Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[Pete]

The result B's view of A and A's view of B are not shifted (dilated) each sees the others clock running in their real time, which will correspond exactly with each other when such clocks are brought back together. i.e. the twin did not get younger or age slower in reality.

You missed the point, and the question.
The point -
You're still assuming that subjective time = universal time, that because B knows A's time in A's frame (A's subjective time), then A's time in B's frame must be the same.
Please don't assume that, unless you can prove it.

The question -
If SR were true, and simultaneity is relative, what sort of modulated signal do you think B would receive from A, and why?

 

[Pete]

Just to clarify. "Actual" is to mean "Universal". If they and "Subjective" are not all equal lthen the tapes would necessarily be of different lengths.

How do you figure that?
If one tape runs for 100 years at 1000m/year, and another runs for 1000 years at 100m/year, they're the same length, are they not?

 

[James R]

MacM:

I have no intention, as I said, of going off on another one of your tangents in this discussion, so let's summarise where we're at here.

1. You came up with a scenario involving 2 clocks which was supposed to show mathematical results inconsistent with relativity.
2. We have agreed that the signal frequency results in that experiment in fact support relativity and not Newtonian universal time.
3. The rest of your proposal is stalled, because you have failed to propose a workable procedure for displaying clock A's elapsed time on a monitor travelling with clock B, or vice versa.
4. Hence, you have failed to establish any inconsistencies in the theory of relativity itself.
5. Moreover, you have failed to establish any inconsistencies between the what you predict would be the results of your thought experiment and what relativity predicts.

The rest is just distracting waffle, and an attempt to lead the discussion off on a tangent.

A couple of final points:

You agree that there lives take the same amount of actual time but that that doesn't prove universal time?

The term "actual time" is meaningless, because it incorrectly assumes that time is universal, and it isn't. I agree their lives take the same amount of proper time.

Hardly. You have mislabled doppler shift as signal delay. It isn't. Time dilation and signal delay are the same thing and they aren't doppler shift.

If B receives 229000 waves per second, and A transmitted 1 million waves per second, then there is a delay in those waves arriving. That is what I mean by signal delay.

If you want to make a distinction, then explain your distinction between doppler shift and signal delay. Don't make unsupported assertions about me mislabelling things. If I've mislabelled, you need to explain why.

Now if you are looking for a dodge ... then this is your opportunity, since I see this as the better of the two presentations. It is clean, simple and to the point without frequencies, doppler shift, simultaneities, ratios, etc, etc.

Bait and switch. No thankyou.

Now that you have agreed that the twins lives comsumed the same amount of universal time, even with one flying around at high relavistic velocity, why don't you just acknowledge that Relativity is a perception and not physical reality?

I have agreed no such thing.

You complained that you don't want to challenge or respond to two themes at the same time. I agree with that but you are deliberately picking the wrong theme. I am more than willing to stop the discussion on clocks and concentrate on the video tapes.

I'm sure you are. I'm not falling for it. I've wasted enough time today on this.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

I posted a lengthy post showing that you are wrong only a couple of hours ago.

No you posted a thread claiming to show me wrong but you are still missing the point. More below.

If we lived in a universe with absolute time, then we would expect one value of the shift in the rate at which A's clock seems to tick from B's point of view. That can be calculated using the Newtonian Doppler shift formula. But, as I showed, when we have factored out that shift, we are still left with an additional effect. That effect (time dilation) is accounted for perfectly by the theory of relativity.

Why do you choose to seperate Newtonian from Relativity and argue that since the numbers are different that Relativity hence becoems real. Relativity is merely producing a greater perception change. The differeance in no way makes or proves Relativity any more real than Newton, only more correct vs data.

[quotre]So, it is correct to say: "Relativity merely states that B's view of A's clock reads differently than A reads his clock."[/quote]

Yes. But not that B's view represents real time change of A's clock.

But Newton's theory of absolute time ALSO "merely" states that B's view of A's clock reads differently than A reads his clock.

Still perception just not the right one. Still need to reduce the "Slow Motion" playback a bit more.

The important point is that relativity correctly explains to what extent B's view of A's clock differs from his own, while Newton does not.

I agree but that doesn't make it real rather than perception. What is real is the accumulated time on A's clock (or the length of the video tapes, not at what artificial or modified speed at which we view them). The watch recorded on the tape is the real time of the event not the time you take to view it.

It's not simply a matter of the effect itself, but the precise nature of the effect.

If the answer was all in the perception of the moving observer, then Newton's laws would account for the entire effect. But they do not. Even after we've factored out the perceptual effects of signalling delays, something else remains: time dilation.

Caused by a greater perceptional change than produced by Newtonian. Relativity's version did not change the length of the tape. Indeed the Newtonian view would also result in the very same length of tape. Time is universal. Viewing time is variable but hasn't actually changed the time flow of events. Just our perception of the time of events.

There's no such thing as "physically wrong" when you're talking about relative times. The times are correct as long as one observer can correctly derive any other observer's time, given his own and the relative state of motion. Relativity allows him to do that, for 2 clocks or for 10000 clocks. Newtonian absolute time does not.

I am not argueiong for Newton. I am argueing for universal time and Newton or relativity are perceptions which haven't altered time in physical reality.

The perception is factored out in the Newtonian analysis. That still leaves a real discrepancy. How do you account for that?

I have. Relativity generates a greater perceptional shift. that differeance in no manner suggest the differeance has to be real and indeed the tapes prove that Newton, Relativity and Local time are comprised of the same unaltered stuff.

The differances are perceptional, not real changes in time of events.

 

[MacM]

How do you figure that?
If one tape runs for 100 years at 1000m/year, and another runs for 1000 years at 100m/year, they're the same length, are they not?

You need to stick to the detail here. It was stipulated that the tapes run the same speed on the same VCR. The recorded life times of both twins turns out to be recorded on the same lengthsof tape and they die at the same age.

Hint. Their respective times flows were not affected by each others perception of their time flow.

 

[Pete]

Doppler shift, signal delay, and time dilation.

A signal that was transmitted at 1MHz from a source separating from us at 0.9c = 2.7x10^8m/s is received at 229kHz.

Let's figure out how the signal delay will affect the transmitted signal.

We know that in the space of 1 second at the source, 10^6 waves are transmitted.
We know that in the space of 1 second, the separation between us and the source increases by 2.7x10^8m.
Therefore, the time taken to receive 1 million waves should be one second, plus the time taken for the millionth wave to travel 2.7x10^8m (this is how much far the millionth wave has to travel before it gets to where the first wave was transmitted).
Since the wave travels at 3x10^8m, the time to travel 2.7x10^8m is 0.9s.
So, after figuring in the signal delay, we should receive 1 million waves in 1.9s.

But do we?
Our receiving rate is 229kHz, which means we receive 1 million waves in 4.36 seconds, not 1.9 seconds.

What do we conclude from this?

 

[Billy T]

MacM, I still have read only recent posts, but think I am beginning to understand your claims and still tend to disagree, mainly because “cosmic-ray muons, produced in the upper atmosphere, live to reach the surface,” but I also think James R’s recent post which concludes:

“(2) Come up with some alternative method which actually transmits information about the clock rates from one clock to the other and which can be used to measure their relative rates.”

Is very damaging to your view (as I understand it) that the relative theory’s prediction of time dilation (or processes going more slowing) in the frame that accelerated away from mine and then drifted is only an illusion due to communication lags.

You occasionally seem to speak of “time” as not being effected by relative motion and I like this view even though I don’t have the slightest idea what “time” is, unless I can watch some process, such as my heart beating, hair growing, muons decaying, etc. I think you have some idea about a “process independent time” flowing absolutely (and uniformly ?) along. This is much too philosophical for me, but I don’t want to state you think this as I am probably wrong; however, I would appreciate knowing what it is that you think “time” is, if you can but it into words.

I am not sure what your story about the twins with guaranteed 100 year lives proves. Records taken later from many Geiger counters traveling, one with each cosmic ray muon, would show that their half lives were just what the physics book table said they should be, just like your video cameras showed both twins enjoyed their full 100 years. I continue to think the fact that the muons reached the surface proves that any clock traveling with would also tick more slowly than mine because a bunch of muons are a clock.

When you essentially state that SR’s time dilation is a communication delay illusion, are you really disputing the conventional twin paradox of SR where the astronaut twin gets to return for his Earth bound brother’s funeral? Since the astronaut twin accelerated only twice in his life for brief periods, most of his youthful appearance at his brother’s funeral must be due to the two, much-longer, free coasting period of his space trip. I think you would agree his video camera records would show most of his age change did occur in the “drift periods” if they included red ambient lighting only while an acceleration was in progress; however, I liked you story so here is one I specially designed for you and James R.

Billy T’s short story, called “Turning the Table”:

NASA’s Program Manager, PM, planned to test a new light-weight “hyperfuel”, which the maker claimed would let their rocket easily escape from the solar system. (Assume it really works.) The PM planned a test using the Doppler shift of the rocket’s RF transmitter whose frequency was controlled by a very stable 1 MHz crystal oscillator. To avoid over heating risks, the powerful transmitter would radiate only one-second bursts, one each hour for a year when the space ship was far (several light years) from the sun’s gravity. An on-board clock would turn the transmitter on years after the fuel was gone. (Exhaust gases left far behind and their gravity effects also very weak.)

NSF learned of NASA’s test just before Congress began hearing on their budget. NSF asked if they could “piggy back” a direct measure of Earth’s orbital velocity during the “transmit year.” It would be made by fitting a curve to the changing Doppler shifts. NAS knew it was a dumb idea, but they had suddenly discovered year-end funds they had to quickly spend to avoid a budget cut. NASA agreed and the over-budget PM was very happy until some trouble-making bright kid at NSF said: “Hey, with this ecliptic trajectory and the Doppler shift at the PM’s “orthogonal Vs point” we can test SR if we also optically triangulate from the Earth orbit baseline for a few years to get the drift velocity independently!”

After that, the PM had to work with Naval Observatory people as well as NSA and he had to write another contract and a complex three-way MOU. That “ #!@ ** # kid caused this! ” the PM keep muttering as he wrote. You can imagine what he said when he learned the “extra funds” were an “accounting error” and not coming, but the SR test was still on.

The new contract required three clocks, two on Earth, called “E “and “M” and clock “R” on the Rocket. Clock E would keep ordinary Earth time and clock M was to accurately Monitor (I’ll stick with your term, but “Simulate” would have been better, and “Emulate” would have been perfect, except then I would have two clocks called “E”.) clock R’s tick rate, during the “transmit year.” That troublesome kid keep saying something about “solar gravity correction by asymptotic curve projection” but the PM did not care as he would be retired before that was done.

Mr. “..... R” (a firm believer in special Relativity) and Mr. “....D” (who Doubts it) both bid on the new “clock contract.” Mr. R got it, officially because Mr. D’s design, which required two modulators and used an extra clock, was more expensive, but Mr. D thought that the NSA evaluator, a Mr. N, was biased against anyone whose very design questioned SR. The launch was delayed by winds and the PM stayed continuously up 4 days for it. He fell asleep while driving home after the launch and died. Both R and D lived long enough to learn the “orthogonal Vs point” results. What happened to N was not clear as he went away and was not heard from again.

Thus both R and D learned the Rocket’s “1MHz” was received at 0.229 MHz, when Earth was at the orthogonal Vs point. From which Mr. R calculated and announced:“The Rocket was coasting at 0.9c when that signal was sent.” Then Mr. D said: “I am sure of that, but how can you be? You “SR men” all think processes, including crystal vibrations, in moving system slow down relative to our time. Thus you don’t know the transmitter frequency.” To which Mr. R replied: “That is a puzzle. I guess we will just have to wait till that NASA guy gets enough data to complete his optical measurements.” Since neither R nor D could convert the other to his view point, they agreed, as friends, to let the matter drop until some new insight or R&D data was available.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

I have no intention, as I said, of going off on another one of your tangents in this discussion, so let's summarise where we're at here.

Funny. You just said above these scenarios are the same. So why wouldn't you choose to address my clarification of the two clock situation. The two clock system is more difficult to follow with the requirement for simultaneous events and doppler shifted signal.

1. You came up with a scenario involving 2 clocks which was supposed to show mathematical results inconsistent with relativity.

I have.

2. We have agreed that the signal frequency results in that experiment in fact support relativity and not Newtonian universal time.

This issue has never been linked to Newton. It has been an arguement that the data predicted by Relativity is not reality but only perception, not that the perception might not actually occur.

3. The rest of your proposal is stalled, because you have failed to propose a workable procedure for displaying clock A's elapsed time on a monitor travelling with clock B, or vice versa.

That is simpl;y blatantly false. I very much set up a proceedure which causes B to see A's actual tick rate right there in his little space craft buzzing along at high relavistic velocity. that clock rate does not agree with relativity.

4. Hence, you have failed to establish any inconsistencies in the theory of relativity itself.

False. I have either failed to get you to understand the situation or you simply refuse to recognize it. The facts are using technology which I can jpurchase today, I can fabricate a system which results in B's view of A being the same vie that A has such that it shows that B's "Relativity" view is in disagreement with A's actual tick rate.

5. Moreover, you have failed to establish any inconsistencies between the what you predict would be the results of your thought experiment and what relativity predicts.

Again you jest. In panic or frustration.

The rest is just distracting waffle, and an attempt to lead the discussion off on a tangent.

False. You are trying to circumvent reaching a conclusion since my clarifications of the two clock situation using the simplfied scenario makes it clear what the results actually are and not what you keep trying to claim they are.

A couple of final points:

The term "actual time" is meaningless, because it incorrectly assumes that time is universal, and it isn't. I agree their lives take the same amount of proper time.

I have no problem with that as long as you properly define Relativity view of such time as perception and not reality. Your view would make the tape recordings different lengths if time were in fact not universal between them.

If B receives 229000 waves per second, and A transmitted 1 million waves per second, then there is a delay in those waves arriving. That is what I mean by signal delay.

Really James R.? Please enlighten us. This is new. The speed of light has now changed such that it takes a different amount of time to go from A to B and vice versa.

Got any links to that discovery?

If you want to make a distinction, then explain your distinction between doppler shift and signal delay. Don't make unsupported assertions about me mislabelling things. If I've mislabelled, you need to explain why.

Information delay is a function of the finite speed of light not the doppler shift associated with our view of the light while in motion relative to it.

You do realize that a red laser and a green laser have the same speed of light do you not?

Bait and switch. No thankyou.

Speaking of waffeling and weaving. You keep tring to doge the bullet. You deny what has been laid out in clear detail both in the two clock set up and butressed by the video tape clarification. You said they were the same thing. So where is the "Bait". There is none. You just don't have an answer for the problem and it isn't as easy to move things around and make invalid comments where a lot of math isn't involved.

Now answer the question. Why are the two tapes the same length?

I have agreed no such thing.

I'm sure you are. I'm not falling for it. I've wasted enough time today on this.

Sorry you took your ball and left the field. But James R, I think I can say with reasonable confidence readers can see what has happened here. I don't think that is a good thing for SciF.

I won't require you to cry uncle or admit Relativity is just perception, just admit you can't answer my question.

Why are the two tapes the same length?

 

[Pete]

It was stipulated that the tapes run the same speed on the same VCR.

The tapes run at the same subjective speed. But, if the tape run time is different in another frame, then so is the tape speed.

Again, you're assuming that subjective time = universal time in order to prove that subjective time = universal time.


Can you prove that subjective time = universal time?

 

[Pete]

Don't forget this one:

If SR were true, and simultaneity relative (ie subjective time <> universal time), what sort of modulated signal do you think B would receive from A, and why?

 

[MacM]

MacM, I still have read only recent posts, but think I am beginning to understand your claims and still tend to disagree, mainly because “cosmic-ray muons, produced in the upper atmosphere, live to reach the surface,”

I am going to answer only some of your post at this time in that it is getting late and it is a lengthy post.

I do not dispute the muon data. I do dispute that this shows much less proves time dilation. This will hopefully be explained below responding to another part of your post rather than repeating hear.

but I also think James R’s recent post which concludes:

“(2) Come up with some alternative method which actually transmits information about the clock rates from one clock to the other and which can be used to measure their relative rates.”

I don't see the problem here. He is demanding a different method to do what I just did. A's clock rate is being viewed by "B" locally, and is in full agreement with "A's" view of his own clock. So why do we need some other method? (Other than he doesn't like the answer.)

You occasionally seem to speak of “time” as not being effected by relative motion and I like this view even though I don’t have the slightest idea what “time” is, unless I can watch some process, such as my heart beating, hair growing, muons decaying, etc. I think you have some idea about a “process independent time” flowing absolutely (and uniformly ?) along. This is much too philosophical for me, but I don’t want to state you think this as I am probably wrong; however, I would appreciate knowing what it is that you think “time” is, if you can but it into words.

Simply put time as you think it exists, does't exist. Time is a property of an energetic space. That is time is an illusion of change or motion, called events and energy transfer creates the illusion of time flow. This I understand can get symantic.

i.e. How can one have change unless time for change exists, etc.

But try to follow this logic. It is not that time doesn't exist as a byproduct but that it is not a 4th dimension. It is a property of energy. What you do in Relativity is inappropriately treat it as an independant enity in-of-itself, hence manipulate it.

However, if I am right then it is linked in an absolute way to energy flow in the universe and the events that energy causes and you cannot alter time without altering the energy that goes into causing the events. For Relativity to be true one would have to give up the idea of conservation of energy. But not if it is simply an illusion. Energy conservation survies the illusion because there is not conflict with physical reality.

That is an observers view of an event would have to actually change the energy in the event to make the passage of time vary in any real sense.

Relativity seperates these events from the universal truth which is based on the energy that constitues or creates the events you are trying to dilate or change.

I am not sure what your story about the twins with guaranteed 100 year lives proves. Records taken later from many Geiger counters traveling, one with each cosmic ray muon, would show that their half lives were just what the physics book table said they should be, just like your video cameras showed both twins enjoyed their full 100 years. I continue to think the fact that the muons reached the surface proves that any clock traveling with would also tick more slowly than mine because a bunch of muons are a clock.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this, except to point out that there is no clocks made that measures quantities of something called time. They all measure processes and processes change by external enfluence.

Unless you adapt the dreaded ether, there is nothing known about motion that could cause it to alter a process. (I am not argueing for an ether) But when something in motion penetrates the atmosphere at high velocity one certainly would create intense pressures and a shock wave and thermal changes, hence the opportunity to alter the decay process, but not change time in any way.

When you essentially state that SR’s time dilation is a communication delay illusion, are you really disputing the conventional twin paradox of SR where the astronaut twin gets to return for his Earth bound brother’s funeral? Since the astronaut twin accelerated only twice in his life for brief periods, most of his youthful appearance at his brother’s funeral must be due to the two, much-longer, free coasting period of his space trip. I think you would agree his video camera records would show most of his age change did occur in the “drift periods” if they included red ambient lighting only while an acceleration was in progress; however, I liked you story so here is one I specially designed for you and James R.

It is your story that I will need more time to digest.

But yes indeed my story disagrees with the Twin Paradox conclusions but I happen to think it is embeded in a simpler truth when your realize that the scenario records the very affect being called time dilation but ultimately shows that the twins lives played back on the same VCR at the same rate require the same amount of time and the tapes are of identical physical length with each being recorded at real time in each inertial system in relative motion.

Conclusion? Time MUST be universal. Hence relativity is perception.

 

[MacM]

The tapes run at the same subjective speed. But, if the tape run time is different in another frame, then so is the tape speed.

Again, you're assuming that subjective time = universal time in order to prove that subjective time = universal time.


Can you prove that subjective time = universal time?

I am not really concerned with all that. My point has been and remains that perceived time of the observer in no way physically altered actual time of the events.

It is nothing more than running the VCR in slow motion. That isn't the true speed of the video, the illusion of time dilation is viewing the process in a distorted view of time but didn't cause time of those events to actually change.

That is evidenced by the ultimate equal lengths of the tapes which were recordeding the mutual events from two different inertial frames but compared in a common frames show the perception shift vs reality.

 

[Pete]

Mac, you're welcome to believe what you like, of course.

However, your direct leap from "the tapes are the same length" to "time is universal" is not a logical proof. (SR also provides a framework in which the tapes are the same length, yet time is not universal.) There are missing steps.

From your history of thought experiments, arguments, and conclusions, it is an easy guess that the steps you take include the assumption that time is universal.

In other words, your argument is "the tapes are the same length (and time is universal), so time MUST be universal, so Relativity must be perception only."

This could be broken down to:
Premise 1: Relativity and universal time can't coexist
Premise 2: Time is Universal
Conclusion: Relativity is not reality

Do you agree?

It is a valid syllogism, and agreement on the first premise is well established. However, the disagreement is in the truth of the second premise. You have yet to provide an argument which establishes universal time, except by assuming universal time to begin with.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

Note that in this thread, I am not attempting to prove that Relativity is correct. I am disputing your attempt at proving that Relativity is false.

As I see it, the onus is currently on you to establish the truth of your premise that time is Universal

Can you do it?

 

[Pete]

And yes, I'm still interested in your understanding of the SR model.

If SR were true, and simultaneity relative (ie subjective time <> universal time), what sort of modulated signal do you think ship B would receive from ship A, and why?

 

[Quantum Quack]

is there or is there not physical evidence of time dilation? ( forget perception for the moment)
I was under the impression that dilation exists free of perception...am I wrong?

Does out atomic clock tick slower or not than it's conterpart at slower velocities?

I think that relativity and universal time ( NOW) can co-exist. The time dilation aspect provides the relativity for the relativists and the Universal "NOW" provides absolute time....

The only cog in the works is the nature of light which I might add no one has solved yet.

How can light be transmitted at 299792kmps yet recieved at a dilated rate. retaining it's velocity of 299792kp dilated second.?

 

[Pete]

QQ, What is the experimental basis of the Special Relativity Theory?

It might be worth discussing this problem in your other thread - this thread is confused enough already! (How many gedanken can dance in the space of a thread?)

 

[Paul T]

Hmmm, you guys wasting your time. MacM had already known that he is correct since the beginning. No more discussion required. The topic was closed since the start with conclusion MacM is right, no question. Is it the case, MacM? You did not expect anybody to correct you, did you?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The reason I asked the question about the physical nature of dilation is because this seems to be in dispute.

 

[James R]

Pete:

Thankyou for making the clear point you have just made.

The fact is, MacM cannot and has not demonstrated that universal time exists. All he has done is make repeated assertions that universal time exists, without any evidence at all.

I heartily endorse your challenge to him to prove that universal time exists. If he can do so, I will happily admit that relativity must be mere perception and illusion, though I will surely always wonder why its results are correct.


MacM

You are clearly getting desperate and making a last-ditch effort to salvage a very poor argument. You have failed to produce a method by which one clock can monitor the other accurately. You have agreed that relativity gives correct numerical results for Doppler shift - a conclusion based on the existence of time dilation and hence non-universal time. So, where do you go from here? The usual MacM trick: say that the whole world is but a dream. Nothing is real except what MacM says is real; it's all just "perception".

Well, I have shown that my "perception" gives all the right answers, numerically correct to as many decimal places as you want. What does your "reality" give us? Nothing. You can't even calibrate a couple of clocks.

If relativity is "perception", then it would seem that perception is far superior to a reality which is unobservable and useless for any actual application.

Funny. You just said above these scenarios are the same. So why wouldn't you choose to address my clarification of the two clock situation. The two clock system is more difficult to follow with the requirement for simultaneous events and doppler shifted signal.

I did not say the scenarios are the same. I said they rely on the same misconception.

The 2 clock system is more complicated simply because it gives a clearer explanation of the relative clock rates. It actually allows a comparison of the clocks whilst they are in motion, while the video tape example does not. That makes the VCR experiment practically useless.

Me: 2. We have agreed that the signal frequency results in that experiment in fact support relativity and not Newtonian universal time.

You: This issue has never been linked to Newton. It has been an arguement that the data predicted by Relativity is not reality but only perception, not that the perception might not actually occur.

Lies will get you nowhere.

I wrote a very long post showing you exactly how the assumption of universal time would lead to a different result than the assumption of relative time. Newtonian theory is based on universal time, and it is wrong. I have shown you that. Since you advocate universal time, you are also Newtonian, at least until you propose a viable alternative to Newtonian physics. And that makes you wrong along with Newton.

That is simpl;y blatantly false. I very much set up a proceedure which causes B to see A's actual tick rate right there in his little space craft buzzing along at high relavistic velocity. that clock rate does not agree with relativity.

More lies.

The only thing you have managed to send to B is the number ten. You haven't come up with any way to communicate A's clock rate to B, as I have clearly shown. You could easily do so, but you choose not to, because to do so would require using some of the known laws of physics, and we can't have that, can we?

Me: If B receives 229000 waves per second, and A transmitted 1 million waves per second, then there is a delay in those waves arriving. That is what I mean by signal delay.

You: Really James R.? Please enlighten us. This is new. The speed of light has now changed such that it takes a different amount of time to go from A to B and vice versa.

I don't know how you draw that conclusion from what I wrote. There's really no need to respond to this straw man.

Information delay is a function of the finite speed of light not the doppler shift associated with our view of the light while in motion relative to it.

Doppler shift comes about because of the finite speed of light. Therefore, doppler shift causes information delay.

You do realize that a red laser and a green laser have the same speed of light do you not?

Irrelevant.

Now answer the question. Why are the two tapes the same length?

Are you talking about the physical length in metres of the tapes, or the length of time taken to play them? The time taken to play or record them is the important thing here, and it varies for different observers.

Sorry you took your ball and left the field. But James R, I think I can say with reasonable confidence readers can see what has happened here. I don't think that is a good thing for SciF.

What happened here is you completely failed to do what you set out to do.

Can you produce a workable scenario which shows results inconsistent with relativity? No you can't.

And it doesn't count to give a scenario whose every measurement produces the same answers as relativity but which is only "perception and not reality". You'll need to do a lot better than that.

Can you prove that absolute time exists? No, you can't.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Can I ask why dilation invalidates absolute time or universal time?