Improved SR Gendenken

[MacM]

Reciprocity of Time Dilation (Spatial Length Contraction) Gedanken:

********************************************************
This gedanken is to test the assertions made by the relative velocity view of Special Relativity.

It takes place in deep space away from any large masses and involves only timing during inertial conditions such that GR affects can be ignored. (Hint do not regurgitate the "Twins" arguement).

The space station shall be labled "A". Two shuttle craft on board are labled "B" and "C". The scientist aboard are planning a mission to test SR and are aware of complexities of testing which would involve Relativity of Simultaneity and so they opt to lay out a flight schedule where only inertial relative velocity to the space station will be timed.

Acceleration/deceleration and simultaneity issues are circumvented making it possible to consider only the predictions regarding relative velocity and time dilation hence indirectly length contraction.

They decide to launch the shuttles in opposite directions simultaneously with equal acceleration for the same period of time according to a master clock in the space station, such that they each achieve a relative velocity of 0.866c to the station. That makes gamma = 2.000 and means each shuttle clock must tick at the rate of one tick for each two ticks of the master clock aboard the station.

The flight schedule is precalculated such that when mathematically the shuttles have reached their target velocity they begin to coast and become inertial and at that time the clocks aboard the shuttles and the space station all begin to record time. Both shuttles transmit a start information signal to the space station.

One can argue about this being simultaneous or not but it doesn't affect the conclusions of the test and can be ignored.

The point is all clocks are recording time at their proper rate while in an inertial (rest) state. The space station and each shuttle is equipped with several clocks.

The capital letter designates in which frame the clock is mounted, followed by "m" means it is the master clock ticking at the proper time rate for that frame. Followed by "a", "b" or "c" means it has been calibrated to reflect the time of the master clock of the frame designated by the small letter. Followed by a "p" means the time is what is predicted by relativity for observers of the frame designated by the capital letter or followed by a "c" means it is calibrated to tick in synch with clock Am for control purposes.

All of these calibrations can be made via precalculation of Special Relativity predictions.

Since the time dilation is precalculated based on the planned flight schedule it is known that (assuming Special Relativity is valid) the proper shuttle clocks, Bm and Cm, will be ticking at one half the rate of Am. Control monitoring clocks have been precalibrated and installed in each shuttle to run at two ticks per each tick of clocks Bm and Cm. They are labled Bac and Cac.

The space stations shuttle prediction monitoring clocks are labled Abp and Acp and are calibrated to tick at one half the rate of Am so as to allow the station operators to know what time has accumulated aboard the shuttles.

The monitors Bac and Cac allow the pilots of the shuttles to see and operate in accordance with the rate that time is passing back at the space station clock Am.

Due to Velocity Addition the relative velocity between "B" and "C" is 0.9897c and Gamma is 6.984 and their clocks each tick at the rate of only 143 ticks per 1,000 ticks of the other.

Respective prediction clocks have been precalibrated in B and C so as to accumulate time of the other as predicted by Special Relativity. That is the clocks will only record 143 ticks for each 1,000 ticks of the respective local proper time clocks Bm and Cm, they are labled Bcp and Cbp

The flight schedule is set to be 10 hours inertial testing from the Am clock.

So that after 36,000 ticks (seconds) according to Am and according to Bac and Cac all clocks stop. Each shuttle transmits a stop information signal back to the space station.

Again the simultaneity of these actions can be argued but have no bearing on the issue at hand and can be ignored.

The results of this test are as follows:


Am = 36,000 Abp = 18,000 Acp = 18,000

Bac = 36,000 and stops all B clocks.
Cac = 36,000 and stops all C clocks.

Bm = 18,000 Cm = 18,000

Bap = 9,000 Cap = 9,000

Bcp = 2,574 Cbp = 2,574

Put into a more understandable configuration where predicted accumulated times of clocks A, B and C are more obvious:


Clock A
------------
Am = 36,000 Test master clock reading.
Bac = 36,000 Shuttle B test control clock.
Cac = 36,000 Shuttle C test control clock.
Bap = 9,000 Shuttle B's incorrect prediction of Am time.
Cap = 9,000 Shuttle C's incorrect prediction of Am time.

Clock B
-------------
Bm = 18,000 Shuttle B master proper time clock test reading.
Abp = 18,000 Station A's correct prediction for Bm test reading.
Cbp = 2,574 Shuttle C's incorrect prediction of Bm test reading.


Clock C
-------------
Cm = 18,000 Shuttle C master proper time clock test reading.
Acp = 18,000 Station A's correct prediction for Cm test reading.
Bcp = 2,574 Shuttle B's incorrect prediction of Cm test reading.


SUMMARY:

Before others point this out let me acknowledge that you are going to be inclined to claim that this test is not testing the affect of motion on clocks in that I am controlling the clocks with precalibrated timers so as to stop at preselected accumulated times per Special Relativity predictions.

But don't throw up your hands yet. There is some interesting things that can infact be demonstrated here.

1 - Accumulated times based on tick rates predicted by Special Relativity due to only relative motion do not agree with times actually accumulated in the test.

2 - The assumption that Special Relativity is valid results in evidence which shows that the theory requires physical clocks to accumulate time at multiple rates so as to satisfy predictions of multiple observers having different relative velocities. A physical impossibility.

3 - The fact that these times are based on actual affects of motion is verfiable in that the start/stop information signals sent from the shuttles can be used to determine that infact the test period was 36,000 seconds according to the master clock Am.

That is all data is based on the same universal time period to a common standard. In that regard the issue of simultaneity which is generally used to mask such comparisons is rendered moot.

In this manner IF the affect of motion were not as per SR then the start/stop signals from the shuttles would not be 36,000 seconds according to the master control clock Am.

4 - Special Relativity requires that clocks B and C both tick at a rate of 0.5 / 1 to the space station clock. That is B and C are ticking at a common rate inspite of the fact that they have a relative velocity to each other which also requires them to tick at rates of about 1 tick to 7 ticks of the other. Impossible reciprocity and impossible ticking conditions for all views.

It should be noted that it is reciprocity predictions which fail, not the primary gamma calculations which are demonstrated by emperical data. The point being that the data also supports an absolute view, it is the reciprocity created by the relative velocity view which is unsupported and unsupportable.

 

[invert_nexus]

Mac,

Just so you know.
It's gedanken.
There's no n before the d.
Gedanken.
Carry on.

 

[MacM]

Mac,

Just so you know.
It's gedanken.
There's no n before the d.
Gedanken.
Carry on.

Thanks. I'll correct that.

 

[DaleSpam]

One can argue about this being simultaneous or not but it doesn't affect the conclusions of the test and can be ignored.

One can argue about SR being correct or not but it doesn't affect the conclusions of numerous tests and can be ignored.

Seriously MacM, when are you going to learn to do the Lorentz transform? Is the math really that intimidating to you? I realize that doing the Lorentz transform would mean that you would have to use the entire theory instead of randomly tossing out the relativity of simultaneity whenever it is inconvenient to your argument.

-Dale

PS to make the acceleration less of a problem I would recommend making it instantaneous. It's a gedanken, so why not?

 

[Pete]

Again with the SR gedankens? Will you never learn?

I thought you'd agreed that SR is internally consistent?
Don't you know that this means that no gedanken can prove anything one way or the other? If you want to disprove SR, gedankens will get you nowhere. Experimental evidence is what you need.

Unless! You actually want to learn somethign this time? In that case, a gedanken might help. So even though history suggests that you don't want to learn, I will once again address your scenario.

Whether I respond again after my next post will depend on whether your reply indicates a willingness to learn.

 

[MacM]

One can argue about SR being correct or not but it doesn't affect the conclusions of numerous tests and can be ignored.

Seriously MacM, when are you going to learn to do the Lorentz transform? Is the math really that intimidating to you? I realize that doing the Lorentz transform would mean that you would have to use the entire theory instead of randomly tossing out the relativity of simultaneity whenever it is inconvenient to your argument.

-Dale

PS to make the acceleration less of a problem I would recommend making it instantaneous. It's a gedanken, so why not?

Also when do you think you might learn that a rebuttal is not mere rhetoric or fiat but demonstration mathematically of the failure you claim in the presentation.

 

[MacM]

Again with the SR gedankens? Will you never learn?

I thought you'd agreed that SR is internally consistent?
Don't you know that this means that no gedanken can prove anything one way or the other? If you want to disprove SR, gedankens will get you nowhere. Experimental evidence is what you need.

Unless! You actually want to learn somethign this time? In that case, a gedanken might help. So even though history suggests that you don't want to learn, I will once again address your scenario.

Whether I respond again after my next post will depend on whether your reply indicates a willingness to learn.

I find it most interesting that relativits ignore the fact that emperical data supports my view and presentation. Unless you are prepared to post data which shows clocks A, B and C properly record time according to all predictions and not just one way.

 

[Pete]

Hi Mac,

You say that clock Bap is supposed to predict clock Am's reading, right?
This is why you have it ticking at the rate that Am should tick in B's frame, right?

Shouldn't you also have it start at the same time that Am starts ticking in B's frame, and stop at the same time that Am stops in B's frame?

I find it most interesting that relativits ignore the fact that emperical data supports my view and presentation.

Unsupported assertions get you nowhere.
Do you want to discuss experiments here, or start a new thread?

 

[MacM]

Hi Mac,

You say that clock Bap is supposed to predict clock Am's reading, right?
This is why you have it ticking at the rate that Am should tick in B's frame, right?

Shouldn't you also have it start at the same time that Am starts ticking in B's frame, and stop at the same time that Am stops in B's frame?

No. It is not necessary. That is why this thread is entitled "Improved". The addition of informational Start/Stop signals from the shuttles insures that the space station can compute the test interval.

In that manner the one way gamma function can be confirmed in that the accumulation of 18,000 ticks in the same 36,000 seconds of the master clock is achieved.

The point is that the concept fails at the point where reciprocity takes place. It is reciprocity which has never been demonstrated in 100 years.

Without reciprocity the gamma function is also supported by an absolute view. It is the relative velocity view which creates reciprocity in addition to gamma.

Unsupported assertions get you nowhere.
Do you want to discuss experiments here, or start a new thread?

Experiments only support the one way gamma function which does not differentiate between absolute and relative velocity views. Experiments would only be germain IF they demonstrate reciprocity.

 

[Billy T]

I begin by congratulating you on your well defined gedenken and especially the nomenclature that aids in keeping the clocks straight, however I have some questions.

....The flight schedule is precalculated such that when mathematically the shuttles have reached their target velocity they begin to coast and become inertial and at that time the clocks aboard the shuttles and the space station all begin to record time. Both shuttles transmit a start information signal to the space station.
One can argue about this being simultaneous or not but it doesn't affect the conclusions of the test and can be ignored.
The point is all clocks are recording time at their proper rate while in an inertial (rest) state. ...

This "at that time" what does that mean? You do not want to assume "time is universal for all frames" to show that "time is universal for all frames", contray to the teaching of SRT in your disproof of SRT do you? But you do seem to be assuming A,B, & C all agree that they start their clocks (Am, Bm & Cm) simultaneously as if there were one universal time.

I can certainly agree with you that the "I've started" signals and the simultaneity of them is of no concern as these signals are never even used. No reason to have them or even mention them, as far as I can see, but you seem to be making an assumption here about simultaneous starting of the clocks, and that is important, especially if it is not true.

I will even agree that from A's POV, both B & C do start their clocks simultaneously and even agree that A can start his simultaneously with their’s as all these are "simultaneity" judgments are in A's frame only. However, from B's POV A's main clock does not start simultaneously with clock Cm. (and conversely from C's POV.) That is you seem to be thinking all of the clocks that ended up showing 36,000 started at the same time, but they did not, What they did was to start at different times and count until they showed 36,000.

The same assumption error seems to be contained in your idea that all clocks can stop together. You may wish that the question of how to define / use simultaneous start and stop event to begin and end accumulation periods would just go away, but it will not, as it is fundamental to understanding how SR is true despite what appears to the naive to be impossible.

I have other questions, but one at a time. First tell me what do you mean by "at that time"? If you can not do this, at least say "yes" or "no" to the following:

Does B agree that C stated his clock Cm at the same time as B started clock Bm?

 

[DaleSpam]

Also when do you think you might learn that a rebuttal is not mere rhetoric or fiat but demonstration mathematically of the failure you claim in the presentation.

And you cannot throw out one third of a theory (length contraction, time dilation, relativity of simultaneity) by fiat.

In any case, I have demonstrated mathematically your failures to correctly represent the SR position in each of the 3 gedankens you have proposed this year alone. Based on your recent historical record of 0 for 3 I think it is up to you to do the math in order to convince everyone that you have done some recent studying and now know what you are talking about. Otherwise reasonable people are going to assume you haven't improved in your SR-prediction skills and therefore are wrong as usual.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

I begin by congratulating you on your well defined gedenken and especially the nomenclature that aids in keeping the clocks straight, however I have some questions.

Thanks. Now I can respond to your post and not be inclined to refer to you in historical terms.

This "at that time" what does that mean?

It can be interpreted literally. "At that time", whenever that might be.

You do not want to assume "time is universal for all frames" to show that "time is universal for all frames", contray to the teaching of SRT in your disproof of SRT do you? But you do seem to be assuming A,B, & C all agree that they start their clocks (Am, Bm & Cm) simultaneously as if there were one universal time.

I can certainly agree with you that the "I've started" signals and the simultaneity of them is of no concern as these signals are never even used. No reason to have them or even mention them, as far as I can see, but you seem to be making an assumption here about simultaneous starting of the clocks, and that is important, especially if it is not true.

NO. I mention simultaneity only to insure that others do not jump in and say I have ignored it. It is simply irrelevant to the test. Netither Start nor Stop must be simultaneous. It is only relevant that the compensated calculation in A's frame agrees that the interval between the Start/Stop information signals was 36,000 seconds according to clock Am.

That is you seem to be thinking all of the clocks that ended up showing 36,000 started at the same time, but they did not, What they did was to start at different times and count until they showed 36,000.

That is correct and the whole purpose of sending the Start/Stop information signals to insure that the"Interval" between them was 36,000 seconds per clock Am. Then and only then will the dilated tick rate and the accumulated times on such clocks have any meaning.

The clocks will always read these values, even if SR were invalid and gamma was different than assumed, calculated and precalibrated into the system. However, if that were the case then the interval between Start/Stop would not measure to be 36,000 seconds by clock Am.

The same assumption error seems to be contained in your idea that all clocks can stop together. You may wish that the question of how to define / use simultaneous start and stop event to begin and end accumulation periods would just go away, but it will not, as it is fundamental to understanding how SR is true despite what appears to the naive to be impossible.

Not my assumption and not required for the test.

I have other questions, but one at a time. First tell me what do you mean by "at that time"? If you can not do this, at least say "yes" or "no" to the following:

Does B agree that C stated his clock Cm at the same time as B started clock Bm?

None of the clocks care. The system is designed to measure accumulated time on Am, Bm and Cm based on the assumptions of SR and verified by the measured interval between Start/Stop information signals.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Still struggling with reciprocity?

The space station shall be labled "A". Two shuttle craft on board are labled "B" and "C". The scientist aboard are planning a mission to test SR and are aware of complexities of testing which would involve Relativity of Simultaneity and so they opt to lay out a flight schedule where only inertial relative velocity to the space station will be timed.

Can you "time" a velocity? Never mind...

They decide to launch the shuttles in opposite directions simultaneously with equal acceleration for the same period of time according to a master clock in the space station, such that they each achieve a relative velocity of 0.866c to the station. That makes gamma = 2.000 and means each shuttle clock must tick at the rate of one tick for each two ticks of the master clock aboard the station.

... as measured by the station, of course.

The flight schedule is precalculated such that when mathematically the shuttles have reached their target velocity they begin to coast and become inertial and at that time the clocks aboard the shuttles and the space station all begin to record time.

Who measures the "start" time? I assume the station does it.

Both shuttles transmit a start information signal to the space station.

Fine. The signals will arrive at the station simultaneously, as measured by the station, but not, of course, by the shuttles. Let's continue...

One can argue about this being simultaneous or not but it doesn't affect the conclusions of the test and can be ignored.

That remains to be seen...

The point is all clocks are recording time at their proper rate while in an inertial (rest) state.

More accurately, each records its own time at the proper rate in its own frame.

The capital letter designates in which frame the clock is mounted, followed by "m" means it is the master clock ticking at the proper time rate for that frame. Followed by "a", "b" or "c" means it has been calibrated to reflect the time of the master clock of the frame designated by the small letter. Followed by a "p" means the time is what is predicted by relativity for observers of the frame designated by the capital letter or followed by a "c" means it is calibrated to tick in synch with clock Am for control purposes.

I hope your "calibration" is carefully done, because it is usually at this point that you start to go horribly wrong.

All of these calibrations can be made via precalculation of Special Relativity predictions.

I suspect you will need to specify how this is done at some point, but let's continue...

Since the time dilation is precalculated based on the planned flight schedule it is known that (assuming Special Relativity is valid) the proper shuttle clocks, Bm and Cm, will be ticking at one half the rate of Am.

Only as measured in frame A.

Control monitoring clocks have been precalibrated and installed in each shuttle to run at two ticks per each tick of clocks Bm and Cm. They are labled Bac and Cac.

Ok.

The space stations shuttle prediction monitoring clocks are labled Abp and Acp and are calibrated to tick at one half the rate of Am so as to allow the station operators to know what time has accumulated aboard the shuttles.

You mean, how long has accumulated since all the clocks were started simultaneously according to the station. Ok. Bear in mind that the shuttle clocks are not started simultaneously in either of the shuttle frames, of course.

The monitors Bac and Cac allow the pilots of the shuttles to see and operate in accordance with the rate that time is passing back at the space station clock Am.

Not from their own point of view. They, of course, see the station clock as running slower than their clocks.

Due to Velocity Addition the relative velocity between "B" and "C" is 0.9897c and Gamma is 6.984 and their clocks each tick at the rate of only 143 ticks per 1,000 ticks of the other.

I assume these calculations are based on the relativistic formula and are correct. (I haven't checked.)

Respective prediction clocks have been precalibrated in B and C so as to accumulate time of the other as predicted by Special Relativity. That is the clocks will only record 143 ticks for each 1,000 ticks of the respective local proper time clocks Bm and Cm, they are labled Bcp and Cbp

Ok. Are these clocks also started simultaneously according to the station, or simultaenously in some other frame?

The flight schedule is set to be 10 hours inertial testing from the Am clock.

So that after 36,000 ticks (seconds) according to Am and according to Bac and Cac all clocks stop. Each shuttle transmits a stop information signal back to the space station.

Ok.

Again the simultaneity of these actions can be argued but have no bearing on the issue at hand and can be ignored.

I very much doubt it...

The results of this test are as follows:

Am = 36,000 Abp = 18,000 Acp = 18,000

Bac = 36,000 and stops all B clocks.
Cac = 36,000 and stops all C clocks.

Bm = 18,000 Cm = 18,000

Bap = 9,000 Cap = 9,000

Bcp = 2,574 Cbp = 2,574

Put into a more understandable configuration where predicted accumulated times of clocks A, B and C are more obvious:


Clock A
------------
Am = 36,000 Test master clock reading.
Bac = 36,000 Shuttle B test control clock.
Cac = 36,000 Shuttle C test control clock.
Bap = 9,000 Shuttle B's incorrect prediction of Am time.
Cap = 9,000 Shuttle C's incorrect prediction of Am time.

Clock B
-------------
Bm = 18,000 Shuttle B master proper time clock test reading.
Abp = 18,000 Station A's correct prediction for Bm test reading.
Cbp = 2,574 Shuttle C's incorrect prediction of Bm test reading.


Clock C
-------------
Cm = 18,000 Shuttle C master proper time clock test reading.
Acp = 18,000 Station A's correct prediction for Cm test reading.
Bcp = 2,574 Shuttle B's incorrect prediction of Cm test reading.

I haven't checked the calculations, but let's assume they are correct. Then, the readings you label as "incorrect" are due to differences in the starting times of the clocks in the different frames, presumably.

SUMMARY:

Before others point this out let me acknowledge that you are going to be inclined to claim that this test is not testing the affect of motion on clocks in that I am controlling the clocks with precalibrated timers so as to stop at preselected accumulated times per Special Relativity predictions.

But don't throw up your hands yet. There is some interesting things that can infact be demonstrated here.

1 - Accumulated times based on tick rates predicted by Special Relativity due to only relative motion do not agree with times actually accumulated in the test.

False. You have failed to take relativity of simultaneity into account. You repeat this error over and over, and never learn. Will you learn this time? I doubt it.

2 - The assumption that Special Relativity is valid results in evidence which shows that the theory requires physical clocks to accumulate time at multiple rates so as to satisfy predictions of multiple observers having different relative velocities.

False, for the same reason.

3 - The fact that these times are based on actual affects of motion is verfiable in that the start/stop information signals sent from the shuttles can be used to determine that infact the test period was 36,000 seconds according to the master clock Am.

...start/stop times which are not simultaneous in the shuttle frames.

That is all data is based on the same universal time period to a common standard. In that regard the issue of simultaneity which is generally used to mask such comparisons is rendered moot.

No, you just ignored it as usual, and assumed, incorrectly, that it wouldn't matter.

4 - Special Relativity requires that clocks B and C both tick at a rate of 0.5 / 1 to the space station clock. That is B and C are ticking at a common rate inspite of the fact that they have a relative velocity to each other which also requires them to tick at rates of about 1 tick to 7 ticks of the other. Impossible reciprocity and impossible ticking conditions for all views.

You are mixing frames. Haven't you got the hang of the whole reference frame thing yet?

B and C tick at the same rate IN A's frame.
B and C tick at different rates in B or C's frame.

It should be noted that it is reciprocity predictions which fail, not the primary gamma calculations which are demonstrated by emperical data. The point being that the data also supports an absolute view, it is the reciprocity created by the relative velocity view which is unsupported and unsupportable.

Try again. Better luck next time.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Still struggling with reciprocity?

Your comment is typical innuendo and is baseless. My only struggle is an effort to get certain relativists to actually think physics and forget rhetoric and fiat.

so they opt to lay out a flight schedule where only inertial relative velocity to the space station will be timed.

Can you "time" a velocity? Never mind...

Can you read and comprehend english. Do you really think it is appropriate to take those words out of context?. It was said in relation to a flight schedule. The flight at some inertial velocity is being timed. You are either ignorant or deliberately abusive in your posts.

... as measured by the station, of course.

As made clear in the text.

Who measures the "start" time? I assume the station does it.

You assume to much. You should stop assuming and actually read and think. Nobody cares when the test starts or if they are even simultaneous.

Fine. The signals will arrive at the station simultaneously, as measured by the station, but not, of course, by the shuttles. Let's continue...

Again as indicated in the jresentation simultaneous signals are irrelevant to the test as have been your comments thus far.

That remains to be seen...

What remains to be seen is for you to stop casting innnuendo and demonstrate otherwise.

The point is all clocks are recording time at their proper rate while in an inertial (rest) state.

More accurately, each records its own time at the proper rate in its own frame.

I guess you feel you must make comment on every point but it would be nice if such commments actually had any merit or bearing on the discussion.

I hope your "calibration" is carefully done, because it is usually at this point that you start to go horribly wrong.

]

See my comment immediately above.

I suspect you will need to specify how this is done at some point, but let's continue...

Perhaps you have a point when talking to lame brains one should point out that according to SR predictions Bm will tick at 0.5 the rate as Am in the proposed test and that to calibrate Bac therefore is adjusted so as to tick twice for each tick of Bm. WHICH MAKES IT TICK AT THE SAME RATE AS Am.

Only as measured in frame A.

Understood by all but the most unskilled thinker. What do you think the other clocks Bcp, Cbp, Bap and Cap are doing? They were carefully explained as these other views you refer to. Are you asleep,drunk or just being your typical obstinate innuendo casting self?

You mean, how long has accumulated since all the clocks were started simultaneously according to the station. Ok. Bear in mind that the shuttle clocks are not started simultaneously in either of the shuttle frames, of course.

You once again fall victum to the idea that they must be simultaneous start/stops. They do not just as has been explained in the presentation. You should actually try reading it and then thinking before posting.

Not from their own point of view. They, of course, see the station clock as running slower than their clocks.

You are refering to clocks Bap and Cap. Clocks Bac and Cac do exactly what I specified. It allows pilots aboard the shuttles to see the comparative time at Am based on the assumption that SR is valid.

That is all I have said. Don't distort the presentation.

I assume these calculations are based on the relativistic formula and are correct. (I haven't checked.)

Go ahead and check wise guy. Others have and your efforts to taint this thread aren't working. My calculations are correct.

Ok. Are these clocks also started simultaneously according to the station, or simultaenously in some other frame?

It was pinted out clearly in the presentation. Simultaneity between frames is irrelevant. All "B" clocks start simultaneously. All "C" clocks start simultaneously and all "A" clocks start simultaneously.

I very much doubt it...

That is a personal problem which I cannot help you with. But the problem doesn't seem to be what you think but the fact that you do not.

I haven't checked the calculations, but let's assume they are correct. Then, the readings you label as "incorrect" are due to differences in the starting times of the clocks in the different frames, presumably.

I knew you could not think without interjecting simultaneity. Precisely how do you think simultaneity has any bearing on the gamma function t' = t(1-c<sup>2</sup/c²)^1/2?

Simultaneity is only affective during motion between frames. It has nothing to do with the accumulated time on clocks due to gamma and test period when they are subsequently compared in a common frame - WHICH IS THE ONLY TRUE TIME DILATION OR CHANGE IN TIME. The test period is assured equal in each frame by the calculation of the interval between the start/stop information signals from the shuttles.

False. You have failed to take relativity of simultaneity into account. You repeat this error over and over, and never learn. Will you learn this time? I doubt it.

You poor pathetic creature. When will it sink into your head that simultaneity has nothing to do with dilated tick rates and accumulated time when compared to a common standard.

It is udder nonsense to argue that you can let clocks runs for different periods of time and still argue mathematical consistancy. To do so is to ignore physical reality and simply argue mathematics. A physical change in time can only be claimed where two clocks have run for an equal period of time (a common standard of measure) and produced different accumulated time.

Dopple and simultaneity are dynamic illusions of motion and produce NO permanent changes in time. Grow up.

False, for the same reason.

Demonstrated here that your view and comments are incoherent and inapplicable to the presentation.

...start/stop times which are not simultaneous in the shuttle frames.

Perceptions for which NOBODY cares. Gamma and equal duration is the only requirements for this test. Sorry your historical reliance on simultaneity is worthless here.

No, you just ignored it as usual, and assumed, incorrectly, that it wouldn't matter.

It does not matter as demonstrated by your inability to actually provide any mathematical support for your position. Innuendo just don't cut it as a rebuttal.

4 - Special Relativity requires that clocks B and C both tick at a rate of 0.5 / 1 to the space station clock. That is B and C are ticking at a common rate inspite of the fact that they have a relative velocity to each other which also requires them to tick at rates of about 1 tick to 7 ticks of the other. Impossible reciprocity and impossible ticking conditions for all views.

You are mixing frames. Haven't you got the hang of the whole reference frame thing yet?

B and C tick at the same rate IN A's frame.
B and C tick at different rates in B or C's frame.

Speaking of not getting it yet, when are you going to learn that we are not taling about observation during motion between frames we are talking about the predicted gamma affect due to relative motion as demonstrable by different accumulated times on clocks when subsequently compared in a common frame. Damn keep your comments relative to the presentation. This is not about perception or measurement between moving frames it is about permanent time change made to clocks.

Try again. Better luck next time.

Ditto. This was a horrible mess on your part. You were in left field the whole trip.

 

[funkstar]

MacM,

You haven't now, and cannot ever, prove relativity theory wrong with a thought experiment. It doesn't even matter whether it is wrong. You can't do it by thought, because it's internally consistent.

 

[Billy T]

Thanks. Now I can respond to your post and not be inclined to refer to you in historical terms.

I sort of miss the "honors" you give me from time to time. If you are stopping, I may need to stop giving you your "Duck and Weave" awards You earned 16 D&W awards in my thread which had a light flash from middle of train explode bombs at front and rear of the train. Simulatanously in train frame, but not in station frame, because in the station frame the motion of the train while light flash was traveling made distance for light to travel to the rear bomb less than distance it traveled to the front bomb (which was "running away" from the approaching light, instead of towards it as the rear bomb was.) You had to agree that what is simultaneous in one frame, is not in another, moving with respect to it, but seem to have forgotten that lesson here. Be that as it may, I asked what "at that time" ment and you replied (or at least pretend to):

It can be interpreted literally. "At that time", whenever that might be.

Not much of an answer, but I will do what I can with it: Literally "that" is a demonstrative pronoun which refers to a specific thing. Thus "at that time" can not refer to two or more different times, so I am forced to this conclusion:

You do mean that the clocks in all three frames do start running at one (or the same) time or that hated "simultaneously," which you insist has nothing to do with your gedenken.

It would have helped if you had given me the simple "yes" or "no" answer I asked for in:

Does B agree that C stated his clock Cm at the same time as B started clock Bm?

So I ask for a "yes" or "no" again.

I fear my efforts with train and exploding bombs gedenken, which proved that two events, “simultaneous in one frame” are not simultaneous in the other, have been wasted on you. Now you want three different frames to start and stop their clocks simultaneously, when this is impossible even for two frames! (I admit that I am taking your implicit claims that you can compare time accumulated on different clocks in different frames seriously. If I am wrong in this, and it is just another D&W, it is a poor one, and gets no D&W credits.)

Funkstar is of course correct. No gedenken can prove SR wrong, especially one that starts off by assuming conditions that SR states are false.

But still being in a generous mood to wards you: Let me admit that yes you can either (1) start clocks in several different frames simultaneously (for example when they are passing each other very close to one another by a "turn on" flash of light, but please note that they are no longer, at "stop time" adjacent to one another.) OR (2) Stop them all simultaneously at the same time (for example if all crash against each other at one point in time at the same time for in the crash point's stationary frame - frame crash point is at rest in) However, SR will not let you do both, as then you would have both different spatially-separated events simultaneous in two frames moving wrt each other - something my train with its exploding bombs has shown / proven to be impossible.

I also, still in my generous mood, admit each good clock in each frame can keep proper time in that frame, and further more that SR does make predictions, easily calculated, as to how much more slowly clocks in other frames are running compared to the frame's clocks. I even admit that to the naive it seem impossible that both A's & B's clocks can ticking more slowly than the other, accumulating time more slowly etc. You in this gedenken, speak of the time accumulated, but do not seem (infact state that you are not) concerned with the simultaneity of the "start clock times" /event in the different frames or the "stop clock" times / event in different frames. For you it (the naive view that both frames can not both have tick rates both slower) is sufficient disproof of SR as if they did, then their "accumulated times" (whatever that means without describing how BOTH the start and stop events can be simultaneous) must each be less than the other, showing this "impossibility," disproving SR, etc.

The problem you still fail to see, which if you did could get you away from your naive position and into a real understanding of SR, is that you can not have simultaneously both start and stop events in two different frames, You can have at most one, the start or the stop event, but if the same events are used (for example the explosion at front and rear of my train the accumulated time in the train frame is zero but a positive amount in the station frame because in station frame the explosion at train rear does occur before the one at the trains front and not simultaneously.)

*

NO. I mention simultaneity only to insure that others do not jump in and say I have ignored it. It is simply irrelevant to the test. Neither Start nor Stop must be simultaneous. [/quote=MacM]*

OK, still trying to be generous, perhaps I can even accept that, but certainly not that the clock in frame B, the one showing only 9000 ticks in frame B was running was accumulating for same period as the one in frame A showing 36000. Pete mentioned this earlier. You have a very naïve view of “accumulation procedures.” If you want to compare the ticks accumulated in a period, you must start and stop the clocks in the same frame, not in different frames, where the at least one of the start and stop events will not be “at the same time” in both frames.
-------------------------------
* damned if I know why this will not display correctly

 

[MacM]

MacM,

You haven't now, and cannot ever, prove relativity theory wrong with a thought experiment. It doesn't even matter whether it is wrong. You can't do it by thought, because it's internally consistent.

Nor have you or can you claim SR valid because it is not supported entirely by emperical data but was created by thought experiments and reciprocity remains a thought experiment.

Your failure to demonstrate reciprocity in 100 years is strong indication that you are wrong.

 

[MacM]

Thus "at that time" can not refer to two or more different times, so I am forced to this conclusion:

You do mean that the clocks in all three frames do start running at one (or the same) time or that hated "simultaneously," which you insist has nothing to do with your gedenken.

It would have helped if you had given me the simple "yes" or "no" answer I asked for in:So I ask for a "yes" or "no" again.

I mean just what I said. I does not matter if they start and stop simultaneously as long as the interval between the signals is measured to be 36,000 seoncds per Am.

However, SR will not let you do both, as then you would have both different spatially-separated events simultaneous in two frames moving wrt each other .

Nor have I claimed so. So what is the point of the verbal batter?


I also, still in my generous mood, admit each good clock in each frame can keep proper time in that frame, and further more that SR does make predictions, easily calculated, as to how much more slowly clocks in other frames are running compared to the frame's clocks. I even admit that to the naive it seem impossible that both A's & B's clocks can ticking more slowly than the other, accumulating time more slowly etc. You in this gedenken, speak of the time accumulated, but do not seem (infact state that you are not) concerned with the simultaneity of the "start clock times" /event in the different frames or the "stop clock" times / event in different frames. For you it (the naive view that both frames can not both have tick rates both slower) is sufficient disproof of SR as if they did, then their "accumulated times" (whatever that means without describing how BOTH the start and stop events can be simultaneous) must each be less than the other, showing this "impossibility," disproving SR, etc.[/quote]

You hve used a lot of space to make irrelevant comments. The accumulated time on a clock depnds on only two conditions.

1 - Tick Rate as per t' = t.(1-v²/c²)^1/2 and,

2 - Equal periods of test.

It would make no sense what-so-ever to claim a clock was ticking at 1/2 the rte of another clock but then allow it to run twice as long and say see they recorded the same time. :bugeye:

This is an exagerated eversion but generically what you want to do. It is physical nonsense.

The problem you still fail to see, which if you did could get you away from your naive position and into a real understanding of SR, is that you can not have simultaneously both start and stop events in two different frames, You can have at most one, the start or the stop event, but if the same events are used

The problem is not mine. It is yours. See above as to what constitutes physical basis for accumulated time on clocks. Simultaneity of test is not among them.

OK, still trying to be generous, perhaps I can even accept that, but certainly not that the clock in frame B, the one showing only 9000 ticks in frame B was running was accumulating for same period as the one in frame A showing 36000.

Really.? Then perhaps you can do more than object and actually show how if the Start/Stop information signals transmitted by the shuttle measure 36,000 second interval in frame A that it does not equal the same 36,000 seconds of clock Am in frame A. :bugeye:



Pete mentioned this earlier. You have a very naïve view of “accumulation procedures.” If you want to compare the ticks accumulated in a period, you must start and stop the clocks in the same frame, not in different frames, where the at least one of the start and stop events will not be “at the same time” in both frames.[/QUOTE]

 

[Billy T]

.... I does not matter if they start and stop simultaneously as long as the interval between the signals is measured to be 36,000 seoncds per Am....

You do realize that the stop signal is transimtted by B after 36000 of his seconds from a point much farther away from the "stationary" space craft A, than the point from which B transmitted the "start signal" don't you? I am getting confused by this claim that they arrive at A with 36000 second of A's time separating them. But as you still refuse to give a simple yes or no answer to:

Does B agree that C stated his clock Cm at the same time as B started clock Bm?

I guess there is not much point in continuing this discussion.

 

[funkstar]

Nor have you or can you claim SR valid because it is not supported entirely by emperical data but was created by thought experiments and reciprocity remains a thought experiment.

I don't agree. You've never been able to make a comprehensive answer when queried about what this reciprocity actually constitutes - almost certainly due to the fact that you don't actually understand relativity theory at all.

Your failure to demonstrate reciprocity in 100 years is strong indication that you are wrong.

Nah, not really.