Rate Fluidity, I know you won't see it that way but it seems to me you just stated why Relativity can't work. Your relavistic principles are non linear and I knew that was why they will never balance. Before you waste any more time it is time for me to level with you. You have only scratched the surface of the problem. A three clock problem actually involves the following: 1 - Observer C: Delta A/B 2 - A: Delta A/B 3 - B: Delta A/B 4 - A: Delta C/B If you think for one minute you can make the functions balance have at it for you can't it is impossible. If you ever found a way to make the clocks agree in 1 & 2 I was going to ask why they didn't agree in 3 & 4. You see from B's vantage point A & C should lose time and you have already computed that A & B lose time. Its really simple. Due to the fundamental principle of Relativity time losses have to reverse between two observers moving with relative velocity. That is A is slower than B and B is slower than A. You can do a lot of double talk but with a physical clock it can't be faster and slower at the same time. The more you attempt to tinker the worse it gets. The formulas in Relativity are used to predict physical changes in time, mass and length. Time dilation is stipulated as a function of relative velocity. attempts to incorporate changes in L are futile.
MacM: Since this is your preferred thread for discussion on UniKEF, I will repeat my previous, simple question here, in the hope that you can provide some concrete details about your theory. Newton's laws are quite able to answer this question. I want to know if the UniKEF theory of gravity can do it. My two simple questions are: 1. What is the answer, in seconds? 2. Show me how the answer follows from the UniKEF theory (from first principles). If your theory can't answer this simple question, I don't think it will be of much value in determining planetary orbits, spacecraft trajectories, the perihelion of Mercury or problems involving 3 travelling clocks.
Got it, Mac...you need to read this twice. You see from B's vantage point A & C should lose time and you have already computed that A & B lose time. <HR> OMG, you mean this is all you don't understand? Let me explain, no math required. If I am with Clock A, looking at clock C, it <b>appears</b> to be running slower due to doppler effects. No, I can't really look at it, but imagine that a radio transmission is coming to me from Earth while I'm going .2c away from earth. Well, guess what, the time on Earth's clock will appear to be dilated because the transmission is dilated getting to me by exactly .2c. If I am with the B clock, the same rule applies to the transmission I get from Clock A and Clock C. They will both <b>appear</b> to be running slower due to the dilated transmissions, because I am moving .1c faster than Clock A, and .3c faster than Clock C. From home, with Clock C, I have no paradoxes. The clocks read what I expect them to, because the clocks <b>actually</b> dilated by the rate I percieved them to. If I am with Clock B, I will be surprised that my clock was running slower than Clock C and Clock A, because it <b>appeared</b> to be running slower than mine, due to doppler effects. Inversely, If I am with Clock A, I am not surprised at all to see that Clock C was running slower than mine. Upon return to Earth, I will be surprised to see that my Clock was running slower than Clock C, because it <b>appeared</b> to be running slower than mine, due to doppler effects. The math between Clock A and B from the perspective of A is more difficult, because Clock B is running slower, <b>and</b> the transmission is dilated by doppler effects. In any case, it is an illusion predicted by Lorenz. Time dilation occurs at the rate of doppler effects, only in the case you are the stationary observer. Even so, everything you see as an observer from any point, is an illusion. The only time reality is plainly visible is upon return to Earth. And, as James and Warren have pointed out very clearly, the rate of acceleration will play a very important role in how time is affected in all cases. Relativity explains both the observed phenomena, and the physical phenomena. To understand this, you have to see it from the frame of references you mention in your test. Beyond this, you can argue blue in the face. I have explained your discrepencies and denounced your complaints mathematically. So...I'm done with this test. Let's move on to a more scalable argument.
You've changed the test, Fluidity. I'm pretty sure I agree with you and the rest that there's not an issue with relativity, but let's talk about the same problem. There's no communication between anyone during the 10 hours, the clocks are stopped when the test is over, at C's 10 hours. A travels to a point where according to C he should be at 10 hours, B does likewise for his speed. Then they stop the clocks and return to compare each other's clocks. The claim is that A and B's difference will not be the same as the difference between A and C's difference and B and C's difference. I see the number problem MacM is claiming, but I think it's because of other factors not taken into account. Ie the problem is set up to fail...
Odd... Look on the previous page. I completely demolished the mathematical model by proving you can't add and subract rates... Also, he keeps mentioning that Clock A slower than B and B runs slower than A. It's an illusion of observation. That's why I wrote all that out. He knows it, but he tries to use it against the theory by mentioning the different perspectives of observation, even though they aren't mentioned in the test. It's a complete joke, and he knows it.
UniKEF Gravity James R, quote: ***************************** Newton's laws are quite able to answer this question. I want to know if the UniKEF theory of gravity can do it. ***************************** To answer your question the answer is absolutely "Yes" I could play word games with your question, like some others have with my statements but that is not why I am here. Your question was "........if the UniKEF Theory of gravity can do it" How could a theory do anything. I rather believe you meant to say "Can it be done using UniKEF Theory of gravity". It is to this question I answer "Yes". However, to do so requires the use of calculus and "I" do not do calculus. So I am just glad your question was not "Can you calculate........using UniKEF....." for my answer unfortunately would have to be no. But that is a fault of mine, not of the theory. Just as Newtonian gravity is a function of integrating to point sources, UniKEF requires integrating cones of sources which changes as the mass seperation changes. The mechanisim is now available to compute the force of gravity using UniKEF but that is a potential force. Nobody has yet derived the expression which describes how the changes in cones angle progress. Unlike Newtonian gravity UniKEF does not evolve directly around the center of mass but the integrated mass penetrations and trig functions for angles of penetration relative to the gravity coupling line between the centers of mass. Is it useful? I would think not. But its value is not is computation of gravity but the fact that it shows gravity may be something entirely different, something that your mind can visualize as a physical process. A view of physical reality which m^2 is devoid of. M^2 is purely mathematical and devoid of "What is gravity" Based then upon the correct gravity potential from a UniKEF view the same required energy field for that to be true opens the other areas of universal thoughts. Hope this helps. Sorry I can't compy with your request. But also hope before you cast UniKEF aside that you will visit the site and on the home page click on the photo album and have a look at the calculus and graphics. Would appreciate your response to what you see.
Joke Fluidity, Would I really joke about something like thisPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually I really enjoy your posts. They are well thought out, on point and generally courtious. But unfortunately not entirely correct. As Jaxom indicated, I am not concerned about the illusion aspects of this situation. From the view of relativity I can view only clocks A and B and I can take that view from clock B's vantage point. That proposition says that what B sees AND WHAT IS REALITY is that clock A is losing time relative to B. But when our test is over as it is described, you already know that is not going to be the case when they compare elapsed times during the tests. And that is why bringing in a/d and L variables don't resolve the issue.
Calculus Theory James R, I would have to answer you this way. I am certainly no expert on the finer details of Relativity. I am however quite familiar with its principles as generally outlined. Add to that perhaps a bit of hope in UniKEF which I have spent so many years thinking about and which from childhood I have watched literally a dozen things that were logically predicted from the UniKEF view of Gravity and the fact that UniKEF is "Suggestive" that Relativity is flawed since UniKEF also predicts many Relavistic perceptions but that they are not Realities and hence don't pose the same problems I see with Relativity, combined with the fact that I have over the years ammassed considerable material from PHD physicists that say much of the same things that I am saying and from there I have had to choose sides. One side is right and the other is wrong. It is as simple as that. And I know my side is not in a strong as a position to be right as the other but my comments are not Crackpot. They are based on considerable evidence but not proof. If you find you concur with the concept of UniKEF Gravity (not necessarily the detail on how or where the energy comes from) you may also wish to consider a look at Relavistic Mass Change. If so I will gladly guide you to it as the site is as some have said hard to navigate. There the "Perception/and Test" for measuring mass is preserved but there is no actual mass change in reality and hence the upper limit of v=c vanishes. That has to do with "Energy Transfer Efficiency" which is shown to decrease with relative velocity. The energy losses in the transfer become stored in time-space (a concept simular to the field around a coil) and become restored to a moving mass as it decelerates making its momentum appear to have had increased mass as well. Fluidity, All this is actually somewhat funny. You were a non-believer and have converted. I was a believer and have converted. I do get a chuckle from some of the posts as well. I actually enjoy this board because it is quite frank. I just wish I had the academic clout to make some good counter quibs stick. Edited by MacM on 02-21-03 at 07:40 AM
MacM: Here's the answer to your three-clock problem: This is not physically possible. There is no way to stop the clocks at the "same instant." How would either clock know when this instant is? The very point of the experiment is to measure time on different clocks, isn't it? Your "paradox" hinges upon something that cannot be done, even in principle. As I've demonstrated repeatedly, if you modify your experiment such that it is physically realizable (with a light signal or distance marker), there are no paradoxes. You're welcome to invent any physically possible mechanism you'd like to stop your clocks, and you'll find there are no paradoxes. If you'd like to continue to believe that you'd disproven relativity by thinking of an experiment that can't be done even in principle, you belong in the looney bin. It's a closed case. - Warren
So why are you pushing a theory that you yourself don't even understand (UniKEF) as a competitor against another theory you don't understand (relativity)? This reminds me the of the blind man holding a lantern in a painting in Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." You can't even solve simple problems in your own goddamn theory!!!!!! This is the most rediculous goddamn thing I've ever heard. James, are you -finally- beginning to see why we need more pseudoscience moderation here? - Warren
Test chroot, Actually you are incorrect. I don't conceed that the clocks cannot be started and stopped in a synchronized manner. But to tinker with trying to design the method is a waste of time and would likely introduce an error that isn't there. The fact is you can perform the theoretical analysis just as it has been stipulated because it is the affect of relative velocity on time that is being challenged. Not the method if any on when and how to synchronize the clocks. It is perfectly legitimate to make the assumption that they are so synchronized to test the affect of the relative velocity on time in and of and by itself exclusive of the problemmatic method of doing so. So if your answer is that the analysis fails because you don't have the technology to achieve the theoretical test then your answer falls short. And if making the synchronization a stipulated fact for the test establishes that you still cannot make the clocks provide a common reality, I would have to say you have lost. As to your second post quote: ******************* So why are you pushing a theory that you yourself don't even understand (UniKEF) as a competitor against another theory you don't understand (relativity)? ******************* That is indeed a very stupid statement, considering that I concieved and wrote the theory. Plus was able to integrate the field by hand using a ruler with sufficient accuracy to impress Dr Allard enough to have him decide to take a bonifide calculus look. I will only resond to those comments related to the actual point at issue. As I said to James R., the fact that "I" can't perform the math is a moot point. That has no bearing on the fact that a PHD physicist has done so and my view of gravity was validated. James R., I a wait your initial impression of the UniKEF Gravity function. Understand I am not asking or expecting that you will become a convert but I think you are fair enough to give either a thumbs up or down on the "Concept"; excluding the source for the energy field required. Actually, chroot, I think you might just be wise to start to back off a bit for if U gravity gets a palusible thumbs up you are saying you have been outdone by a crackpot. What does that infer? If your view is thumbs up, I would expect to see chroots tone change. If it is down then I will certainly alter my tone. Thanks for being willing to look
Re: Test Then show me a physical apparatus that can do it. I am formally challenging you, right here. If it's just a moot point, and you think I'm arguing irrelevant details, prove me wrong. Make me look stupid in front of all these people. You'd love to do that, wouldn't you? Go ahead, take the bait. Show me an apparatus that someone could build that would stop the clocks at "the same instant." You're stretching, Mac -- you're now trying to tell me that we shouldn't need to devise a physically possible means of stopping the clocks, because it might make us make arithmetic errors? You can't predict the outcome of half an experiment. Your idea that the clocks should be stopped "at the same instant" is not possible in this universe. No such technology can ever exist in this universe. What? Step back for a minute, Mac. Put down your defenses and think about it for a minute. Do you really think it doesn't matter that you're considering an experiment that cannot be done, even in principle? Do you really think that stopping the clocks "at the same instance" is just a small problem? Or are you just resisting the obvious to save face? As I've said, you can give me any physically realizable, complete experiment and I will show you how there are no contradictions. I think the fact that you aren't equipped to answer even the most basic questions about your theory is very telling. Please don't attempt to tell me what's moot and what's not. - Warren
badger chroot, Ever see a wild badger when he is cornered? YOur last post just made me think of that. I am under no obligation to provide a method of synchronizing clocks for the theoretical analysis of the Relavistic proposal that relative velocity dilates time. I repeat that is not a requirement. The requirement here is for you to make the clocks provide all observer views as reality simultaneously. I would like to hear some input from others regarding the theoretical test and a requirement to provide an actual means of synchronizing clocks. Am I missing something here. Is not the relavistic velocity time dilation function the only question here? The double and reversed times on the clocks are not resolvable. that issue has nothing to do with precise starting and stopping of the clocks. That is a secondary issue. The simple fact is you can predict the outcome because the time synchronization is a stipulated fact to test the affect of the proposal that relative velocity predicts time dilation in reality.
Re: badger It is a PRIMARY ISSUE, but you do not understand why. Your experiment is incomplete without a mechanism to stop the clocks. Since no one can actually DO an experiment when the clocks stop "at the same instant," the outcome is INDETERMINATE. I modified your experiment to make it physically realizable, and showed you the solution -- sans paradox. When I did this, I didn't even think twice about it -- I figured you had envisioned that there was some mechanism to stop the clocks, but didn't bother specifying it. After I posted this treatment, you were all bent out of shape, because your experiment called for this mystical "stopping at the same instant" concept. I have since invited you to devise any other mechanism to stop the clocks, and I will show you the solution -- again, sans paradox. You don't want to do it. If you really want to show us that we're all wrong, can't you take the brief time to show us how one might actually DO what you suggest in your experiment? I'm asking you a direct question ("what physical mechanism could be used to stop the clocks?"), and you're coming up with reason after reason why you shouldn't have to answer it. It really seems we've come to an impasse -- you just can't answer the question. - Warren
Re: badger You can't stipulate impossible things as facts! For example, if I design an experiment with a light bulb, and then say "I stipulate that in this experiment, light travels infinitely fast," my conclusion will be completely bogus. Do you really not see this? Quit pretending like you're blind. - Warren
Stipulation chroot, It is most obvious that to stipulate a known falacy will produce false reaults. There is no indication that clocks and no be arranged to begin at test and end a test in harmony. Your current efforts are nothing but an attempt to mask the fact that to so stipulate shows that the clocks don't coincide. The contest here will not be swayed away from the primary question of the affect of relative velocity vs time dilation in physical reality. Your postion is simular to saying that if you go 60 miles per hour, for one hour and never exceed 60 mph, that I cannot prove that I will go 60 miles because I can't provide you with a method of instant acceleration. But I certainly can stipulate instant acceleration to see if d = v*t. You folks have aready done that in this 3 clock problem stipulating instant acceleration to the stipulated velocities of the test. So it appears to me very clear what your true efforts are here - to get out of the corner. I'm not letting you out until your cry uncle.
