, because relativity describes reality, as has been shown by innumerable actual experiments.

    Introducing quantum entanglement doesn't solve your problem; it just muddies the waters a bit. For a start, it is impossible to transmit a signal instantaneously using entanglement, so your arrangement is flawed at its core. But, even if it were possible, the issue of the relativity of simultaneity would remain.

    Suppose you instantaneously (somehow) sent a signal from A to B to stop B's clock when A read 36000s. You STILL have to ask: instantaneously according to whom? Because we know that what is simultaneous for A is not simultaneous for B, regardless of any system of communication used. (Simultaneity only depends on relative motion, and gravity if present.) So, A's simultaneous, instantaneous magical signal is still only simultaneous for A and not for B.

    If you want to discuss this further, it is probably best to stick to experiments which could actually be done in the real world, using light signals, for example. Otherwise you're off in never never land making all kinds of assumptions which might be unwarranted.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    More detail...

    The data does not need to agree in that case. Each clock simply looks (perhaps with a powerful telescope) at the time displayed on the other clock when the first clock is shut down, as adjusted for time delay for the image to get from the second clock to the first.

    No. Clock A still only records one time when it is shut down. It records 36000s for its own time. If it happens to be instantaneously monitoring clock B at the time, then it also records 15692s for clock B's display.

    You can only ensure that the clocks stop simultaneously in one reference frame, since different frames have different concepts of what is simultaneous. Therefore, I have done all I can do - ensured that clocks A and B stop precisely simultaneously according to A. If you want it the other way around, we could arrange that they both stop simultaneously according to B, but that would be a different experiment, since then A's simultaneity would be lost.

    Paradoxes only arise when you insist on stopping the clocks simultaneously in BOTH frames at once. That is simply not possible. You can't use entanglement or any other known physical process to do it. In fact, we can go further and say that there can be no physical process which would let you do this, unless one or both of the postulates of special relativity are wrong.

    In my arrangement, with the light signal, what happens is this:

    At t=3600s (t'=8258s), clock A sends out the signal to clock B saying "Stop your clock. This message was sent at 3600s." A has to send the signal out earlier than when it actually stops to compensate for the time it will take the signal to reach B. This choice of timing ensures that instantaneously (from A's point of view only!) when clock A reads 36000s and stops, clock B will just be receiving the signal to stop.

    You are 100% correct, provided that we are talking about the same observer. Clock A cannot read 36000 and 6840 at the same time according to A. Nor can it read 36000 and 6840 at the same time according to B. But due to time dilation effects B can certainly see it reading a different time than B's own clock at any particular time you care to nominate. That's the whole point of relativity. It tells us how to calculate the time on one clock from the point of view of another clock at a particular time.

    Constant for all observers, you mean. Well, in that case that eliminates one possible line of argument for attacking relativity. That means you are now forced to disagree with the only other postulate: that the laws of physics take different forms in different frames of reference. I will be interested indeed to see that argument from you.

    If you REALLY want me to throw in another clock, I can do so. It makes no fundamental difference. If you can't comprehend the simultaneity issue with two clocks, adding another one won't make things any easier. I really think we're better off working on your issues with the two clocks in my example, forgetting about imaginary ways of communicating, and sticking with real physics until you understand why we get the results I posted above.
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    So far so good. Finally, since the basis of my comments for two years has been this very issue. Simultaneous views of physical clocks by different observers cannot be physical reality because the physical clock cannot possess and display multiple times simultaneously.

    This test had such monitors from the outset but you may have failed to recognize that since you have a tendancy to address these issues from a more casual level of "Per SRT says.....". We are no longer concerned with what SRT says because we are testing SRT via a thought expeiment.

    Not very well I am afraid. Just how do you justify this statement and view that somehow a theory claiming physical impossibilities isn't flawed.? That is not a very solid basis for physics or physicist to take. "I don't care if it is impossible because....". Actually funny if it weren't so absolutely sad.

    I take exception to your and others claim that information cannot be sent FTL. The simple and most obvious truth is that mankind today is simply just to ignorant to understand how nature does it in the universe. It is quite obvious that these particles send and receive information FTL.

    Howelse would you describe the remote particle knowing the state of the local particle has changed? It clearly received information. So the fact that we cannot yet duplicate nature has no bearing on the obvious fact that FTL is natural and exists.

    But that is not at issue. Thought experiments routinely describe situations which we cannot physically achieve, just as a means of evaluating "What if". I don't think I will see you build a rocket that achieves 0.9 c in my life time but you still refer to that when advocating Relativity. Our current ability to achieve such feats is not a basis to declare a test viable or not. Adhering to the conditions and predictions of the theory is the only requirement for a thought experiment to be a valid test.

    This is a hollow statement and absolutely incorrect. Accepting the fact of FTL and particle entanglement potential for instantaneous control of the clocks does indeed expose the physical impossibilities claimed as the basis of the mathematical functions of Relativity.

    You and others have repeated falsely accused me of not understanding Relativity. Those charges have been blatantly false.

    I have told you I understand the function of Relativity but merely reject them on just grounds. Now it is my turn to say clearly that you do not understand the implications of Relativity and you reject the obvious only conclusion possible in favor of "No, that can't be right for some reason because SRT says.....".

    You cannot prove SRT quoting the claims of SRT.

    I have led you to the water. I cannot force you to drink. I at least on this occasion have gotten you to acknowledge the truth. That is Relativity requires a physical clock to posses and display multiple time accumulations at the same time (simultaneously).

    The fact that you choose to claim that that doesn't really matter is laughable but go ahead defend relativity, I would have expected nothing less. Fortunately I suspect there are many lurkers out there that also see the naked truth. Relativity is flawed.
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2004
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Rather than respond over and over to minute issues which in reality do not
    impact the only conclusion of this thought experiment possible. I am going
    to re-write the experiment so as to eliminate those objections. Since we
    seem to agree on what the various clocks views are but the implications of
    what that ultimately means.

    I have brought you to the brink of truth but once faced with that truth you
    resort to "Well you can't actually do this and therefore the test is invalid
    and make believe. The obvious fact is you routinely use such impossible to
    achieve conditions in every example of advocating Relativity via a thought experiment that you make.

    If I am wrong I would like you to demonstrate your ability to build and
    operate a rocket at 0.9 c or any other speed that is a substantial % of the
    speed of light.

    But to eliminate these arbitrary diversions from addressing the naked truth
    I now re-write the basis for this test.


    To evaluate the mathematics of Relativity with respect to time-dilation
    between observers moving with a linear relative velocity.


    Primis 1: It is not necessary to physically achieve or even be able to
    achive conditions stipulated in the test as long as such conditions result
    in correct Relavistic responses mathematically.

    Primis 2: Since it is known that particle entanglement is apparently fact
    and that such particles receive information between them FTL (Instantaneous
    as best as we can tell), assuming that the phenomena is indeed
    instantaneous, exploring the function of Relativity in that regime using
    multiple clocks and clock monitors via simulations calibrated to mimic
    Relativity will result in exposing physical impossibilities in the
    predictions of Relativity.


    The test will replicate time dilation predicted by Relativity for linear
    relative velocity between two (or more) clocks. It will by simulation
    demonstrate the functions of Relativity by simulating particle entanglement
    type control or instantaneous control exposing the underlying basis for
    Relativity functions.


    1 - A primary test control clock labled "A" is presumed to be located in
    deep space as a relative rest inertial frame. It is calibrated to and by
    the best clock standard available to man.

    2 - A secondary clock labled "B" is used to simulate an observer in relative
    motion to clock "A", at a velocity of 0.9c. This is achieved by calibrating
    this clock to run at the dilated rate predicted by Relativity as though it
    were in fact in space moving at the stipulated relative velocity, however is
    is actually setting along side clock A" on the lab bench.

    The calculated gamma function for 0.9c is being taken to be 2.29416 which
    will cause clock
    "B" to run at 43.589% of the rate of clock "A" and results in an accumulated
    time display of 15,692 seconds when simultaneously clock "A" has accumulated
    the 36,000 seconds of the test period before it shuts down.

    3 - Clock "A" has a secondary clock which is calibrated to simulate "A's"
    relavistically dilated view of clock "B" time which is the same calibration
    used on clock "B" producing an accumulated time display of 15,692 seconds
    during the test period.

    4 - Clock "B" also has a secondary clock calibrated to act as a monitor of
    "B's" relavistically dilated view of clock "A". This calibration must be
    for a gamma of 2.29416 of the clock rate of "B" or produce 43.589% the count
    of 15,692 seconds which is 6,840 seconds that clock "B" says clock "A"
    accumulated before stopping the test prematurely.

    5 - To simulated particle entanglement or instantaneous control all
    calibrated oscillators, but not the ower supplies and displays of all clocks
    and monitors are connected to a common On-Off switch control to shut of by
    clock "A" acquiring a count display of accumulated of 36,000 seconds.


    Having turned on the simulator system starting with every clock and monitor
    having been set to 00000.0000.

    When clock "A" reaches the preset test time it turns off all clock
    operations other than the displays of accumulated time. As expected and
    required for the test to be valid it correctly displays all times as
    predicted for all clocks and monitors as being:

    "A" = 36,000 seconds.

    "A's" Monitor of clock "B's" dilated time per "A" = 15,692 seconds.

    "B" = 15,692 seconds

    ."B's" Monitor of clock "A's" dilated time per "B" = 6,840 seconds.

    "A" and "B" clocks agree on their view of B's dilated time relative to "A"
    but they disagree as to the time clock "A" must record to be relavistic
    relative to "B".

    Clock "A" in accordance with Relativity must possess and display two
    distinct times simultaneously of 36,000 seconds and 6,840 seconds.


    Since upon conclusion of the local time of the test clock "A" terminated the
    test throughout the system instantly and simultaneously it recorded each
    clocks view according to the Theory of Relativity for comparison. The fact
    that clock "A" accumulated and displays 36,000 seconds but that "B's"
    Monitor dilated view of "A" claims that "A" must display 6,840 seconds, is
    not only invalid but impossible in physical reality.

    Relativity is flawed in that it relies upon physical impossiblities
    normally hidden or masked by inclusion of information being transferred via
    finite and invariant speed of light information transfer system which
    induces real time delays and distorts accumulated data on a real time or
    instant basis.

    Dan K. McCoin
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    James R,

    Thanks for being stubborn, you have forced me to present an even better proof of the failure of Relativity. The one presented should have good enough for anyone open to the possiblity and willing to take the information and apply it as physical reality requires but as we can see that isn't going to work because you are going to continue to refuse to recognize the signifigance of the data.

    Therefore lets see you answer this.

    Each primary clock has onboard a super laser and they each are calibrated to a specific beam frequency which is used to maintain constant communication. The doppler shift in this carrier beam represents and can be correlated to relative velocity.

    One clock is placed under acceleration and it continues to do so for some undefined amount of time and then cuts the thrusters and begins to coast.

    It has been agreed in advance that once the doppler shift of each others communication beam stablizies that they know they have a fixed linear relative velocity and convert that and find that they are now seperating at 0.9c.

    Since each clock is incremented by the local light beam frequencey without doppler shift they will in fact operate at a common frequency of ticks or proper local time rate flow.

    The magnitude of the doppler shift is converted to display their relative velocity to each other. The clocks are started and they modulate the carrier beam in proportion to their local clock rate. That is for example an amplitude sideband which modulates so that the number of carrier waves per modulated envelope is converted by an on board monitor of the other clock, to set the rate of ticks in the monitor to the rate of ticks of the other clock in reality.

    When the first modulated packet of information arrives the system resets the clock and begins keeping time locally and converting the information being sent by the other clock into a tick rate of the monitor of the other clock and its counter accumulates time in accordance with information about the other clock's accumulated time. This is because accumulated time in reality is a direct function of a clocks tick rate. Knowing the tick rate is converted to accumulated time precisely.

    Each clock will run for 36,000 seconds local time.

    From this scenario it can be seen that both clocks will register the same amount of time over time and the remote monitor of the other clocks time disagrees with Relativity in that all clocks and monitors show the same accumulated time simultaneously since this is being done where the relative velocity is constant and the information, albeit delayed, contains information about the other clocks true physical tick rate, hence accumulated time.

    At the end of the test:

    A = 36,000
    B = 36,000
    "A's" Monitor of "B" = 36,000
    "B's" Monitor of "A" = 36,000

    Relativity does not exist in reality. It is a product of misinformation due to using a delayed information system of comparison. One could indeed establish an alternate method of communication using pony express and get even different Relavistic responses.

    The curves of relativity are a direct function of the method and magnitude of information delay, nothing less, nothing more and that is perception and not physical reality.

    The physical reality is all time flows at the same rate regardless of relative velocity.
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2004
  17. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Before we go any further, let's stop here. Quantum entanglement cannot be used to transmit information instantaneously.

    And here is why: Let's say that you entangle two particles using spin.

    One particle has spin up and the other spin down. While these particles remain entangled, their individual spins are indeterminent(neither has decided whether it is spin up or down), the only thing we know is that if one is spin up the other is spin down.

    We separate the particles. We now measure the spin of particle one. When we measure its spin, it decides whether or not it is spin up or down and takes on that state (say spin up). Instantly, particle two takes on the opposite state, and anyone measuring particle two will measure that it has spin down.

    Now here's the rub. Entanglement is a two way street. If particle two is measured first, it will determine the state of particle one. So when someone measures the state of either, they have no way of knowing of whether they are the "first" to measure one of the pair. Not unless the another type of signal is sent from one to the other saying."I tested my particle at time x, according to my clock". At which point the person recieving the message can say,"well according to my clock, I tested my particle at y, and according to me x happened before y, therefore you triggered the event.

    But since this communication has to take place by conventional means, you don't gain anything in the way of instantaneous information transfer.

    And it not like you can sit and monitor your particle, wait until it picks a state, and then go, "Aha! my counter part has just measured his particle."

    The very act of montitoring you particle will cause the particle to pick a state of its own.

    So forget Quantum entanglement, there is no way you can use it to transmit useful information, or even a time marking signal.

    One other point. Once either of you measure your respective particles and the particles each settle on their respective states, the entanglement is broken. You can flip the state of either particle now and the other will remain uneffected.
  18. Paul T Registered Senior Member

    Sorry, MacM....I must say, this whole idea of yours is useless and meaningless! I know, you will tell me that this is my baseless attack. But, what's the point of having clocks, one on earth and one travel at 0.9c relative to earth, running for 36,000 seconds before being stopped and then comparing them. Sure enough, both clocks show time 36,000 seconds..even a quite dumb person would know that. So...what's the point, MacM? How such thing fundamental enough to show that relativity (SR) is flawed? Sorry, I am just not as creative nor smart as you to understand that.
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Maybe, just maybe if you did more thinking and less talking you would figure out the signifigance. According to relativity clock "B" according to "A" should read 15,692 seconds. According to relativity "B" claims that "A" should read 6,840 seconds.

    But this test which can be performed, does not require unusual technology, shows that indeed time is universal and unaffected by relative velocity. It is only perception induced by delayed information that makes relativity appear correct. Two synchronized clocks will remain synchronized regardless of relative velocity.

    If you happen to not know that violates Relativity then let me be the first to tell you that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member


    No problem. We happen to know all that. If you read carefully I only simulated the instant communication by particle entanglement. Feel free to argue that no information is transferred but I would have to argue tha the particles certainly disagree with you. Our not being able to make use of the communication systen is nat at issue here. By simulating the instant communication you can see the falicy of Relativity.

    But since everbody wants to be stuborn about this please comment on the 2nd test.

    Paul T couldn't grasp it but it is rather straight forward. Instead of trying to show that Relativity induces an incorrect time, it shows that Relativity doesn't exist. "Time in reality is Invariant".! Relativity is a misperception created by delay in information about the true status of clocks. Check it out.

    Please read slowly and digest it before you commit to comment
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Here is the fundamental point you are missing:

    ** For any particular observer, neither of the clocks displays multiple times simultaneously.

    Let's make this quite clear. At any given time, clock A sees one and only one time on both itself and on clock B. At any given time, clock B sees one and only one time on both itself and on clock A.

    When clock A shuts down, the time it records for clock B is 15692 s.
    When clock B shuts down, the time it records for clock A is 6840 s.

    The clocks shut down simultaneously according to clock A.
    The clocks do NOT shut down simultaneously according to clock B.

    No, it is not obvious. In fact it is false. To understand why, you have to be clear on what "information" is. You can't say you have information until you have made the measurement which gives the information to you. So, if you're holding particle 2, which happens to be entangled with particle 1, then you won't receive any information about the state of particle 2 until you measure its state, regardless of what happens to particle 1. And even then, you won't be able to deduce whether a similar measurement has been made on particle 1 yet.

    Janus58 has already explained this above.

    Even if we accept that the particle received information, which is arguable in itself, it is quite clear that you, as an observer, have received no information. Say you measure the spin of particle 2 and get a result of spin up. So what? What does this tell you about whether a measurement has been made on particle 1? Nothing. Maybe you destroyed the entanglement by measuring particle 2. Or maybe the holder of particle 1 destroyed the entanglement by measuring particle 1 first. You have no way of knowing, other than to send normal signals to each other telling the times the measurements were made. And those signals are limited to the speed of light.

    We're not talking here about possible FTL influences. We're talking about transmitting information FTL. Entanglement does not allow the transmission of information FTL.

    A good thought experiment is one for which we have some reason to suspect it is feasible in practice. My experiment, using light signals, seems perfectly reasonable. We know how to send light signals. And there's no reason to suppose that, given enough fuel, we couldn't accelerate a rocket to 90% of the speed of light.

    On the other hand, your experimental setup demands a magical assumption of FTL communication, for which we have no experimental evidence at all.

    Which thought experiment is more likely to give sensible answers, do you suppose, then? My real-world experiment, or your fantasy-world one?

    I agree!

    You may well be perfectly correct. In a fantasy world where FTL information transference is possible, then paradoxes may very well arise. Who knows? But in our real world, it seems that such paradoxes don't exist.

    If we ever discover that FTL travel or information transfer is possible in the real world, we may need to rethink relativity. But until that happens, there's no need.

    Whether you understand it or not should come out of your post content, not from your repeated protestations. Making repeated assertions that you understand, while at the same time continually demonstrating that you have misconceptions, is really a waste of everybody's time.

    I agree again.

    SR has been experimentally tested in hundreds of real-world experiments. That's why we believe it is valid.

    Your conclusion is incorrect. If you had bothered to look at and understand the spacetime diagrams I provided for you, it would be obvious to you that at any given time, each clock displays only one time.

    Unintelligent lurkers who don't understand the presentation, maybe.

    Premiss 2 is false, but actually unnecessary for the rest of your experiment, so I will ignore the problems with entanglement which I have addressed above.

    No. Because you are ignoring the issue of what is simultaneous for each observer. Your experimental setup has chosen to privilege clock A's concept of simultaneity over clock B's. Thus, you give clock A control over the master power switch. When A turns off the clocks, both of them stop simultaneously according to A (and according to you, who is using A's frame of reference). But in the real, relatistic situation, the clocks would not stop simultaneously from clock B's point of view. And you have failed to include that in your experimental setup. Therefore, you have left out a vital element.

    For clock B, at time 15692 on B's clock, B would indeed see clock A as reading 6840 s. But clock A doesn't stop at 6840 s. It stops when it reads 36000 s. It is only B which is set up by the terms of the experiment to stop when clock B reads 15692 s.

    Once again, your continued pig-headed refusal to acknowledge the existence of the relativity of simultaneity has led you astray.

    No. In my scenario, as presented above (with spacetime diagrams), all delays due to the speed of light have been explicitly calculated and factored out. What remains are the real effects of relativity. There is no masking of information. All information is clearly set out in the diagrams for all to see.

    Your results are incorrect. At the end of this test we would have:

    A = 36000
    B = 36000
    A's monitor of B: 15692
    B's monitor of A: 15692

    This situation is symmetrical.

    That is incorrect. Time dilation effects are what is left once information delay has been factored out.

    Actual experiments, and the theory of relativity, both say differently.
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    I have not missed that point it has been infact my point that physical clocks CANNOT do such a thing. When analyzed in detail that is what Relativity requires even though it is not implicitly or even openly admitted.

    Until here we can agree.

    Only in your scenario. In mine the are defacto simualtaneous in their shutting down.

    All true but you did miss my point I have already noted that man at this point is ignorant of the process but it is more than a stretch to claim that the particles do not communicate. They transfer information among themselves. Have we measured it perse? No. Have you seen a Black Hole or Dark Matter or Dark energy? No. They are inferred by our observations. Communication between particles is inferred by our observations.

    Again we are not in disagreement.

    Perhaps not at this moment and perhaps never with regard to our using it for such purposes but the point was to simulate the instaneous communication for the purpose of thought experiments to test the mathematics of Relativity, not advocating using actual particle entanglment or some other actual instant communication in the process.

    It is by far even easier to setup a simulation of going 0.9c and achieving instantaneous communication to verify the consequences of such an actual feat. You are in left field here. You are claiming it is more feasiable to build a relavistic rocket and actually achieve 0.9c than it is for me to buy a hand full of timers and calibrate the simulation as described. LOL indeed.

    You deliberately distort the point. Nobody is claiming we should actually build a instanteous communication network. We are evaluating the mathematics of Relativity using a simulation of such a system. Big difference and no fowl. Only good insight into the fact of the case of Relativity.

    Yours will give you the answer you want to see and advocate. Mine will show it is invalid at the physical level. When placed in an instantaneous communication enviorment it becomes quite clear that the predictions of relativity are impossible. It is only being masked by using the finite speed of light as a messenger to update information as to "ACTUAL" clock status which includes a delay, hence shift in information vs the reality of the physical clock.

    It is no different that realizing that the sun is not where we think it is by observation but has advanced by 8.5 minutes in the sky. We just don't see it there until 8.5 minutes later. Our seeing it retarted does not make it retarted. It physically in reality is leading our observation and receipt of information.

    Yet when it comes to time-dilation and relativity you want to claim that the very exact same principle in knowledge about a clocks reading becomes reality.

    Is the sun really where we see it? We know it isn't. We know that is not reality. I know that your time-dilation is not reality for the same reason.

    Is it a fantasy world to claim the sun is not where we see it but is advanced by 8.5 minutes? I think not. The fantasy is the world claiming two different views of time on a clock just because you are looking at retarted data makes the view reality. It makes it mis-information not reality.

    The reality is that time is invariant of relative velocity. The reality is that the clock does not read what you observe it reading no more than the sun is where you see it.

    The reality is that the sun is advanced 8.5 minutes from where you see it. The reality is that the clock DOES NOT read what you see it. Relativity is perception not reality.

    Sorry but this is applied "Ditto". The fact is I have presented hard evidence that you are wrong. Your inability to understand or deliberate unwillings to acknowledge it doesn't alter the facts. I full well agree that the content dictates knowledge and understanding. I just happen to be waiting to yet get a valid refutation of the content.

    This situation is indeed exactly identical to the postion of the sun in reality vs observation that I have just made. You know and understand that the sun is advance in its position from our observation but you don't claim that the sun is physically where we see it as a reality. So why do you want to insist that a clocks time in reality is what we observe when it is being shifted by the exact same process as the position of the sun issue?

    Indeed one could come up with some scenarios where the sun's motion is a clock - Gee! maybe something as complicated as a sun dial. Now that is a clock powered by the sun, communicated by light and guess what the sun dials time is invalid. It is retarted 8.5 minutes from the suns true time (position in the sky). Damn it - I am right and you are wrong.

    Good we are making some progress, albiet minimal.

    But to believe something is valid when you can see by direct comparison that it isn't, doesn't seem very scientifc. Perhaps you should drop the pretense and begin to look for alternative explanations for the data.

    I have never argued otherwise. I have argued the time displayed is not reality, it is only perception. Is the sun where the sun dial says or is it really somwhere else. The somewhere else is physical reality. The sun dial is perception.

    When you apply this knowledge and understanding to Relativity you then discover time is invariant to relative velocity in reality and Relativity becomes perception.

    What makes them unintelligent. Because they disagree with you or becuse they might agree with me? That is being a bit arrogant James.

    Good because I am only simulating the instant communication enviornment, not actually using particle entanglement, nor actually performing an instantaneous operation.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. What do you not understand about the meaning of the word "Instantaneous" or "Simultaneous"? Your beloved "Relativity of Simualtenity" is nothing more that a product of information delay created by information transfer via the finite speed of light. That is not the case in this test. I have simulated "Instantaneous communication". Both clocks shut down simultaneous in both clocks view.

    Why do you not understand that this simple method simulates instantaneous communication. Under instantaneous communication clock "B" does not continue to run period. It sees "A" shut down instantly but it see it shut down while reading only 6,840 seconds, while the real time of the physical clock "A" is 36,000 seconds. Relativity got it wrong when viewing reality of the clocks via instant communication.

    Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
  23. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    And once again you merely display that you have no conception of what the Relativity of Simultaniety is about. It is the product of the invariance of the speed of light and not due to signal delay time.

    You have not "simulated instantaneous communication" in any way or form. You have preprogammed clocks to shut down at specific times according to their own readings. These preprogrammed shut down times are chosen so that From the perspective of one clock all the clocks shut down at the same time. The only thing that controls any clock's shut down is what itself reads, it does not matter what any of the other clocks do or what they read at that time according to the first clock or what time is read on that clock by another clock when the other clock shuts down. Each clock runs to its preprogrammed time and then shuts off, period! And every other clock sees that clock run until it reaches its preprogrammed time, even if it means that it must continue to run after the observing clock itself shuts down. Because every clock is designed to run until it reads its preprogrammed time And that is the only event that can stop the clock from running, from any of the clocks' viewpoint.

    No garbage about one clock having different readings at the same time.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page