# UniKEF

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Feb 20, 2003.

1. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
VAF

Jaxom,

You are correct, as is everneo but I have yet to see the added complexities of velocity addition resolve the difference.

This is great. We are finally getting the type of discussion I was hoping for.

3. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
I ignored special relativistic velocity addition when I treated the problem. It is numerically negligible.

The reason the three-clock experiment won't work as stated is because it presumes something (stopping the clocks at the same instant) that isn't physically possible. It isn't a complete experiment that one could actually go perform. Once completed (in any fashion you like), it will be found that there are no paradoxes.

If you make the clocks stop at preset times, you PRESUME that the clocks stop at the same instant -- you do not ENFORCE that they stop at the same instant. In fact, there is no way to verify that they actually DID stop at the same instant. As a result, this experiment is trivial -- you get the clocks back together, and they read the times you set them to stop at. You have no idea when they stopped, or whether or not it was simultaenous (from C's perspective). The only possible conclusion is the trivial conclusion "yup, the clocks read what I told them to."

Do you mean 'show?' I'm not even sure I understand what this sentence means.

- Warren

5. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Test

chroot,

I agree with what you say regarding the circumvention of actual testing of dilation for a proper stop time. However, I still maintain it is a legitimate test in this respect. The clocks will naturally simply read what you preset them to read but that number is the number that you anticipate if the Relativity formula is correct.

That then allows the comparison of the clocks upon return by making the assumption that Relativity was valid.

That is where the time differentials between C's view of dilation between A/B and A's view between A/B differ by a large margin.

There in lies the question.

7. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Re: Test

You continue to say this as if there were some paradox -- but I don't see one.

When you get all three clocks back together, all observers will agree that they say the times they should say. Clock C will read 10, Clock B will read 9.798, Clock A will read 9.539.

- Warren

8. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Differential

chroot,

I agree with those numbers but my point is that is only clock C's view. That view indicates a 0.259 differential between clocks A and B.

But from A or B's view that differential should only be 0.048. They are also physical clocks and should anticipate their physical reality to also be shown by the respective clocks.

As you have said adjusting for the view using velocity addition doesn't nearly bring them into agreement.

9. ### JaxomTau ZeroRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
559
That was my gut reaction as well. The best method I could come up with was to have a marker at the start and stop point, and the ship observer stops the clock as they pass that point. But even then at appreciable speeds you can't be sure you're stopping it as you pass, since any outside signal is distorted.

10. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Re: Differential

What makes you think they would only have a differential of 0.048? You programmed your clocks quite specifically to stop such that they read 10, 9.798, and 9.539.

I have the feeling that you don't grasp the failure of simultaneity that is inherent in relativity.

Just because some events (the stopping of your clocks) are simultaneous in one reference frame (C's, for example) does not mean they are simultaneous in any other reference frame.

To A and B, for example, the clocks do not appear to stop simultaneously.

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as absolutely simultaneity in relativity, just as there is no such thing as absolute velocity, or absolute time.

If you stop your three clocks such that they read 10, 9.798, and 9.539, they would appear to stop simultaneously in C's frame of reference. You could verify this, for example, by having each clock send a light pulse back to C. C times the difference between the pulses and calculates that the clocks stopped simultaenously.

The same pulses viewed by any other observer (including the middling clock) would not indicate simultaneity.

There is no paradox here -- if you program the clocks to stop at 10, 9.798, and 9.539 hours, all observers will declare that those are (and should be) the times on the clocks.

- Warren

Messages:
2,350
12. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
0.048

chroot,

The 0.048 figure came from your calculations as to what A & B would see as their respective views of time dilation.

You seem to be saying now that that is not the case. If so that may be the answer but I have to tell you my own view of the situation would have produced the same figures that you indicated. So I'm not sure we are there yet but lets let it go for now and I'll repost if I discover any different information.

Thanks.

Last edited: Feb 24, 2003
13. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
What I'm saying Mac (and what I've been saying since the day I met you) is that relativity dispenses with many "common-sense" concepts. There is no absolute velocity, nor is there any absolute time, nor is there any absolute unit of distance, nor is there any absolute notion of simultaneity.

If you stop the clocks when they read 10, 9.798, and 9.539 hours, they will stop simultaneously -- according to clock C. Any other observer will disagree on that simultaneity. The failure of simultaneity is bit of the "paradox" that I believe you missed.

If you do the math -- and I promise you, it's really not that hard, and you really can do it on the back of an envelope, you will find that there is no paradox here, either.

If you would like, I will try to show you the math.

- Warren

14. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Math

chroot,

First let me say I'm am sorry that you and I got off to a rough start. I really do think you have a firm grasp of the subject.

quote:
***********
P3 = Absolute(A - B) = ( 9.539 - 9.491) = 0.048 = 2.88 Minutes time differential between clock A and clock B.

P5 = P4 - P3 = 15.54 minutes - 2.88 minutes = 12.66 minutes differance in time loss calculations for the same clocks in the same test, under the same specified conditions.
***********

The above are directly from your calculation and they were consistant with what I had anticipated. As you can see P3 is 0.048 hours (2.88 minutes) and P4 was 15.54 minutes.

This result is what I have been concerned about.

If that is not the case then I would appreciate you clarification. I am not just being lazy here. I would trust your results to be more correct than mine. Even though I COULD do the algebra.

I just don't do calculus although I understand the most basic principles - i.e. The volume of a sphere to the surface of a sphere, that is the extend of my calculus.

15. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Re: Math

That is not my quote. I never typed that.

The only response I gave you for your three-clock problem was the post in which I assumed a light signal for stopping the clocks, and showed how there was no paradox for a complete, physically realizable experiment.

- Warren

16. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
True

chroot,

True. They are from my re-post under UniKEF. I believe your original numbers were under another topic. If those are not your figures, you have my oplogy but I believe they were your numbers.

17. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Re: True

Wait, so you know what I typed better than I do? That's offensive, Mac.

I know I didn't write that, because I would never have attempted to answer your half-experiment as you stated it. Your P4 and P5 and whatever are meaningless in the context of an incomplete experiment.

Instead, I opted to make your experiment a complete one, and showed you how to solve it.

- Warren

18. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Offended

chroot,

Don't get offended. I am not attempting to put words in your mouth. If I have misunderstood your original numbers, perhaps all of this could have been resolved when I reposted.

You never raised that objection so I merely assumed I had quoted you properly.

((If I can make a suggestion because I see some shared responsibility here, I believe your eyes had become glazed over and this error, if one, slide right past you))

Do you recall which topic all this started under? I would like another look.

19. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Re: Offended

No, I noticed that you repeatedly called James R's calculated numbers "chroot's numbers" in the other thread. I didn't think it was worth pointing out.

- Warren

20. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Accepted

chroot,

I accept that explanation.

Messages:
2,350
Re: Accepted

Which?

- Warren

22. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Screwup

chroot,

That I may have screwed up and attributed the data to you if it wasn't your calculations.

23. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Clarification

I am posting this thread without any specific desire for responses. But I have re-read the thread and see where my initial attitude was responsible for getting negative reception.

But I also saw some comments for which I feel I should clarify. Since I do not seek a discussion on these issues; unless sombody feels they want to comment further, I take the issues as being dealt with and therefore will not even refer the matter to the original posters name. The following are paraphrased to the best of my recollection:

1 - Why didn't Dr Allard notice my screwup with the form of the UniKEF gravity formula.

[[If you note at the bottom of "Calculus #4", I had entered an authors note that the calculus was merely the geometeric portion of UniKEF and that I was adding the dynamic field.

So Dr Allard never saw my extension of his work or the form I expressed for gravity using his geometric analysis]]

2 - There is no evidence in the document showing predictions preceded the discoveries.

[[ That is nearly a valid point but not entirely. The 1977 News article refers to several predictions contained in UniKEF. The date of the article was indeed subsequent to some of the predictions but not all. To actually satisfy my claim or your charge one would have to go back and determine that the manuscript as had been present at various times in history was as it currently is (This is the original manuscript).

I do find that a disheartening point in that one has to assume deception or fraud to even have concern over that issue and I do not believe there is anything in my history or posts to even suggest that concern. But in any case if somehow it were an issue it could be resolved and it will resolve just as I have stated.

The document issues was raised by me in response to a charge that UniKEF had not been around as long as I had claimed and the document shows otherwise. While not air tight in every detail I feel the evidence suggests nothing but the facts.]]

3 - The US Army letter suggests that I stole the idea from others and that they knew it sending me proof of my plagerisim.

[[Wow. A far reach. First the document which was translated and forwarded to me was (40+) pages and it dealt with and only with gravitational pertabations measured in a 1954 total eclipse.

[[This related to only one minor aspect of the manuscript for which there was a discussion of gravity shadowing or shielding.

When one thinks about the claim it really is bizarre. How could I have plagerized such information when it wasn't published until 1957 (In German) and then translated from German into English for me in the 1970's.

Add to that, does one actually think the Gedodetic Institute would approve plagerized data for publication? My work ran counter to their conclusions. There is simply no basis for the above statement]]

There were many other minor points but I think these were the primary ones I wanted to address.

Thanks to all.

Last edited: Feb 25, 2003