Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

[MacM]

Unfortunately NASA's budget does not allow for transport of astronaught to another frame moving near c with respect to Earth. So we can not give you the direct experimental results you require. This does not prevent you from pointing out where the error you claim exists in the proof of this thread. Note that I even number the paragraphs in one proof to make it easy for you to site where the math went wrong.

I have given my excuse / reason (NASA's limited funds) why I can not comply with your request for experimental evidence that "mutual reciprocity" between two frames predicted by SRT is real. i.e. Show the time accumulated on both clocks for the twins of "twin paradox" is less for both, etc. You do not understand "simultaneity problem" or that "time is not universal" etc.

Tell me where is error in math proof. That should be easy compared to putting person in frame moving fast wrt Earth. What is your excuse for not pointing out the error?

Nice dodge but insufficient response. Accumulated time dilation is measurable by todays technlogy. In fact it is called GPS.

Funny GPS demonstrates that prelaunch calibration offset of the orbiting clock synchronizes clocks and the earth surface clocks do not actually run slower that the orbit clock. Otherwise synchronizaton would not be possible.

PS - FYI: The prelaunch calibration offset of the orbiting clock does not use SRT's relative velocity. Relative velocity results in a -5.8us/day velocity dilation. The correct velocity dilation is -7.2us/day and is computed using the ECI frame which is a local preferred rest frame. Velocities are in absolute terms relative to that referance. That is to say the orbviting clock always has the higher velocity unlike SRT where it is claimed either can be assumed at rest and the other has all motion. The absolute view prohibits such nonsense and works.

SRT doesn't. No reciprocity exists. Don't forget it and don't ignore it.

 

[James R]

Funny GPS demonstrates that prelaunch calibration offset of the orbiting clock synchronizes clocks and the earth surface clocks do not actually run slower that the orbit clock.

Not funny at all. The synchronisation can be made to work in any single reference frame you choose. Obviously, we want GPS to work on the ground, so it is synchronised that way.

Don't bother replying. You're just repeating yourself. I know all your misconceptions already, and don't need them repeated yet again.

 

[MacM]

Not funny at all. The synchronisation can be made to work in any single reference frame you choose. Obviously, we want GPS to work on the ground, so it is synchronised that way.

What a load of crap.

Reciprocity is not a matter of choice. It (according to SRT) persists in all cases of inertial relative velocity. Hence should we place the ISS into GPS orbit we would have observers there and on the surface. The earth clock dows ot and would not record less time than the orbiting clock. PERIOD. Your repeated fiat to the contrary is assine.

Don't bother replying. You're just repeating yourself.

Try not posting. You are just repeating yourself. You have and can never justify your statement. It is outright horseshit.

I know all your misconceptions already, and don't need them repeated yet again.

You appear to know jack shit.

 

[James R]

*yawn*

 

[MacM]

*yawn*

Stop pretending to be superior. It doesn't make it so.


A comment from one of your collegue physicist. More accomplished and educated than yourself.

*****************************************************
Dear Dan:

You know the most arogant bunch of so-called scientists, "I don't want to call them Physicists, as that would be too complimentary", would be some of the relativists.
.........

Of course you know we have more important things to do than worry about BLOCK HEADS.
******************************************************

You have nothing to contribute of value.

 

[James R]

Your ad hominems merely confirm you have nothing of substance to offer, MacM.

 

[MacM]

Your ad hominems merely confirm you have nothing of substance to offer, MacM.

Oh, so you are uncomfortable with tit for tats?

 

[Billy T]

To MacM: James is correct. GPS is adjusted to match Earth time. (Frankly I don't care how. It would be OK, by me, to observe for a minute and then command the GPS clock to go faster or slower as need be. When you have it almost matching, perhaps you need to observe for a year to do final fine tuning. Don't tell me again the details of how you think they do it wrong. It does not matter. They have it right now at least.)

You still do not seem to understand what is clearly demonstrated /proven in the first post of this thread. I reproduce part of the summary from it for you:

...If the time dilation of SRT is computed and used to adjust the rate of clocks in one frame, it is possible to synchronize any PAIR of clocks in two different frames, but not all of them, if they are to correctly keep time in their own frame. The reason is simple. A set of clocks that are separated only by space in one frame are separated by a mixture of space and time in the other. Thus clocks at different locations can not be both synchronous with each others in the same frame (keep time correctly) and yet synchronized with all synchronous clocks in another frame. Take your pick, (but only one of the following two):

(1)You can have all clocks in two different frames all show the same time (Each has a unique SRT correction to it rate, which depends on the clock‘s location.) but they do not show the same time as clocks that are synchronous in their own frame. (I.e. they are not keeping correct time in their own frame.) OR
(2) You can have all clocks in both of two different frames synchronized with others in their same frame, (Keeping correct time in their own frame.) but the clocks in one frame will not be synchronous with the clocks in the other frame.

Any comments from people who claim that all clocks in two different frames can both keep time correctly in their own frame and yet be synchronized with clocks in another frame that are all also showing the correct time in their frame? I.e. people who think time is universal for all frames and thus SRT must be wrong.

Your "reciprocity arguement" against SR is basically a claim that the time accumulated (by good clocks) in two different frames can not both be less. (Correct me if I stated it wrong by you stating it.) i don't know which mistake you are making. Either:

(1) idea that time is universal and hence two "start and stop" events for clocks accumulating can be "simulateous" in both frames OR

(2) idea that when one has accumulated say one hour, the one in other frame must also have an hour accumulated, even though it's tick rate is slower.

Help me out. State clearly what "reciprocity" in SR is its own downfall. Is it that basically the "twin paradox" is too strange for your intuition to accept?

Recall I have, in this thread, had each twin born from frozen embros that were transported at Liquid N2 temp, and then delvered by C-section of their foster mothers just as they were passing each other at high speed. Neither ever leaves his frame, has any acceleration after their suspended existence without any aging at liquid N2 temperatures, yet each finds that when he is 15 (by his understanding of "simultaneously") his brother is only 10. Is this what is bothering you in "reciprocity"? Thanks

 

[MacM]

To MacM: James is correct.

Only partially. The orbit clock is synchronized to a theoretical clock at the center of the earth.

GPS is adjusted to match Earth time.

Correct. Which would not be possible if SRT reciprocity were fact. According to SRT the orbit clock runs slower that the earth clock but the earth clock runs slower than the orbiting clock. For example if the orbit clock were ticking at 0.9 the earth standard tick rate then from the orbits view the earth would be ticking 0.9 times its rate of 0.9 or 0.81 the standard earth tick rate.

The orbiting clock is prelaunch calibrated to tick +7.2us/day to compensate for the loss of time due to its velocity to the center of the earth. But if it were calibrated to a clock at the equator it would have to be +5.8us/day.

But then it would not be synchronized since from orbit the equator would appear to be another 5.8us/day slower yet. SRT has you chasing your tail. SRT makes it impossible to achieve such synchronization.

James R's claims that reciprocity is real is simply, well....stupid. That is why they don't use SRT in GPS. In reality it doesn't work that way.

(Frankly I don't care how. It would be OK, by me, to observe for a minute and then command the GPS clock to go faster or slower as need be. When you have it almost matching, perhaps you need to observe for a year to do final fine tuning.

Well perhaps it is time you should start to care since it shows SRT to be false.

Don't tell me again the details of how you think they do it wrong.

Please show where I claim they do it wrong. They do it right. They use local preferred common rest frames and not relative velocity between clocks.

It does not matter. They have it right now at least.)

Yep. Once they forgot all about SRT and just adjusted to a gamma based on absolute velocity to a local rest frame all was well.

You still do not seem to understand what is clearly demonstrated /proven in the first post of this thread. I reproduce part of the summary from it for you:

Your "reciprocity arguement" against SR is basically a claim that the time accumulated (by good clocks) in two different frames can not both be less. (Correct me if I stated it wrong by you stating it.) i don't know which mistake you are making. Either:

(1) idea that time is universal and hence two "start and stop" events for clocks accumulating can be "simulateous" in both frames OR

Simultaneity is not at issue. Multiple tick rates and accumulated times are. Remember to be relative motion the test must be concurrent (simultaneous).

(2) idea that when one has accumulated say one hour, the one in other frame must also have an hour accumulated, even though it's tick rate is slower.

Udder nonsense. I have never made any such claim. SRT claims that indeed A ticks slower than B and B ticks slower than A. That is what I have said and what I claim is physical nonsense totally unsupported by any evidence.

One tecks slower and the other must ticker faster. That is the reality regardless of the unsupported claims (nonsense) of SRT. The only physical evidence in 100 years of relativity is that ONE ticks slower, not vice versa.

It is also what GPS proves is invalid.

Help me out. State clearly what "reciprocity" in SR is its own downfall. Is it that basically the "twin paradox" is too strange for your intuition to accept?

This has nothing to do with intuition. It has to do with sound and acceptable physics supported by emperical data. If yo disagree then please show us data which is not as I have stated. The only time dilation ever demonstrated has been on one clock. Don't say reciprocity has not been tested it has. The fraud of H&K test is an example. There were observers both on the ground and in the airplanes.

Did the pilots clocks record the surface clock as running slower? NOPE.

Recall I have, in this thread, had each twin born from frozen embros that were transported at Liquid N2 temp, and then delvered by C-section of their foster mothers just as they were passing each other at high speed. Neither ever leaves his frame, has any acceleration after their suspended existence without any aging at liquid N2 temperatures, yet each finds that when he is 15 (by his understanding of "simultaneously") his brother is only 10.

Only according to unsupported aspects of SRT. What I am trying to get you to understand is that each twin at birth has a proper tick rate which has been established by the historical acceleration of the craft carrying them.

If the acceleration history is different then the clocks aboard these craft may tick different. In which case ONE will run slower than the other but not vice versa.

If both accelerated away equally, turned around and then accelerated back equally to your birth position then both would have the same precise tick rate and no aging differance would occur even though they have relative velocity.

Why because time dilation is a function of energy change due to acceleration, not relative velocity.

It is a simple matter to gendankin the issue. You have craft 'A' and 'B' at rest at 'C'.

They each accelerate away equally and then become inertial. Each has a tick rate which causes them to accumulate time at some equal slower tick rate than clocks at 'C'.

Since accumulated time is a direct function of tick rate, I suggest you explain how you expect to also claim that both 'A" and 'B' are ticking slower than each other and yet remain synchronized to the slower tick rate relative to 'C". :bugeye:

Is this what is bothering you in "reciprocity"? Thanks

I am not bothered by any of this. I am bothered by the closed nature of some minds as to the actual issue here.

Minds that promote rhetoric when it is not supported by emperical findings.

Emperical findings are consistant with an absolute motion view, not a relative velocity view.

 

[KitNyx]

Actually, you are both wrong. A clock in orbit would "tick" faster then an identical on on Earth. The effects of Time Dialation make the clocks in orbit loose 7 microseconds a day. However, due to the GREATER effects of Earths gravity well the clocks on the ground then loose 45 microseconds per day relative to the ones in orbit. End Result: The clocks in orbit gain 38 microseconds per day, relative to clocks on the surface of the Earth.

MacM - No, I have NEVER heard of anyone calculating anything from the "center of the Earth". Why??? And, Time Dialation does not even play a significant role in the universe runs until you near c...accelerating our satelliotes to these relativistic velocities is absurd (they would not be satelites for long) quit using stupid examples in an attempt to prove your pseudo science queries.

James R - Wow, your patience astounds me.

Links for those who may need them (credible links too, wow):

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

http://www.ultragear.com/gps_trivia.asp (see below, wow!)
"The clocks on the satellites run at a slightly slower rate than do clocks on the Earth's surface. This is due to both special, and general relativity. This amounts to a discrepancy of around 38 microseconds per day, which is corrected by electronics on each satellite. This offset is a dramatic proof of the theory of relativity in a real-world system, as it is exactly that predicted by the theory, within the limits of accuracy of measurement."

http://mappinghacks.com/talks/sudac_2005-04-05/slide36.html?1112720651

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps (I love wikipedia, see below)
"The clocks on the satellites are also affected by both special and general relativity, which causes them to run at a slightly slower rate than do clocks on the Earth's surface. This amounts to a discrepancy of around 38 microseconds per day, which is corrected by electronics on each satellite. This offset is a dramatic proof of the theory of relativity in a real-world system, as it is exactly that predicted by the theory, within the limits of accuracy of measurement."

McCoin - I do not even see what all the discussion was about. You had exactly this information on you MSN website, however you had it semantically twisted to support UniKEF, but it was there.

Anyways, enough fanaticism for me. Have fun.

- KitNyx

 

[KitNyx]

Sorry, I need to add one more thing...accumilated time? You cannot be serious...Okay gotta go again while I can still laugh.

- KitNyx

 

[MacM]

Actually, you are both wrong. A clock in orbit would "tick" faster then an identical on on Earth. The effects of Time Dialation make the clocks in orbit loose 7 microseconds a day. However, due to the GREATER effects of Earths gravity well the clocks on the ground then loose 45 microseconds per day relative to the ones in orbit. End Result: The clocks in orbit gain 38 microseconds per day, relative to clocks on the surface of the Earth.

Well for your information we are not wrong. This issues has been discussed at length in other threads where the GR affects were presented. We are just discussing SRT claims here.

MacM - No, I have NEVER heard of anyone calculating anything from the "center of the Earth". Why??? And, Time Dialation does not even play a significant role in the universe runs until you near c...accelerating our satelliotes to these relativistic velocities is absurd (they would not be satelites for long) quit using stupid examples in an attempt to prove your pseudo science queries.

Well, I suggest you learn something about GPS before commenting again. You just stuck your foot in your mouth. Don't pretend to know more than you do or it will bite you in the ass.

James R - Wow, your patience astounds me.

And your adudacity astounds me.

Links for those who may need them (credible links too, wow):

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

http://www.ultragear.com/gps_trivia.asp (see below, wow!)
"The clocks on the satellites run at a slightly slower rate than do clocks on the Earth's surface. This is due to both special, and general relativity. This amounts to a discrepancy of around 38 microseconds per day, which is corrected by electronics on each satellite.

Absolutely false.

As was just stated GR causes the clocks to run faster overall.

This offset is a dramatic proof of the theory of relativity in a real-world system, as it is exactly that predicted by the theory, within the limits of accuracy of measurement."

Absolutely false.

Thae data only supports the view of GR and gamma but NOT SRT which includes reciproicty where the earth clock also runs slower than the orbit clock. That is the issue.

http://mappinghacks.com/talks/sudac_2005-04-05/slide36.html?1112720651

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps (I love wikipedia, see below)
"The clocks on the satellites are also affected by both special and general relativity, which causes them to run at a slightly slower rate than do clocks on the Earth's surface. This amounts to a discrepancy of around 38 microseconds per day, which is corrected by electronics on each satellite. This offset is a dramatic proof of the theory of relativity in a real-world system, as it is exactly that predicted by the theory, within the limits of accuracy of measurement."

Absolutely false.

1 - GR yes. SRT NO. SRT is not used. SRT is relative velocity between two points where reciprocity exists. Since you apparently don't know that let me explain. SRT claims everything is relative and that any object in an inertial state is at rest. Therefore two objects with relative vleocity that are both inertial see the other having the velocity and themselves as at rest. This is what causes the reciproicty issue. Each claims the other is in motion and is ticking slower. That is not what physical clocks have shown, nor GPS.

McCoin - I do not even see what all the discussion was about. You had exactly this information on you MSN website, however you had it semantically twisted to support UniKEF, but it was there.

What? I twisted nothing and nothing was written to suport UniKEF by mis-stating relativity. You have the relavisitic affects backwards above bub.

 

[MacM]

Sorry, I need to add one more thing...accumilated time? You cannot be serious...Okay gotta go again while I can still laugh.

- KitNyx

Here laugh at this. Jerk.

**********************************
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath307/kmath307.htm



Given this definition of inertial reference frames, the principle of relativity asserts that for any material particle in any state of motion there exists an inertial reference frame - called the rest frame of the particle - with respect to which the particle is instantaneously at rest (i.e., the change of the spatial coordinates with respect to the time coordinate is zero). This principle is usually extended to include reciprocity, meaning that for any two systems S1 and S2 of inertial coordinates, if the spatial origin of S1 has velocity v with respect to S2, then the spatial origin of S2 has velocity -v with respect to S1. The existence of this class of reference frames, and the viability of the principles of relativity and reciprocity, are inferred from experience. Once these principles have been established, the relationship between relatively moving inertial coordinate systems can then be considered.

And while at it:
Since you have never heard of the ECI:

*************Extract ********************
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node9.html

Five distinct relativistic effects, discussed in Section 5, are incorporated into the System Specification Document, ICD-GPS-200 [2]. These are:

the effect of earth's mass on gravitational frequency shifts of atomic reference clocks fixed on the earth's surface relative to clocks at infinity;
the effect of earth's oblate mass distribution on gravitational frequency shifts of atomic clocks fixed on earth's surface;
second-order Doppler shifts of clocks fixed on earth's surface due to earth rotation;
gravitational frequency shifts of clocks in GPS satellites due to earth's mass;
and second-order Doppler shifts of clocks in GPS satellites due to their motion through an Earth-Centered Inertial (ECI) Frame.
******************************************

Go learn GPS before inserting foot in mouth.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node9.html

 

[Billy T]

According to SRT the orbit clock runs slower that the earth clock but the earth clock runs slower than the orbiting clock. For example if the orbit clock were ticking at 0.9 the earth standard tick rate then from the orbits view the earth would be ticking 0.9 times its rate of 0.9 or 0.81 the standard earth tick rate. … Simultaneity is not at issue. Multiple tick rates and accumulated times are.
… SRT claims that indeed A ticks slower than B and B ticks slower than A. That is what I have said and what I claim is physical nonsense
…

You are not understanding. You seem to think that “tick rates” are observable, without any reference to any SIMULTANEOUS “start event” and “stop event” that start and stop the stopwatches used to measure “tick rates” (How many ticks occur in an hour, for example.)

The first post of this thread, used two explosions as start event and stop events which were observed, without any propagation delays by observers in both frames immediately adjacent to the explosion. The point of this thread, and demonstrated in first post, shows that time is not universal. (You claim to agree, but proceed to compute as if time were universal and one need not be concerned with how to know that both are counting ticks in the same intervals.)

When observer “A“ has had 100 ticks in his frame sees (simultaneously for A and correcting for any propagation delays - or better still, as in first post of thread, have a lots of observers {all with watches synchronized in that frame} so that one is adjacent to both start and stop events with no propagation delay) that observer “B” has fewer tick, perhaps your 90. Likewise when “B” (simultaneously for B) has 100 ticks he sees that “A” has only 90.

This is not the “physical nonsense” you claim it to be based on your simple intuitive view. Reason this is possible is what you do not understand: The (simultaneously for A) is not (simultaneously for B). - I.e. time is not universal.

I also note this is just the “twin paradox” again, but in “ticks“, not years of aging.

If you want to understand you must not just assume that it is simple to measure the “same time interval” in two different frames. You must carefully explain how. If you do this (or study the first post) you will understand your error.

 

[KitNyx]

MacM - I thought your links were great. In fact, better than those I presented. They strictly support any and all references to the relativity theory being denied by...by you. interesting, and thank you for the support. Chuckle, chuckle...

- KitNyx

 

[MacM]

You are not understanding. You seem to think that “tick rates” are observable, without any reference to any SIMULTANEOUS “start event” and “stop event” that start and stop the stopwatches used to measure “tick rates” (How many ticks occur in an hour, for example.)

You have to be joking. Tick rate is tick rate and is a repeative signal that even a stop watch could measure (accuracy aside). It requires no coordination (synchronization) between frames. The elapsed time between ticks is all that is being measured. Not when that tick occured according to some specific time in each frame. :bugeye:

The first post of this thread, used two explosions as start event and stop events which were observed, without any propagation delays by observers in both frames immediately adjacent to the explosion. The point of this thread, and demonstrated in first post, shows that time is not universal.

You are only showing perception and measure

. You have shown nothing that defies an underlying universal time.

(You claim to agree, but proceed to compute as if time were universal and one need not be concerned with how to know that both are counting ticks in the same intervals.)

Tick rate is irrevocably linked to accumulated time. If you calculate a tick rate of 0.5 then when clocks are synchronized it would record 30 minutes to your one hour.

Synchronization is another issue entirely. Don't confuse yourself by arguing synchronization and simultaneoyut when talking about tick rates. They are distinctly different issues.

When observer “A“ has had 100 ticks in his frame sees (simultaneously for A and correcting for any propagation delays - or better still, as in first post of thread, have a lots of observers {all with watches synchronized in that frame} so that one is adjacent to both start and stop events with no propagation delay) that observer “B” has fewer tick, perhaps your 90. Likewise when “B” (simultaneously for B) has 100 ticks he sees that “A” has only 90.

Unsupported rhetoric. I know very well lwhat SRT claims but it is shear stupidity to believe that if one is ticking slower that the other is not ticking faster. That is the real world and is the only thing ever supported by emperical data. SRT's reciproicty has not and will never be. It is unsupported garbage.

This is not the “physical nonsense” you claim it to be based on your simple intuitive view. Reason this is possible is what you do not understand: The (simultaneously for A) is not (simultaneously for B). - I.e. time is not universal.

So you keep saying. Simultaneity iss a fact but it doesn't function as you claim. Simultaneity is nothing more than signal delays and dilation combined. Both of which is calculable and can be offset, corrected and taken into account so as to time events in real universal time and when you understand that and do that all your BS vanishes.

I also note this is just the “twin paradox” again, but in “ticks“, not years of aging.

Yep. And one twin (the one that accelerates) may record less time. May even age slower. But that is not known for a fact. Dilation may simly be an affect on certain atomic functions and have no bearing on time what-so-ever.

Having said that the BS about each aging slower due to relative velocity is unsuppported and unworkalbe as bonafidde physics. It is BS.

If you want to understand you must not just assume that it is simple to measure the “same time interval” in two different frames. You must carefully explain how. If you do this (or study the first post) you will understand your error.

Your assumption that it is I that am in error is nothing more than your bias butressed by ignorance of what is and can be physically real.

 

[James R]

James R's claims that reciprocity is real is simply, well....stupid. That is why they don't use SRT in GPS. In reality it doesn't work that way.

GPS requires relativity, or it wouldn't work.

There are literally thousands of web pages which say this. Everybody who has ever worked on the GPS system says it.

But what would they know? MacM always knows better than any "expert".

 

[Billy T]

...The elapsed time between ticks is all that is being measured....

EXACTLY CORRECT! elapsed time is the time between a "start event" and a "stop event" - just as I said and you continue to ignore the problem of knowing how these two events are "simultanuous" in the two frames!

By later edit: Now have read rest of your post and my comments on it are the next post.

 

[Billy T]

To MacM:
Ok I have skimmed the rest of it now. Not much there except your often repeated claims that those who disagree with you are spouting "BS" - I.e. most (at least 95%) of the well educated physics community and all the designers of particles accelerators, many pratical engineers working with accelerators etc. are full of BS as MacM knows better, based on his ??? - you tell me.

There was, however, one thing that did surprize me as I recall you had the opposite possition only a few months ago. Here you said:

Simultaneity is nothing more than signal delays and dilation combined. Both of which is calculable and can be offset, corrected and taken into account so as to time events in real universal time and when you understand that and do that all your BS vanishes.

The first post of this thread carefully avoids all "signal delays" by having a multitude of observers standing "shoulder-to-shoulder" adjacent to the fast moving train with their noses just being "grazed" by the passing bombs that are the "start" and "stop events." So first part of your first sentence is irelivant. - the are no "signal delays" in my proof that time is not universal.

Also, I make no use of "dialation" in it, so that is irrelivant also. What I clearly show in that proof is the the temporal separation between the "start event" and the "stop event" is different in the two frames. I use the constant /same speed of light to do this. The flash at the center of the train, which setoffs the two explosions takes (L/2c) time to travel to each in the train's frame, where L is the length of the train. (In the train's frame, they go off simultaneously.) But, in the station frame, this flash of light reaches the bomb at the end of the train in less than (L/2c) as the train is moving forward to meet the on coming light. (I don't want to worry about the "contraction of L" in the station frame. - That would just make the time in the station frames even less, or be exactly compensated by the opposite effect at the front of the train. I don't want to take time to think it thru carefull or argue about the effect of contraction, which obviously cancel out in the computation of the total time interval between the two explosions.) Thus, in the station frame the end of train explosion preceeds the one at the front. - The explosions are not simultaneous. I agreed that the explosion at the rear of the train could be, by mutual agreement, taken as the same t = 0 time.

The explosion at the front of the train is then not at the same t = x time in the station frame as it is in the train frame. (Because the forward going light front from the flash must travel, in the station frame, the extra distance the train has moved while the light was rushing toward the front bomb.) That was the essence of the proof. I invite you to look at the numerical example also given.

The simple fact is that, yes it is possible to make any pair of good clocks agree in two different frames, for example the one at the end of the train and the one on the ground both had t = 0 when the end of train explosion occurred. If you want to keeep them in agreement a "correction factor" must be added. But only one pair can be in agreement with the same correction factor. Other clocks at different locations will require their own different correction factors - I.e. not keep local time in their frame correctly.

What surprized me was you basically agreed with this months ago and even stated that you did not assume time was universal, but now your state:

...Simultaneity is nothing more than signal delays and dilation combined. Both of which is calculable and can be offset, corrected and taken into account so as to time events in real universal time and when you understand that and do that all your BS vanishes.

The "so as to time events in real universal time" appears to be a change in your position.

I have also explainded in words (not math) trying to get thru to you the fundamental reason why only a pair of clocks can keep both local time and be sychronized to one in another frame. When one tranforms to another moving coordinate system , there is a most one point with only "time like separtation" at any time. That is for this one point (which constantlychanges) point (x,y,z) = point (X,Y,Z) where x = X, y = Y & z = Z. For all other points the transform between the two coordinated systems mixes the space separation of the two points into some time separation in the the other frame. That is why only the end of the train and the adjacent station frame clock can be set to both have t = 0 simulatinuously but the ones at the front of the train and adjacent one on the ground must have different times if the are "good clock" in their own frames. (keeping local time correctly.)

Hard to state this clearly without any errors in words. Hope the basic idea gets thru to you. If not look at the numetical example given earlier in this thread (train going at 0.8c and 20 unitis long - where a "length unit" is the distance light travels in one "time unit" - you can work results out for your self and see the interval numerically between "start clocks end of train explosion event" until the "stop clocks front of train explosion event" are not the same in the two frames. (In the "flash at center of train" case this interval is zero in the train frame and greater than zero on the ground. I have also worked out, in earlier posts, the case where the flash is one length unit closer to the end of the train and thus not simultaneous in either frame.)

That is the "ticks" accumulated will obviously differ in the two frames and neither observer will agree that the other stoped his accumlating clock correctly (simultaneously with his). Each will think the other should have stopped accumulating differently. If the other had stopped "correctly" (simulatneously with his "now") then ther other would have accumulated less "ticks" - both think this. - it is not your "obviously impossible." They think this because they do not agree on what is "simulataneous."

You, in your simple minded view, (no insult intened - only stating it is a simple view, without the necessary understanding), which repeated denys that there is any need to discuss how they start and stop their accumulation of "ticks" correctly ignore the heart of the problem and falsely conclude it is impossible for both to accumulate less time. Each accumulates between the start and stop evnets as is correct in his frame, but these proceedures are not the same as their concepts of when the other should have stopped disagree. There is no univesal time. They can not, therefore, agree to start accumulating at noon and stop at 1PM. etc. It is a complex problem inherently involving a "start event" and a "stop event" when you "accumulated ticks". If you do not like my exposions, you could have the observers start when the are just passing and call that tick the "start event" or "tick zero" and agree that the 1,000,000th tick later will be the "stop event" then of course both will accumulate a million ticks, but the will not have accumulated for the same time duration because their millionth ticks are not simultaneous. (I assume you want them to accumulate for "the same time," do you not?)

I am just trying, in various ways, to show you that "tick accumulations comparisons" is not the extremely simple minded procedure you think it is because universal time does not exist.

 

[MacM]

MacM - I thought your links were great. In fact, better than those I presented. They strictly support any and all references to the relativity theory being denied by...by you. interesting, and thank you for the support. Chuckle, chuckle...

- KitNyx

Learn to read. :bugeye: