Mac's Special Relativity

[James R]

MacM:

As usual, you've been sloppy with your reference frames. Corrections appear below.

A light beam trigger circuit is established for the shuttle to cross starting all clocks in the experiment and the shuttle will be first sent off into space where it makes a turn around and accelerates back becoming inertial just before crossing the light trigger at 0.8c such that all testing is done during inertial conditions.

At that velocity gamma = 1 2/3 or the shuttle dilated clock will only tick 6 ticks for every 10 ticks of the station monitoring clock.

...As seen by the station clock.

According to a clock on the shuttle, the shuttle clock ticks 10 ticks for every 6 ticks of the station clock.

All clocks are identical and functioning properly. The craft is equipped with some unusual control equipment based on understood relativity affects.

Since relativity predicts that the shuttle clock will only tick at 60% the rate of the station clock...

as measured from the station...

, a computer program is used onboard the shuttle to produce a corrected count of ticks of the shuttle clock such that the control shuts down the shuttle clock when the station clock has reached 20,000 ticks and shuts down the test.

This is the crux of the experiment, and you make your usual mistake of failing to specify in which frame the shut down is simultaneous.

I will assume that the shutdown is simultaneous in the station frame. Therefore, it is not simultaneous in the shuttle frame, of course.

If relativity is to be believed this causes both observers to time the trip over a universally equal period such that tick rate times duration will display proper accumulated time of both clocks.

The word "universally" is totally out of place here. There is no universal time.

This of course will occur when the onboard shuttle clock reaches a count of only 12,000 ticks and the station 20,000 ticks - IF RELATIVITY IS A VALID THEORY and this proceedure for comparing motion affect on clocks avoids concerns of simultanety since we only care about tick rate not physical tick count.

Of course, it does not avoid such concerns, since you have chosen a preferred frame to do the stopping of the clocks in.

I am not clear what is supposed to stop your meddled-with shuttle clock. Is it programmed to stop at 12,000 ticks? Ok, then it stops at 12,000 ticks.

So when the shuttle crosses the light trigger all clocks are set to zero and the computer program begins tracking the trip. Both observers are equipped with the latest in long range vision equipment. Both the station and the shuttle have a light that flashes with each tick so each can count the flashes of the other clock and compare them to his own clock tick rate.

The station observer notes that according to his observation of his clock and the shuttle tick rate that the shuttle clock is only ticking at 36% the rate of his clock. Not the anticipated 60%.

Are you talking about an initially-sychronised shuttle clock here, or a shuttle clock you have meddled with to run slow? You didn't mention the shuttle clock running at a slow rate before.

If the shuttle clock is initially synchonised, and not meddled with, it will be seen to tick at 60% of the station rate, as seen by the station. Only if you've previously meddled with it to slow it by 60% before the experiment will it been seen by the station to tick at 60% of 60%, or 36% of the station clock's rate, as seen by the station.

Something is going wrong with the experiment. OMG! No! It can't be relativity is such a proven concept. There must be something wrong with the equipment.

Probably the person who set up the shuttle clock meddled with it to make it run slow before the test started. That's what it sounds like, anyway.

At this stage, there's no point continuing the analysis of the results, since the set-up has not been clearly specified.

Try again with a clear set-up and then we might be able to analyse your experiment properly.

In particular, please be specific about any prior meddling with the clocks.

Thankyou.

 

[przyk]

I could just as well have transmitted a signal about the accumulated times on the clocks after the test that is digitally encoded such that neither doppler nor simultaineity have any affect.

The light that flashes every time the shuttle clock ticks is already transmitting a signal giving the accumulated time (all the station observer has to do is count the ticks). Why is one transmission giving the "correct" time, and the other the "SR perception" time? How do you account for the difference?

The 0.36 is 1/2 half physical reality and the other half SR perception.

What's the mechanism behind this illusion? The way I see it, once you fix the physical dilation of the clock and the signal speed, what the station observer sees is already completely determined, so there isn't any room for another illusion.

What I have done is advance the notion that since ONLY the accelerated clock dilates it must be physically ticking slower

Did you even read the second half of my last post?

 

[Pete]

If the shuttle clock is initially synchonised, and not meddled with, it will be seen to tick at 60% of the station rate, as seen by the station. Only if you've previously meddled with it to slow it by 60% before the experiment will it been seen by the station to tick at 60% of 60%, or 36% of the station clock's rate, as seen by the station.

Careful, James... the shuttle clock will be seen by the station to tick at 1/3 normal rate. I'm not sure that Mac is distinguishing between doppler and time dilation. I might be wrong, of course.

 

[Pete]

Since relativity predicts that the shuttle clock will only tick at 60% the rate of the station clock, a computer program is used onboard the shuttle to produce a corrected count of ticks of the shuttle clock such that the control shuts down the shuttle clock when the station clock has reached 20,000 ticks and shuts down the test. If relativity is to be believed this causes both observers to time the trip over a universally equal period such that tick rate times duration will display proper accumulated time of both clocks.

Hi Mac,
This is the same misunderstanding of SR you've had since I've known you.

The clocks are identical, the station clock stops after 20,000 ticks, and the shuttle clock stops after 12,000 ticks, right?

If relativity is to be believed, this means that the clocks stop simultaneously in the station's frame - but not in the shuttle's frame.
According to SR, the shuttle pilot should expect the station clock to read only 7200 ticks when the shuttle clock stops, and keep on ticking until it stops and 20,000 ticks. Ie the shuttle pilot whould expect the station clock to run 2.8 times longer than the shuttle clock.

As far as the flashes from the station clock that the shuttle pilot actually sees, he'll only be seeing flash number 4000 when his clock ticks over to 12000 and stops. He'll have to wait four times longer again before he the last flash from the station arrives.

 

[James R]

Careful, James... the shuttle clock will be seen by the station to tick at 1/3 normal rate. I'm not sure that Mac is distinguishing between doppler and time dilation. I might be wrong, of course.

I don't think MacM realises there is a difference, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Having bothered to read through his tortuous scenario in detail now (from lack of anything better to do at the time), I find that MacM is still stuck on the same issues I attempted to explain to him 5 years ago.

I now actually doubt he has the capacity to learn special relativity.

 

[MacM]

Careful, James... the shuttle clock will be seen by the station to tick at 1/3 normal rate. I'm not sure that Mac is distinguishing between doppler and time dilation. I might be wrong, of course.

Pete you are partially correct. But it is not amatter of distinguishing. I merely prefer to keep the point in clear focus and not confuse things by interjecting other issues which don'talter the conclusion.

 

[MacM]

Hi Mac,
This is the same misunderstanding of SR you've had since I've known you.

The clocks are identical, the station clock stops after 20,000 ticks, and the shuttle clock stops after 12,000 ticks, right?

If relativity is to be believed, this means that the clocks stop simultaneously in the station's frame - but not in the shuttle's frame.
According to SR, the shuttle pilot should expect the station clock to read only 7200 ticks when the shuttle clock stops, and keep on ticking until it stops and 20,000 ticks. Ie the shuttle pilot whould expect the station clock to run 2.8 times longer than the shuttle clock.

As far as the flashes from the station clock that the shuttle pilot actually sees, he'll only be seeing flash number 4000 when his clock ticks over to 12000 and stops. He'll have to wait four times longer again before he the last flash from the station arrives.

Actually what nobodyelse seems to grasp is that "What others SEE" is not at issue. And hence the simultaneity shift is not a consideration. That is why I prefer dealing with tick rates rather than accumulated times.

A0.....1.....2.....3.....4.....5.....6.....7.....8.....9.....10

B0............1............2...........3............4............5



B0.....1.....2.....3.....4.....5.....6.....7.....8.....9.....10

A0............1............2...........3............4............5


The above can be the perception during relative motion but what really counts is that only ONE of these predictions about accumulated time based on the observed tick rate will ultimately be confirmed by emperical data.

Further the issue becomes the fact that the ONE prediction that does cometrue is ALWAYS the one that accelerated (or accelerated the most) and NEVER the stationary clock.

Therefore it is rudimentary to understand that mere "Relative Velocity" had no affect on the clocks and that it is the consequence of frame changing (F=ma and v=at) that affects clocks.

 

[MacM]

I don't think.....

Finally something you and I can both agree upon.

 

[Pete]

Pete you are partially correct. But it is not amatter of distinguishing. I merely prefer to keep the point in clear focus and not confuse things by interjecting other issues which don't alter the conclusion.

But you haven't made it clear at all.
You mention flashes of light so that each observer can count the other's ticks, which implies that what they see is relevant. You haven't made it clear whether they are allowing for the time for the flash to arrive when figuring the other clocks tick rates.

So, make it clear.
In your scenario, does the station observer see the flashes from the shuttle arrive at 36% of his clock's tick rate? Or does he calculate the timing of when the flashes left the shuttle?

 

[Pete]

Actually what nobodyelse seems to grasp is that "What others SEE" is not at issue.

Then why mention the flashes?

And hence the simultaneity shift is not a consideration.

Why do you say that? It doesn't follow.

 

[MacM]

But you haven't made it clear at all.
You mention flashes of light so that each observer can count the other's ticks, which implies that what they see is relevant.

What they see is only relevant as to the difference in the empirical reality. What you see is NOT what you get.

You haven't made it clear whether they are allowing for the time for the flash to arrive when figuring the other clocks tick rates.

When the flash arrives is not at issue. That is the reason for using tick rates and not accumulated time. It is ONLY the time intervals measured between flashes once they have started to arrrive that counts.

So, make it clear.
In your scenario, does the station observer see the flashes from the shuttle arrive at 36% of his clock's tick rate? Or does he calculate the timing of when the flashes left the shuttle?

He sees 36%, then calculates (predictes) what the accumulated time is on the other clock but one will predict correctly and the other won't. Only the resting (or least accelerated ) clock will predict correctly.

 

[andbna]

The above can be the perception during relative motion but what really counts is that only ONE of these predictions about accumulated time based on the observed tick rate will ultimately be confirmed by emperical data.

Further the issue becomes the fact that the ONE prediction that does cometrue is ALWAYS the one that accelerated (or accelerated the most) and NEVER the stationary clock.

Therefore it is rudimentary to understand that mere "Relative Velocity" had no affect on the clocks and that it is the consequence of frame changing (F=ma and v=at) that affects clocks.

Correct me if I am wrong about any of this but:
MacM stated that the acceleration is not part of the test. It is therefore irrelevant, otherwise we would have to use GTR (avoiding GTR was the whole point of this experiment.) Neither reference frame is more correct than the other if the acceleration is not part of the test, and thus one clock does not 'actualy' dialate more than the other.
The fact is, one clock dialates more (and the twin 'paradox' occurs) only if they were running during the accleration (thus acceleration was part of the test.)

-Andrew

Oh yah, and wasn't there an experiment similar in nature to this which involved the halflives of muons created in our atmosphear?

 

[(Q)]

Oh yah, and wasn't there an experiment similar in nature to this which involved the halflives of muons created in our atmosphear?

Yup. And based on their decay and velocity, should never reach the Earth's surface once produced in the upper atmosphere, unless they have experienced time dilation.

 

[MacM]

Correct me if I am wrong about any of this but:
MacM stated that the acceleration is not part of the test. It is therefore irrelevant, otherwise we would have to use GTR (avoiding GTR was the whole point of this experiment.) Neither reference frame is more correct than the other if the acceleration is not part of the test, and thus one clock does not 'actualy' dialate more than the other.

Finally an on point discussion. You are only partially correct however. GR was deliberately avoided by restricting the test to the time dilation formula based soley on relative velocity.

But while relative velocity IS symmetrical in this theory (but not mine) it therefore cannot produce an accumulated time loss between the clocks. They would dilate equally due to relative veloicty under those conditions.

However, claiming the difference is based on the acceleration just doesn't add up. I can change the period of acceleration to be 1 % of the total trip time or I can make the acceleration period 0.0000001% the total trip time by changing how long I continue to coast inertially at the higher "absolute" velocity.

The amount of time loss turns out to be a function of the duration of the inertial period and it's absolute relative velocity.

The fact is, one clock dialates more (and the twin 'paradox' occurs) only if they were running during the accleration (thus acceleration was part of the test.)

-Andrew

Yes there are those that claim it is only acceleration that causes the twin to arriave back younger but as pointed out above that really doesn't fly because the age differeance depends on the duration of the inertial flight and not just the period of acceleration.

Oh yah, and wasn't there an experiment similar in nature to this which involved the halflives of muons created in our atmosphear?

Yep and in contrast to the standard claim that it proves SR (which it doesn't since there is no data as to what the muon sees regarding the lab clock) there is also more recent studies that used ansitropy of cosmic muons to calculate (correctly) the earth's absolute motion in space relative to the CMB. i.e - something on the order of 356kmps I believe.

The conclusion of the study point blank states that the correct "v" to use in the time dilation formula is an absolute velocity relative to the CMB - NOT relative vleocity to the earth. - Hmmmmm. Don't see much discussion about that finding here.

 

[MacM]

Yup. And based on their decay and velocity, should never reach the Earth's surface once produced in the upper atmosphere, unless they have experienced time dilation.

Correct and the latest study of that shows an ansitropy and using the ansitropy of muon decay they correctly computed the earth's absolute motion relative to the CMB. The conclusion being that the "Correct" "V" to use in the time dilation formula is an absolute velocity relative to the CMB and not relative velocity to the earth. Totally inconsistant with the SR view.


http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO2PDF/V03N2MON.PDF

 

[przyk]

However, claiming the difference is based on the acceleration just doesn't add up. I can change the period of acceleration to be 1 % of the total trip time or I can make the acceleration period 0.0000001% the total trip time by changing how long I continue to coast inertially at the higher "absolute" velocity.

Then, if consistent results are to be obtained, you find that the ageing rate of the Earthbound twin must be increased in the travelling twin's frame during his acceleration, and that this "acceleration due to time dilation" effect must be more pronounced as the acceleration rate and distance are increased. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

Now, what a genius did do a long time ago was to assume that accelerating frames were equivalent to gravitational fields. So if clocks tick faster when you accelerate toward them (at a rate that increases with acceleration and distance), then a clock at a higher gravitational potential must also tick faster (at a rate that increases with gravitational potential difference). It is called "gravitational time dilation", and the effect has been experimentally confirmed.

If you don't want to bother with GTR, you can always just use STR's time dilation and the fact that light travels at c to predict what both twins will actually see throughout the travelling twin's entire trip. Even if you make all the predictions from the Earthbound twin's frame only (by calculating exactly what time each twin's clock shows when he receives signals sent by the other at c at given times), you'll find that the results are perfectly compatible with reciprocity in particular and STR in general.

 

[MacM]

Then, if consistent results are to be obtained, you find that the ageing rate of the Earthbound twin must be increased in the travelling twin's frame during his acceleration, and that this "acceleration due to time dilation" effect must be more pronounced as the acceleration rate and distance are increased. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

Ha. I would be careful about declaring ones self a genius. You must be pragmatic in your assumptions and to assume the entire universe shifts gears just because you expend energy and change veloicty simply fails the laugh test. You must remeber the balance of the universe IS (are) nothing but other clocks in the relative veloicty equation so to suggest the station does anything as a consequence of your induced motion is to suggest the entire univers e responds .

Now, what a genius did do a long time ago was to assume that accelerating frames were equivalent to gravitational fields. So if clocks tick faster when you accelerate toward them (at a rate that increases with acceleration and distance), then a clock at a higher gravitational potential must also tick faster (at a rate that increases with gravitational potential difference). It is called "gravitational time dilation", and the effect has been experimentally confirmed.

Now you deviate from SR to GR and try to claim time dilation is a GR function related to relative veloicty. I wholly disagree but that wouldn't be the issue. You are efectively conceeding that SR's relative veloicty didn't cause the empirically demonstrated time loss. On that note we would agree. But asserting GR (Acceleration) was the casue hardly fits the observation.

If you don't want to bother with GTR, you can always just use STR's time dilation and the fact that light travels at c to predict what both twins will actually see throughout the travelling twin's entire trip. Even if you make all the predictions from the Earthbound twin's frame only (by calculating exactly what time each twin's clock shows when he receives signals sent by the other at c at given times), you'll find that the results are perfectly compatible with reciprocity in particular and STR in general.

WOW. How many times must it be said that the issue is the accumulated time differential upon return of the twin, not what they see during relative motion.

The bottom line issue is that ONLY the accelerated clock shows a loss of time and bothclocks experienced the same relative velocities (even during the acceleration period). But the acceleration magnitude and period do not correspond to changes in accumulated time. Only the period of differential velocity does so.

 

[James R]

MacM:

I see you have no response to my post.

Are we done, then?

 

[andbna]

However, claiming the difference is based on the acceleration just doesn't add up. I can change the period of acceleration to be 1 % of the total trip time or I can make the acceleration period 0.0000001% the total trip time by changing how long I continue to coast inertially at the higher "absolute" velocity.

The amount of time loss turns out to be a function of the duration of the inertial period and it's absolute relative velocity.

Aha, so here is the basis of your argument then no?
Perhaps you could show the math for this, because I do not beleive you.

-Andrew

 

[MacM]

MacM:

I see you have no response to my post.

Are we done, then?

Considering I responded, I'm not sure what your game is here.