Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
- Status
Well isn't that specail... but your equivalencues are nothing but your intuition saying 'this is wrong'. If you disagree, show the cnnecion between a=b=c and your argument STEP BY STEP... cause it sure as hell doesn't reach any logical conclusion.
Persol said:
You really do have a very limited comphrension don't you.
**************************************************
From UniKEF: Move cursor onto document then click on the orange enlarge square when it appears.
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3269&stc=1
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3272&stc=1
Last edited:
This is an interesting article by Farrell.
<a href="http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html"><u>Did Einstein Cheat?</u></a>
I found this quote which resembled MacM's standing quite perfectly as if Farrell wrote the article after his encounter with MacM:
<a href="http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html"><u>Did Einstein Cheat?</u></a>
I found this quote which resembled MacM's standing quite perfectly as if Farrell wrote the article after his encounter with MacM:
<i>"It is interesting that cranks almost never dispute the accuracy of relativity's predictions; they just insist there must be a "simpler" way."</i>
Anyway, just for fun reading.Paul T said:
Thanks for the post and link. I would say I have been flattered except very little therein actually describes anything I have said or done.
1 - I for one see no "Cheating" if in fact he reverse engineered the Mercury solution. That is not only fine it is wise but only if under investigation the solution holds in the broadest sense in other applications. That is it is not a unique solution to Mercury itself.
2 - It is also germaine that I am and have been a member of TVF's group for about as long as I have been here. Inspite of the fact that he is expressing some things about gravity which parallel my own views, I have been a strong apponent of TFV's theories.
Many of his views are far more assinine (in my opinion) than anything predicted by Einstein's work.
3 - As I have responded to "Silas" in another post on this issue, I am not on some crusade to over turn Einstein or Relativity. Indeed much of my work actually results in the same relavistic principles.
The key component in the article which I do agree with is that Enistein may have gotten the right answers for the wrong reasons.
That in of itself isn't as bad as just getting the wrong answers.
In the overall analysis most of Relativity is mathematically acceptable but the conclusions drawn from it in today's scientific majority seems to be misplaced judgement based on shear idolatery.
Paul T said:You're very welcome.
Is it right if I say that you in fact disagree with one of Tom's claim about relativity is not required in GPS? What is your opinion on that particular matter?
Actually I was once about as active there as I am here. But do to his lack of common sense in many areas (my opinion) I have all but wrote him off.
I do recall seeing a couple of posts by him on the subject but I didn't participate in those threads and don't think I drew an opinion.
I have only posted there perhaps twice in the last (6) months.
But aside from whatever his view might be my general opinion would be that the mathematics of Relativity would be required but that the underlying reason is not because of the concept of Relativity as presented.
Well isn't that special... seeing as how it's nothing but a repeat of the post you put in this thread. You might as well claim that it proves -1+1=0. None of the ideas you have in there are supported by ANYTHING other than your imagination.MacM said:
Please, for the love of God, let us know how you have these insights into the working of the universe without doing anything in the way of valid experiments or logical thought process. It's quite amazing that you've found the gears behind relativity without actually understanding the clock.
We could all learn alot from you. Long live MacM!
Persol said:
I am appropriately noting that you have failed to address the (c+v) * (c-v) issue and have choosen to continue to respond along the lines of innuendo.
You might try addressing the physics rather than personalities. That is if you can even think in physics terms much less do physics.
If you have ever wondered why you and your snide comments are not taken seriously is because I also receive things like the following (just received regarding the Origin of Gamma and Time Dilation issue) from a guy that would turn you inside out in two seconds regarding Relativity and mathematics.
"Very creative thinking. Great job".
I hate to break it to you, but the concept of universal time is not a relativistic principle. In fact, it is fundamentally incompatible with relativity.
And I note again that you still haven't provided any evidence at all in favour of universal time.
I think we're done here.
James R said:
I don't see where I have claimed universal time was relavistic. What I said was much of my work resulted in the same relavistic principles. The only limitation placed on Relativity is the issue of perception vs reality regarding time.
Plenty. But you refuse to acknowledge it. That is your perogative but I think not a very wise one.
I'm sure we are. The old adage about "kicking a dead horse" is simular to "shouting into deaf ears"
To MacM, Pete, JamesR and a few other frequent participants:
Sincere congratulations. Although IMHO all of you have at times been guilty of slight slurs directed at the people on the other side, they have been mild – far below the level I have seen in less serious threads – and infrequent.
This tread grows too rapidly for me to go back and “do my home work”, by reading all the old posts. But, I would like to read James R’s old post about MacM being wrong because he is basically a follower of Newton, not Einstein / SR, with his belief in universal time. (Give the date stamp when it was posted or a repost James R please, if you can.)
I am not surprised that MacM has not yet commented on my short story (“Turning the Tables”) about a NASA program manager and his contract for clocks, a test of SR, etc. which ended with the disguised suggestion that MacM and his opponents should agree to disagree. “Not surprised” (despite MacM stating he needed more time to think about it before responding) because MacM has several very active and smart guys constantly shooting at him. I still disagree with MacM, but will credit him with trying to be responsive. (He thinks he has been and that is the best he can do, even if others think he has not. –Let all show a little charity on this.)
I am not sure MacM would agree, but I think his position can be compactly stated so as to even bring part of Einstein to his side as follows:
Physics is the same for all inertial frames. Therefore, when SR states that a fast moving clock is running slow, this is an error - only an illusion, associated with communication delays(? Not sure MacM want to be explicit about the cause of the error, but he seems to often state this as the cause.). The truth is (according to MacM) SR’s “time dilation” does not exist, but “universal time” does.
--- Is this a fair, compact, and accurate summary of your view MacM ?
That is, MacM, at least thinks he is not disagreeing with the SR results, Doppler shifts, etc. He only wants to support a view of reality that explains them with “universal time” as part of that reality. (This is why I want to read James R’s argument that Newton’s and MacM’s belief in it is wrong.)
I continue to think MacM is wrong and still for the same muon decay reason (plus the fact that a lot of people better versed in SR and probably smarter than me, think he is wrong biases me to think as I do. However, it would not be the first time in history that 99.9% of the best educated and smartest people were wrong. Phlogiston theory of heat, psychological causes of autism, depression and homosexuality to name just a few of the more recent examples, so I am trying to really hear and understand MacM, but it is not easy as I miss half the posts and he does seem to have a knack for keeping the issue switching and confusing. – that is why I tried to clearly, compactly summarize his position.)
MacM did “answer” the muon decay argument I posted in both my prior posts (he thinks). He started (with me making some parts bold, if sciForum keeps my off line edit.):
“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.... 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.......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...” (End of quote.)
This mainly confused me. Especially the part about needing to give up energy conservation if I want to believe in SR seemed to be pure nonsense. I think from this quoted section that MacM is explaning the muon decay observations (time dilation as I would call it) by something to do with the large energy transfers in the atmosphere as the muon travels down to Earth.
Thus I now ask him:
If I were to put a muon detector at the Earth end of a very long-vertical evacuated tube whose top end was out side the atmosphere and covered only by a thin foil to permit the primary cosmic ray to generate a shower while passing through it, would the detector fail to find muons, because there is no further “energy event actions” messing up their decay process and all muons would decay on the way down?
But I want to be charitable. As evidence of my charity, I note:
(1) I think MacM is trying to answer questions while ducking a lot of well placed bullets by a lot of sharp shooters. (Both meanings of “sharp” intended.) As further evidence of my charity, I note:
(2) MacM also in his reply to my prior post (made at 09-17-04 03:13 AM) stated:
“....it is getting late and it is a lengthy post..... It is your story that I will need more time to digest. But yes indeed my story disagrees with the Twin Paradox conclusions ...... Time MUST be universal. Hence relativity is perception.”
(Part 2 of my charity recognizes that both he and I were tired after 3AM, so perhaps he did not really mean to require all who believe in SR to abandon belief in conservation of energy.)
I think all participants will agree that the best way to decide between two alternative views is to find some differing prediction they make and test it. I think we have done this, as MacM admits in the qout immediately above that at least his story (which I am sure he meant to represent his view of reality) disagrees with the standard twin paradox conclusion. It is important to note I had specifically asked him to consider the standard twin paradox version in which a young astronaut comes back to Earth to bury his older twin brother.
Obviously we have not yet done this experiment with human twins. Perhaps we could send a very precise atomic clock to Mars and return it to Earth to actually do the equivalent experiment. I, for one, have never been troubled by the fact two small parts of the travelling twin or clock are not always in inertial frames because (1) In principle these parts can be made insignificant fraction of the trip time and (2) GR would also predict the essentially the same paradox of young twin burying his older dead brother.
Until we can actually do the standard twin paradox we can not be sure who is right about the results SR predicts (I1l give MacM that, but some others may not want to be that charitable.); however, I think the muon observations are essentially the same experiment in a “one way” trip. Something happens high up in the atmosphere (in our reference frame at time To) and then something else happens (muon is detected) again in our reference frame at time Te (e for at Earth’s surface) which should not happen if there is universal time that both the earth and the fast moving muon live by. For me this is the twin paradox all over again, but only half of the trip with no acceleration phase as the muon did not exist and then get accelerated – it was born going fast!
Although I have admitted that I can’t be sure what would happen if a human twin astronaut were sent out and returned (the full “two way” twin paradox) I am sure we detect muon at Earth’s surface that don’t have any possibility of being there unless they are living with “slow clocks”, not “universal time clocks.”
MacM don’t give me more nonsense about “energy messing up their time process” as I think that the very most energetic muons detected at the Earth’s surface didn’t have any more “energy events” to mess up their clocks on the way down (effectively they were traveling down inside my long evacuated tube.) Also note that there are no “communication delays” to blame – all clocks are always in the Earth’s frame / system.- If you want me to, I will conceptually put up my long tube and attach a timer to the top foil that is triggered by its recoil to the primary cosmic ray event that created the fast moving muon as the To clock. (The fancy detector I bought, comes with a clock to measure Te.) These two clocks were synchronized and you surely have no problem with that as you claim it is possible to keep clocks synchronized even if they are in frames with fast relative motion. (A claim I think false.)
There is a limit to my charity. Give me a real answer to this muon “one way” twin paradoxical observation, if you can.
Again, as I began, to all:
Sorry about my long post. At least they are infrequent.
PS to Pete: If you did not read my short story, I think you should as it ends by asking the same question you have been and that is why the story is called “Turning the Tables.”
Sincere congratulations. Although IMHO all of you have at times been guilty of slight slurs directed at the people on the other side, they have been mild – far below the level I have seen in less serious threads – and infrequent.
This tread grows too rapidly for me to go back and “do my home work”, by reading all the old posts. But, I would like to read James R’s old post about MacM being wrong because he is basically a follower of Newton, not Einstein / SR, with his belief in universal time. (Give the date stamp when it was posted or a repost James R please, if you can.)
I am not surprised that MacM has not yet commented on my short story (“Turning the Tables”) about a NASA program manager and his contract for clocks, a test of SR, etc. which ended with the disguised suggestion that MacM and his opponents should agree to disagree. “Not surprised” (despite MacM stating he needed more time to think about it before responding) because MacM has several very active and smart guys constantly shooting at him. I still disagree with MacM, but will credit him with trying to be responsive. (He thinks he has been and that is the best he can do, even if others think he has not. –Let all show a little charity on this.)
I am not sure MacM would agree, but I think his position can be compactly stated so as to even bring part of Einstein to his side as follows:
Physics is the same for all inertial frames. Therefore, when SR states that a fast moving clock is running slow, this is an error - only an illusion, associated with communication delays(? Not sure MacM want to be explicit about the cause of the error, but he seems to often state this as the cause.). The truth is (according to MacM) SR’s “time dilation” does not exist, but “universal time” does.
--- Is this a fair, compact, and accurate summary of your view MacM ?
That is, MacM, at least thinks he is not disagreeing with the SR results, Doppler shifts, etc. He only wants to support a view of reality that explains them with “universal time” as part of that reality. (This is why I want to read James R’s argument that Newton’s and MacM’s belief in it is wrong.)
I continue to think MacM is wrong and still for the same muon decay reason (plus the fact that a lot of people better versed in SR and probably smarter than me, think he is wrong biases me to think as I do. However, it would not be the first time in history that 99.9% of the best educated and smartest people were wrong. Phlogiston theory of heat, psychological causes of autism, depression and homosexuality to name just a few of the more recent examples, so I am trying to really hear and understand MacM, but it is not easy as I miss half the posts and he does seem to have a knack for keeping the issue switching and confusing. – that is why I tried to clearly, compactly summarize his position.)
MacM did “answer” the muon decay argument I posted in both my prior posts (he thinks). He started (with me making some parts bold, if sciForum keeps my off line edit.):
“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.... 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.......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...” (End of quote.)
This mainly confused me. Especially the part about needing to give up energy conservation if I want to believe in SR seemed to be pure nonsense. I think from this quoted section that MacM is explaning the muon decay observations (time dilation as I would call it) by something to do with the large energy transfers in the atmosphere as the muon travels down to Earth.
Thus I now ask him:
If I were to put a muon detector at the Earth end of a very long-vertical evacuated tube whose top end was out side the atmosphere and covered only by a thin foil to permit the primary cosmic ray to generate a shower while passing through it, would the detector fail to find muons, because there is no further “energy event actions” messing up their decay process and all muons would decay on the way down?
But I want to be charitable. As evidence of my charity, I note:
(1) I think MacM is trying to answer questions while ducking a lot of well placed bullets by a lot of sharp shooters. (Both meanings of “sharp” intended.) As further evidence of my charity, I note:
(2) MacM also in his reply to my prior post (made at 09-17-04 03:13 AM) stated:
“....it is getting late and it is a lengthy post..... It is your story that I will need more time to digest. But yes indeed my story disagrees with the Twin Paradox conclusions ...... Time MUST be universal. Hence relativity is perception.”
(Part 2 of my charity recognizes that both he and I were tired after 3AM, so perhaps he did not really mean to require all who believe in SR to abandon belief in conservation of energy.)
I think all participants will agree that the best way to decide between two alternative views is to find some differing prediction they make and test it. I think we have done this, as MacM admits in the qout immediately above that at least his story (which I am sure he meant to represent his view of reality) disagrees with the standard twin paradox conclusion. It is important to note I had specifically asked him to consider the standard twin paradox version in which a young astronaut comes back to Earth to bury his older twin brother.
Obviously we have not yet done this experiment with human twins. Perhaps we could send a very precise atomic clock to Mars and return it to Earth to actually do the equivalent experiment. I, for one, have never been troubled by the fact two small parts of the travelling twin or clock are not always in inertial frames because (1) In principle these parts can be made insignificant fraction of the trip time and (2) GR would also predict the essentially the same paradox of young twin burying his older dead brother.
Until we can actually do the standard twin paradox we can not be sure who is right about the results SR predicts (I1l give MacM that, but some others may not want to be that charitable.); however, I think the muon observations are essentially the same experiment in a “one way” trip. Something happens high up in the atmosphere (in our reference frame at time To) and then something else happens (muon is detected) again in our reference frame at time Te (e for at Earth’s surface) which should not happen if there is universal time that both the earth and the fast moving muon live by. For me this is the twin paradox all over again, but only half of the trip with no acceleration phase as the muon did not exist and then get accelerated – it was born going fast!
Although I have admitted that I can’t be sure what would happen if a human twin astronaut were sent out and returned (the full “two way” twin paradox) I am sure we detect muon at Earth’s surface that don’t have any possibility of being there unless they are living with “slow clocks”, not “universal time clocks.”
MacM don’t give me more nonsense about “energy messing up their time process” as I think that the very most energetic muons detected at the Earth’s surface didn’t have any more “energy events” to mess up their clocks on the way down (effectively they were traveling down inside my long evacuated tube.) Also note that there are no “communication delays” to blame – all clocks are always in the Earth’s frame / system.- If you want me to, I will conceptually put up my long tube and attach a timer to the top foil that is triggered by its recoil to the primary cosmic ray event that created the fast moving muon as the To clock. (The fancy detector I bought, comes with a clock to measure Te.) These two clocks were synchronized and you surely have no problem with that as you claim it is possible to keep clocks synchronized even if they are in frames with fast relative motion. (A claim I think false.)
There is a limit to my charity. Give me a real answer to this muon “one way” twin paradoxical observation, if you can.
Again, as I began, to all:
Sorry about my long post. At least they are infrequent.
PS to Pete: If you did not read my short story, I think you should as it ends by asking the same question you have been and that is why the story is called “Turning the Tables.”
- Status