# Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

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

Not open for further replies.
1. ### Paul TRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
460
MacM,

Just one question, 'smart guy': How on earth this 8.5 minutes of delay for sun ray to reach earth has anything to do with relativity, since earth and sun are more or less in the same inertial reference frame?

You are such an ignorant, MacM. How much do you understand relativity actually? Time delation has been observed countless of times for elementary particles as well as for real (atomic) clocks and you still refused to accept it. When you drive from Texas to NY, carrying a stopwatch in your pocket, theoretically this stopwatch would run slower than your reference stopwatch you kept at home. You would -- theoretically -- find that your travelling stopwatch a small fraction of a second slower than your reference stopwatch after you return home. Or, you don't believe that, even theoretically? In that case, I would say it is a waste of time discussing relativity with you.

3. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
You can knit pick if you want but you are missing the point. I have also referred to the invariance of light. But you have not addressed the situation correctly. More as I respond below.

PS: The following is from a course in Relativity Time-Dilation:

Where do you see the invariance issue raised here? I see time delay. Let me suggest you go learn Relativity before calling others by names and misrepresenting Relativity. These tests deal with Simultaneity cause not the gamma curve cause.

Question. Per Relativity what time would clock "A" claim clock "B" has accumulated in seconds when it has accumulated 36,000 seconds. Your answer better be 15692 seconds or you have miscacluated the affects of Relativity.

What accumulated time will clock B belive clock A has accumulated when it has accumulated 15,692 seconds? Again it best be 6,840 seconds or once again ou have made a math error.

Yes I used timers and precalibrated clock rates to simulate the function of Relativity. If my calibrations are accurate and my timers set properly I not only have simulated Relativity but done so in a manner that allows all clocks and monitors to shut down in defacto simulaneous manner.

You are simply in left field to claim other wise. Rather than merely making statements perhaps you will show us where the above is not true.

The garbage is to realize that the reality is that clock A actually reads "physically" 36,000 seconds when Relativity claims it must read 6,840 seconds.

Since that presents a physical impossibility perhaps you should spend more time attacking this problem than me.

Last edited: Sep 12, 2004

5. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Of course "Smart Guy" it demonstrates the affect of information delay upon our view of reality but shows our view is perception and not reality.

That would be our mistake. BTW, this time and tis time only I am not going to respond to your BS name calling. It is very counter jproductive. Of course I know about muon decay times, atomic clock tests, etc. However, the oint is that such observation are not due to the non-existant theoretical cause by Relativity.

I have not and would not deny observation or data. But I at least am intelligent enough to see through the bogus crap you advocate. Regardless of what you think of me it is you that need to explain my data. Attacking me does not cause the data to go away.

Now try again and show us just how smart you are by solving these test cases.

7. ### Paul TRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
460
MacM,

Too bad. I thought you are that smart or know much about relativity. Your above confusion arises because you did not apply SR correctly. You should use, for example, Lorentz coordinate transformations instead of a simple time delation formulae. In doing so, you should recognize events consist of x and t for each reference frame. Just a tip, for "What accumulated time will clock B belive clock A has accumulated when it has accumulated 15,692 seconds?", the answer is 36,000 seconds (not 6,840 seconds). You must use inverse Lorentz coordinate transformation for event B receive signal from A. Do it correctly and you will not waste your own time arguing something which is not a problem and you would also save others here from wasting their time.

8. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
It is most unfortunate that you don't read what is written. Nor do you seem to understand that, applying these transformations is not the correct way to test the theory.

YOU CANNOT PROVE A THEORY BY QUOTING THE THEORY.

What you want to do is use the Mathematics of Relativity to show it is correct. That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. I have made this point many times.

For you to suggest that I am unaware of the mathematical tricks being employed is to assume I have figured out this method of highliting the error of their results by shear accident.

Now perhaps you will actually comment at a physics level of reality as to where you see the test, the results or logic are flawed.

9. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
30,644
MacM:

I must say it is rather sad to see your lack of integrity at work here. I have patiently explained this situation to you in all its aspects. I have explained over and over to you that what is simultaneous for one observer is not simultaneous for another. And what do you do when you're backed into a corner? You try to change the parameters of the situation. Or you simply continue to deny facts which have been laid out in front of you multiple times. Or you retreat to a fantasy world of your own making.

While it might be amusing for some people to watch you furiously back-peddling as you are now doing, I just find it pretty sad. In multiple posts in this thread and elsewhere, I have explained to you that time dilation is not due to delays in the transmission of light signals, yet you insist on trotting out that tired old chestnut once again, all the while pretending you haven't read anything which says differently. Wilful blindness is pathetic and disingenuous, MacM.

If you actually want people's respect, you will need to admit you are wrong sometimes. In the present instance, there really are only two possibilities:

1. You are deliberately refusing to accept the information presented to you, through sheer arrogance and misplaced pride; or
2. You really are too stupid to understand the information which has been presented.

Either way, I can't see that further discuss is likely to get us anywhere.

I will respond to your latest post now, but after this I'm done repeating myself. There's no use talking to a brick wall.

Here, you continue to deny the relativity of simultaneity. Since this is a logical consequence of relativity, this means you MUST deny the truth of one of the postulates of relativity, which are:

1. The constancy of the speed of light for all observers.
2. The invariance of the laws of physics in all inertial reference frames.

Which is it to be, MacM?

You've already said you accept (1), though this is inconsistent with other things you've said (see below). So, please explain what is wrong with (2).

This is a red herring, as I've said multiple times. Entangled particles may well communicate instantaneously, but that does not mean you can use them to transmit information faster than light. And it doesn't avoid the problem of the relativity of simultaneity in your scenario, since that would require FTL communication, which has never been observed.

You didn't originally set out to show that relativity may be inconsistent in a fantasy world in which FTL communication is a reality. For the purposes of further discussion, I am willing to concede that point, though. IF FTL communicaton turns out to be possible, then there will be all kinds of potential problems with causation which relativity would have a hard time coping with. However, this has no bearing at all on the validity of relativity given our current state of knowledge.

Time to leave never-never land and return to the real world as we know it, MacM.

If you're going to show relativity is inconsistent, you'll need to come up with a test which might be performed NOW, with our current knowledge, not one based on fantasy concepts.

You can calibrate a "simulation" to give any result you want. What does that tell you about the real world? Nothing. A good thought experiment, on the other hand, takes what is known and derives logical consequences from it.

Listen to yourself. Read what you just wrote.

You are claiming that in a "instantaneous communication environment", relativity has problems, and therefore it is "invalid at the physical level". But an "instantaneous communication environment" isn't at the physical level. There's NO SUCH THING, as far as we know. Therefore, you can't use it to disprove relativity in the real world. You can only use it to say "what if...".

The principles are COMPLETELY different. I have explained to you multiple times that time dilation has nothing at all to do with delays in light signals. Why don't you just concede the point, rather than living in denial?

Look at my spacetime diagram for clock A. The light signal is sent from A at time t=3600s. It doesn't reach B until time t=36000s. That is the signal propagation delay you're talking about. But, my scenario has taken that into account! The signal was sent early, to make sure that clock B stopped at exactly the same time that clock A stopped (i.e. t=36000s). The signal propagation delay has been factored out of the problem completely.

Stop pretending this is an issue, when it has been explained over and over to you.

Look at my spacetime diagrams. There is no retarded data there. Only events are shown, and the connections between them.

Welcome back to Newtonian physics, then, MacM. You've just thrown out postulate number 1 of the theory of relativity - the constancy of the speed of light. Because if you want a universal time, you can't also have a constant speed of light. The two notions are incompatible.

I also point out that this new position of yours is a complete flip-flop from your previous stance that the speed of light is constant.

You don't seem to know what you advocate.

Wrong. For example, at any particular time, B could receive a signal from A showing A's reading. All B would have to do is to adjust for the signal delay and he could calculate A's actual clock reading - which is what is done in both my spacetime diagrams, implicitly. That STILL leaves time dilation effects, and alters the relativity of simultaneity not a bit.

Oh, give me a break!

Any moderately intelligent school child reading this thread could see that I am right and that you can't be honest about your own argument.

This is a dishonest dodge. You know damn well what you've argued. What's more, it is on record for all to see. You have stated many times in this thread that "relativity requires that the same clock reads two different times simultaneously".

Your bait and switch won't work this time.

Disingenuous bullsh*t. This point has been explained to you over and over. Admit you are wrong.

I have spent hours of my time carefully explaining all aspects of your little test, MacM. But I can't FORCE you to understand my explanations. Nor can I force you to admit you're wrong, even when it as plain as the nose on your face. You have to have the moral character to do that yourself.

You are correct in that my diagrams do not include any simultaneous communications between clocks. Why? Because in the real world there are no simultaneously communications.

One flaw: instantaneous transmission of information is not possible.

Done.

10. ### Paul TRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
460
MacM,

Hahaha. What did you use when you came out with this?
Did you use some sort of Phytagorean theorem or UniKEF...hahahaha. You must had used t = gt' and what is this formulae MacM? Not SR? You must be joking. You said you knew relativity but you don't event realize that t = gt' is part of relativity. However, as I have said such simple formulae should not be used the way you just did! You need to use at least Lorentz coordinate transformations, which is more general than t = gt'. Why do you think using t = gt' acceptable while using more general equations like Lorentz coordinate transformations unaccapetable?

There is only one comment. The answer to your: "What accumulated time will clock B belive clock A has accumulated when it has accumulated 15,692 seconds?" is not 6,840 but 36,000!

There is nothing wrong with using SR's method to get the correct answer. At least we can show that SR is consistent within itself. And this Lorentz coordinate transformations is not just mathematical trick, it is a valid method to transform coordinates from one inertial reference frame (A) to another (B) and vice versa. You can't use Galilean coordinate transformation here, which is -- you should know -- wrong and has been replaced by Lorentz coordinate transformation since about a century ago.

The following calculations are just to show what I meant and they are not for you since they seem to be out of your touch. You can skip all of them and carry on with your day dreaming with your great discovery of 'relativity flaw'. Hahaha, think you are outsmart possibly millions minds since about a century ago who unable to find the simple flaw that you have just done.

Lorentz coordinate transformation:

x' = g [x - vt]​
t' = g [t - (b/c)x]​

For the case under discussion, event where B receives light signal from A is represented by:

x = 0.9c*36,000 seconds = 32,400c second​
t = 36,000 seconds​

Plugging those (with g = 2.294157339) into Lorentz coordinate transformation give us:

x' = 2.294157339*[32,400 - 0.9c*36,000] = 0​
t' = 2.294157339*[36,000 - (0.9)*32,400] = 15,692 seconds​
which tells us that the light signal from A (sent out 3,600 second after B departed, according to A) is received by B (at x' = 0) after 15,692 seconds left A, according to B.

Inverse Lorentz coordinate transformation:

x = g [x' + vt']​
t = g [t' + (b/c)x']​

For the case under discussion, event where B receives light signal from A is represented by:

x' = 0​
t' = 15,692 seconds​

Again, plugging those (with g = 2.294157339) into Lorentz coordinate transformation give us:

x = 2.294157339*[0 + 0.9c*15,692] = 32,400c second​
t = 2.294157339*[15,692 + (0.9)*0] = 36,000 seconds​

So, the results are consistent with our 'common sense', although seem to be not in line with MacM's 'delutional sense'. Well, so be it. MacM's delutional idea add nothing to relativity, unfortunately.

11. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
30,644
Paul T:

You need to be careful here. The question is: when clock B displays 15692 seconds, then, according to B, what is the elapsed time on A's clock since the two clocks were together? The correct answer is 6840 seconds. You have given the elapsed time on A's clock according to A when A sees an elapsed time on B's clock of 15692 seconds.

It all depends on which observer you are talking about.

12. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Sorry, James R, but I still find many of your posts offensive. My integrity is just fine. It is just that you keep repeating the same "SRT say...." argument and ignore the fact that "Simultaneity" is not at play in these scenarios. It unfortunately is you that seem to lack the ability to actually think through the situation. Your lack of comprehension is hardly a basis or an incentive to alter one's own understanding or deny the results of correct mathematics.

I find it ironic infact in the number of times that "the mathematics say" or "the mathematics prove" are part of your arsenal but when mathematics disagrees somehow it becomes irrelavant.

These types of posts are defacto "Unresponsive" to the issue. If you can't resolve the issue just say so but don't try to skirt it by changing the topic to personal ones. The cases have been carefully thought out and presented.

I find this and the above simular comments absolutely incrediable. I have already posted "Text" from a course in Relativity which clearly says you are as a minimum distorting the truth here, to fabricating an outright falsehood.

Also logicically I would stand by that view even if it were not already in text books describing Relativity and time dilation.

***** PS: The following is from a course in Relativity Time-Dilation:

Having you respond properly would be nice. Your opinion of me really has very little to do with answering the charge before you.

Actually I disagree that either or both have to be incorrect at all. this is a smoke screen. I have not denied The Relativity of Simultaneity". Speaking of repeatedly ignoring something. How many times do I have to illustrate from a very simple construct that there simply is no simultenity issue affective in this test.

You are blinded by the use of it under normal circumstances and seem unable to lsurvive without it but you must if you are to properly address these tests.

I'll pass on this for the moment since I don't see any correlation nor necessarily agree with your conclusions.

Speaking of being disengeneous. How many times do I need to point out that I have neither advocated using particle entanglement nor claimed a method of actually achieving FTL communication. I have referred to pjarticle entanglement since any rational person can see the implications of "Spooky Action at a Distance" and have correctly structured a test which simulates achieving it.

Having done so it is now your obligation to address the implications that springs forth from that consequence.

Fine then I don't see the reason for all this huff and puff and arguement. Let me repeat this statement so nobody, including myself, can claim that you have been misunderstood.

YOU AGREE, based on the assumptions I have laid out, that Relativity would be shown false? I understand you don't beleive that to be the case nor do you believe such condition do or ever can exists but based on the tests as described you would be in agreement with my conclusions?

Yes or No.

Just how do you see Test # 2, undoable? It is not only doable it is doable toady, this minute with existing technology. Performing this test does not involve instant communication, it uses light speed communication. The only thing perhaps not doable is the degree of relavistic velocity shown as an example. But certainly we can reach speeds which could show the correctness of the view.

The required speed would only need to be sufficiently high that we could normally observe and/or measure the affects predicted by relativity. Since you claim we have measured such affects then it is doable today to show those affects are indeed due to delayed information only.

This is laughable James R. Yes, I agree I can calibrate to produce any result but I have carefully calibrated to simulate the mathematical results of Relativity. Which is the point, it is far easier to simulate something than sometimes it is to actually do it but the ability to analyze the process are not altered by doing so.

You really should give this some thought James R. I use instant communication to clearly highlite the problem but the problem is not created by that instant communication. At conventional information speeds you want to wash away this fact by claiming the simultaneity issue soves the disparity between clocks.

*******
PS: The following is from a course in Relativity Time-Dilation:

I have already acknowledged that fact. But you seem to want to disregard the balance of the issue and that is that if the delay was truely factored out then you cannot do what you do by continuing to claim what you claim. You may have factored out the reality of the delay and stopped both clocks simultaneously but you then claim that the other clock doesn't know each other has stopped (re-introducing the delay) and that things continue therefore to change.

In my scenario not only is the delay factored out but I do not artificaially allow things to continue to change (which is the correct view) and have assured either that stopped means stopped, and there is instant knowledge that all clocks have stopped. You apply instant communition in only one half of the process. You are diluding yourself to claim you have duplicated my process.

Stop ignoring my responses showing where you have failed in your analysis. It is shear fool hardiness to continue to claim that stopped clocks continue to run. They are not being stopped as a consequence of knowledge about the other clocks status including normal simultaneity, they are being stopped instantly as in absolute time univerasally. I can understand you are not accustomed to working and thinking in this realm and context but you resonses have been clearly invalid to such conditions. That is your failing, not mine.

Not so, but that is another topic which suggests a different interpretation of the invariance of light issue. We do not have to make judgements and draw conclusion as to why Relativity is invalid to assess the fact that it is.

Once you have made that determination then perhaps I can assist you in understanding which postulate is wrong or being mis-interpreted and consequencly why Relativity is flawed.

Thanks. You have just made my point. You have NO idea what I believe, understand, advocate, etc. There is no new position here. This has always been my position. I have in fact several time in these threads stated my view as to the invariance of light issue. I'll not restate the case here but if you choose to start another thread I would be glad to participate. But I will simply state here there is a difference in "Apparent" invariance and "True" invariance.

I simply disagree. You confuse yourself and try to confuse other with the circular system Of Relativity. Pleasse directlya ddress the isue of these test which have cleverly eliminated that circle.

talk about an ego. How about directing your time and effort to the issue at hand. relativity without information delay (I'll not use the word simultaneity here just to appease you)

I have indeed. Hopefully you can jpresent a bonified rebuttal to this fact. As yet yo have not.

Now now, don't distort the facts. This is not a bait and switch. It is an alternative method of exposing Relativity.

Two views.

1 - Time-Dilation occurs (Showing the impossibiity of it in a real physical clock world)

2 - Time-Dilation does not occur. I actually think this one is more valuable and easy to argue, so in the future lets concentrate on #2, shall we.

Unfortunately as I have ahd to repeated point out you ignore my responses and continue to misrepresent the circumstances derived from the organization of the test.

Point - "Stopped" clocks DO NOT continue to run in this scenario's. Although in your arguements you contiue to claim they are stopped in one view but not another which is re-inserting simultaneity in to the process which is not allowed in my tests.

thak you for finally getting to the truth. Your diagrams and arguements are not using the basis established in the tests. the fact that to our knowledge we have no instant communication capability, does not alter the affect of the test for analytical purposes. You must address the test on their own basis.

Moot point really. But thanks for clarifying that all your personal attacks and enuendo are in fact based on distortion of the test and that you have not responded to the tests in the manner for which they were intended, which was to alolow consideration of Relativity in such an enviornment, which exposes these issues - And that such issues are not a product of doing so but are merely "Froozen" in time so that they become obvious.

And finally. Please do not continue to distort the issue regarding the reference to particle entanglement. It was simply noted to show that "Apparent" instant communications seems to exist at least at a universal absolute time realm. Not that we understand it nor have been able to use or duplicate it.

Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
13. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Thanks for verifiying that point James R. I'll ignore the balance of that post other than to simply point out that my using the formulas of Relativity were for the express purpose of establishing the data for comparison.

I would have thought any grade schooler could have understood that and not tried to have made an issue of it regarding the use of components of a theory to prove a theory.

Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
14. ### dristamRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
123
Paul T seems to understand SR, but I don't get his use of an "inverse" Lorentz transformation, because that would seem to imply that one frame is *truly* in motion whilst the other is *truly* at rest... which certainly cannot be! If someone would be so kind as to restate the scenario concisely or link to its original statement, then I will contribute to the thread. Frankly, in 5 long pages of reparte, I cannot get a toehold just yet. Many thanks!

15. ### Paul TRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
460
dristam,

Thanks for the comment.

Inverse Lorentz coordinate transformations that I used can be obtained from original ones using the following steps:

• Replace x with x' and vice versa
• Replace t with t' and vice versa
• Replace v with -v

This inverse ones are to be used for observer B to get x and t (parameters in A reference frame) based on x' and t' (parameters in B reference frame). We need to replace v with -v because from B point of view, A moves in negative x direction. Gamma remain the same for both sets of transformation.

BTW, in the exercise discussed here, B is the observer that moves at velocity v=0.9c away from A.

It doesn't imply any of the observers is "truly" in motion. When we use the inverse set of transformation, we assume that B is at rest and A is in motion at velocity -v. Both sets of transformations are indeed identical in form, in accordance to SR's postulate.

Messages:
123
roger, thnx

17. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
30,644
MacM:

I will not respond in detail to your latest post, since it is simply more of the same from you. I have covered all of the issues raised above, and to do so again would be a waste of my time.

Therefore, I present my rebuttal in brief point form.

1. You refer to an earlier quote from a textbook on relativity. (Which one, MacM? Please cite your source properly.)

Here is the quote:

You claim that this supports your view that relativity is simply about signalling delays. However, it does nothing of the kind. You have taken it out of its particular context, which I assume was some kind of particular thought experiment, similar to the one I have presented in this thread.

This quote is irrelevant for the purpose you wish to put it to.

2. In your latest post you say "I have not denied the relativity of simultaneity". Yet that is what you have done all along in this thread. Once again, you can't seem to argue consistently. One minute you're saying there is a universal time (which implies no relativity of simultaneity), and the next you're saying you have never denied relativity of simultaneity. You're inconsistent.

3. You are also inconsistent in your flip-flopping about particle entanglement. One minute you say you're not advocating entanglement as a method for FTL communication. The next, you're claiming that everybody knows that entanglement allows FTL communication.

4. I agree that IF FTL communication of information was possible, then there would be problems with causality. This MAY mean that relativity would need to be revised. But it is drawing a very long bow on the basis of nothing to say relativity is invalidated NOW by some fantasy of FTL communication.

5. You claim to have set up your tabletop version of the 2 clock experiment to "simulate the mathematical results of relativity". I have pointed out the flaw in that setup - you have ignored the relativity of simultaneity. Since this is an indispensible part of relativity, you cannot ignore it and at the same time "simulate the mathematical results of relativity". Without the relativity of simultaneity, you're not simulating relativity. Trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by saying you are is just misleading.

6. The 2 clocks in my example only stop at one particular time according to each observer. There is only one event for each clock, represented by a single point on each spacetime diagram, which is the event "Clock A stops" or "Clock B stops". No clock continues to run after it has stopped in my analysis. To suggest otherwise is a straight out lie. Stopped means stopped in my analysis just as much as it does in yours.

7. There is no distinction between "apparent invariance" and "true invariance". Either something (like the speed of light, for example) is invariant, or it isn't. Either it varies or it doesn't. You can't flip-flop on that and try to have it both ways, as you seem to want to do in your latest post.

8. Relativity is in no way "circular". You have introduced that claim as a new issue in your latest post, without any supporting argument.

9. You are now claiming that time dilation does not exist. Once again, this means that you dispute one or both of the postulates of special relativity. But you continue to avoid facing that issue face on. You want a bet each way, so you can worm your way out later if your position turns out to be untenable. Well, I have news for you, MacM. Sitting on the fence is untenable. Either time dilation exists or it does not. Which is it to be?

10. The word is "innuendo", not "enuendo". That's yet another thing I have explained to you before, but you've reverted back to your old ways again. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe you're too old to take in new information.

18. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
30,644
dristam:

My scenario, complete with spacetime diagrams to make things clearer, is posted earlier in the thread. Look for my post with the two links to diagrams.

(If you're viewing at 20 posts per page, then the relevant post is the second one from the top on page 4).

Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
19. ### Paul TRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
460
James R,

I believe my evaluation on the exercise was correct. If B want to find out x and t in A reference frame, inverse Lorentz coordinate transformation should be employed (see my explantion to distram). When we talk about elapse time, we actually talk about elapse time between two events. The first event was when B departed away from A, in which x'=0, t'=0 and x=0 and t=0. The second event was when B received light signal sent by A, this event occur.

In A reference frame, at t = 36,000 seconds​
In B reference frame, at t' = 15,692 seconds​

I don't see 6840 seconds (15,692/2.294157339) come into the picture. This figure, I think plays no role in this exercise. There is however, one more event, that is the sending of light signal by A, which you had prescribed as to occur at 3,600 seconds (in A reference frame) after B left. This event occurs, according to B reference frame at t' = 2.294157339*[3,600 + (0.9)*0] = 8,259 seconds.

If you think there is still something wrong in my reasoning, I will be glad to get to know it.

Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
20. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
30,644
Paul T:

Everything you wrote in your last post is correct.

The event at x=0, t=6840 seconds is simply one event which is simultaneous with B's receiving the "stop" signal at t'=15692 s, according to B's concept of simultaneity. In particular, 6840 is the reading that B would calculate to be on A's clock at the instant B received the "stop" signal.

21. ### Paul TRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
460
James R,

I think I understand what you meant.

When dealing with time dilation, one face a tricky thing. Formally, time dilation formulae is t' = gt. this formulae concern about time. But, when we talk about clock ticking rate the inverse of that formulae is seem to be correct. We say that time in B reference frame expand or something like that, but the clock in B should record 'lesser time', a complete reverse. When I first learn SR (of course from those semi-popular source), I found this very frustrating. I think, when someone get too frustrated during this early stage of SR learning he or she would become like MacM who feel that there is something horribly wrong with relativity.

In my opinion, to avoid the confusion, we should go back to the root. Use Lorentz transformation instead of confusing t' = gt or t = gt'. This is because LT deals only with measured time, something to do with clock ticking rate.

22. ### Paul TRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
460
The issue is not proving SR correct using SR. It started with your claiming that SR is flawed. Of course, it is completely acceptable to show SR's flaw using valid SR concept. But, showing SR's flaw using incorrectly applied SR concept? That's what you have done here and is not acceptable at all. What I have tried to do was simply showing you (something which you have already known, as always

) that you have employed incorrect method and therefore your claimed flaw is BS. I have no intention to prove SR correctness. I just proved that your method of analysis was incorrect and in so doing dismissed your SR's flaw claim for the time being

.

MacM, I found your reasoning very stupid. You thought it is okay for you to use SR concept to show SR's flaw but when someone corrected you on your wrongly usage of the concept you argued that no one should prove a theory correct using the theory itself (which actually agreeable to me to a point). Everything were started by you, the usage of SR concept, etc. Why all the sudden, the rule of the game change to..... "No SR please"? Where is the logic, MacM. To prove SR flaw, one should use SR incorrectly? Hahahaha.

Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
23. ### dristamRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
123
Thank you. I scrutinized that carefully and agree with it completely. For those who wish to make a rebuttal, forget it -- it's futility to try. Relativity is golden as it stands, and certainly doesn't reflect any inherent contradictions.