Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[James R]

Billy T:

My explanation of the Newtonian Doppler shift, as opposed to the relativistic one, is here:

[post]680178[/post]

As I said there, the Newtonian Doppler shift formula assumes absolute time, whilst the relativistic one does not. Actual tests have confirmed that the relativistic formula is correct, while the Newtonian one is wrong. This is one piece of evidence that absolute time does not exist.

Of course, MacM can't understand the argument.

 

[Pete]

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.

This makes no sense.
Why is D sure that the 1MHz to 229KHz doppler means a velocity of 0.9c?
R is sure because that 229KHz figure includes time dilation, so R's response to D's challenge is not something anyone familiar with relativity would say.

 

[MacM]

The record is in this thread, MacM. Lies won't change anything. Bye!

Well, let me start by making a very simple observation.

1 - I have not here nor do I lie. Your post is totally unwarranted and in ill spirit.

2 - Billy T's post is good even if we don't agree on everything, we seem to agree on some things.

First of all on some of these esoteric issues we just don't know the truth and I mean "We" as in everybody, including the self rightous James R.

As to your story I do remember your post. I have not read it and had forgotten it. As you said I am one and what normally happens is I get drowned out by all the fowl criers and long posters. i.e. - 6 against 1.

It is as though they think if they keep reciting SR it will somehow make SR whole.

With respect to your muon I don't have an absolute answer. I know and agree they and particles in accelerators do extend their half lives. But I think the real issue is more subtle. I think the evidence is clear that SR isn't wrong in a mathematical sense (within limits) but that the error is visualizing the time difference as reality and not perception.

I repeat no amount of observer variations, be they 10,000 observers at 10,000 different velocities relative to the event, do not alter the timing of the event. That is called proper time and we all agree on that.

Having said that what we disagree on is claiming each observers view is reality. There is only one reality and that is the local proper time of the event. The rest is observational.

It is proper time that is reality and universal.

 

[James R]

Having said that what we disagree on is claiming each observers view is reality. There is only one reality and that is the local proper time of the event. The rest is observational.

That is a meaningless distinction to make. Everybody has a view of the same events. All you are doing is preferencing one view over another and calling that preferred view "real".

It is proper time that is reality and universal.

But proper time is not universal. It is fundamentally local. The very definition of what it is says so:

The proper time for an object is the time measured by a clock co-moving with the object.

Each different object has its own proper time, which need not be the same as any other proper time. That is diametrically opposed to your so-called universal time concept.

 

[MacM]

Billy T,

Since trying to have a dialog with James R., seems futile, I'll respond to his distortions made to you above directly to you.

Of course MacM can't understand the arguement.

That resonse is supposed to bias you to believe he has said something either germain or new and meaningful. He hadn't. If you follow after that you will see that my point was that regardless of what system of dilation or doppler shift you choose to try and impose, the mechanisim I had proposed is unaffected and always displays actual event timing.

He would rather not address that issue. The point was (and I made it) that regardless of B's" view via Relativity of an event ("A's" clock reading of accumulated time), it was shown that in "Reality" "A's" clock was actually still accumulating time at it local proper rate of time flow. HINT: The observer and his view of time did not alter "A's" clock, hence it is perception and not reality.

That was the issue and not anything to do with Newtonian or SR view of doppler shift because even using SR the same results are made in the case I presented.

His was nothing but an attempt to distract from the real issue and frankly had nothing to do with my understanding or lack thereof, which I clearly understand but reject his conclusion regarding the reality of SR, not the mathematics of the observation.

When I attempt to clarify with a more simple example he chooses to claim I am side stepping or bait and switching which is BS and crap. When one finds they are going in circles over and over the same arguements it is appropriate to introduce an alternative example to clarify. That is exactly what I have done.

You should note also that I have applied the same technique using SR and the results are still the same. So his is a false claim and point. It does not address the issue at hand.

His is the bait and switch routine trying to claim that since the example didn't use SR it proved nothing. But I already knew and understood that using SR would yield the same test result and had choosen to simply make it easier to follow. When he chose to not do that I showed that using SR doesn't make any difference and yet he comes here and makes false claims about what was or was not shown.

 

[MacM]

That is a meaningless distinction to make. Everybody has a view of the same events. All you are doing is preferencing one view over another and calling that preferred view "real".

Not hardly. It is you that seem to have a limited grasp of reality. All proper times at every ordinate point in the universe constitute proper time. that is the time that actual events occur using a universal stop watch (view of God if you will and I detest that term). All other time measurements are seperate from the reality of the event - i.e. where the physics actually occur, not where they are observed.

While clearly sound and light are two different enities, the fact that the same issue exists in light but can be visualized better with sound, let me suggest what you want to claim is that the fan far back in the grand stands changes when the sound of the bat crack hits the baseball. HE DOES NOT, he only hears it differently than it was produced in reality.

That is the issue here.

But proper time is not universal. It is fundamentally local. The very definition of what it is says so:

Certainly it is local. But it is also the only true time in reality for the event. All others are perceptions of the event and contain a false time, an unreal time, NOT REALITY time.

The proper time for an object is the time measured by a clock co-moving with the object.

Absolutely and it is the only time in reality. All others are distorted perceptions of the event and do not alter nor change reality of the event.

Each different object has its own proper time, which need not be the same as any other proper time. That is diametrically opposed to your so-called universal time concept.

The proper time that you observe it in is not the reality of the time the event occured. Your proper time event of observeing the vent is just that, an observation of the event, not the event itself.

What is your hang up on understanding the difference between perception and reality?

You seem to suggest and want us to accept that should I set the worlds record for running the mile, that as an observer moving relative to me and the oval track upon which I set that record, I actually didn't set the record because your clock said I ran slow. That is BS. Did the judges make a mistake? Were their stop watches in error or did I set the record. Come on James, I still broke the record and recieved the award and your view of my run didn't alter my getting the award.

Your is perception only and not reality. You sir are wrong. Period.

The fact is even in SR you are proven wrong because you not only can see me run but you can see real time results of the race on their watches and see that the reality of the event was that I beat the worlds record. No if, ands, or buts.

 

[Quantum Quack]

just a thought I thougth I would like to share:

"What if your clocks were ticking determined by the velocity of light?"

Say a clock whose tick rate is determined by a light cell that maintains the velocity of light as it's reference. ( thus invariant thus absolute)

How would that effect your twin paradox?

 

[James R]

MacM:

Since trying to have a dialog with James R., seems futile, I'll respond to his distortions made to you above directly to you.

The dialogue broke down when you discovered you had no response to objections raised to your scenario, and so you tried to change the topic to other matters, based on the same misconceptions. You would rather lie and pretend you have shown something you have not than admit you are wrong.

If you follow after that you will see that my point was that regardless of what system of dilation or doppler shift you choose to try and impose, the mechanisim I had proposed is unaffected and always displays actual event timing.

Your claim is false. It has been clearly shown that your proposed mechanism would not do what you claim.

He would rather not address that issue.

Liar. The issue was addressed clearly in this thread, several times.

The point was (and I made it) that regardless of B's" view via Relativity of an event ("A's" clock reading of accumulated time), it was shown that in "Reality" "A's" clock was actually still accumulating time at it local proper rate of time flow.

That's a mixed and muddy statement aimed at confusing people.

Yes, A's proper time is unaffected by B.
But B sees A's clock tick at a rate different from A's proper time.
Your use of the term "reality" is meaningless. B's reality is just as real as A's.

HINT: The observer and his view of time did not alter "A's" clock, hence it is perception and not reality.

But B's view of A's clock did alter. Therefore it is B's reality. Moreover, the twin paradox shows definite effects at the end of the trip, which everybody agrees on. You have completely failed to explain how such effects could ever arise from a mere "perception".

You should note also that I have applied the same technique using SR and the results are still the same.

Another lie.

All proper times at every ordinate point in the universe constitute proper time. that is the time that actual events occur using a universal stop watch (view of God if you will and I detest that term).

False. Proper times measured by two observers in relative motion will be different for each observer.

You have completely failed to establish the existence of a universal stop watch or any other concept of universal time.

While clearly sound and light are two different enities, the fact that the same issue exists in light but can be visualized better with sound, let me suggest what you want to claim is that the fan far back in the grand stands changes when the sound of the bat crack hits the baseball. HE DOES NOT, he only hears it differently than it was produced in reality.

Your claim has been addressed comprehensively, and once again you misrepresent my position. I have shown you that delays caused by finite propagation times of light or sound cannot, by themselves, account for actual observations. See my post on the Newtonian Doppler shift vs. relativistic Doppler shift, linked above.

You seem to suggest and want us to accept that should I set the worlds record for running the mile, that as an observer moving relative to me and the oval track upon which I set that record, I actually didn't set the record because your clock said I ran slow. That is BS. Did the judges make a mistake? Were their stop watches in error or did I set the record. Come on James, I still broke the record and recieved the award and your view of my run didn't alter my getting the award.

You only broke the record in a particular, chosen reference frame. Running records are only kept for a particular, chosen reference frame, so that is not surprising. The point is, everybody will agree you broke the record. To do so, they may need to convert the observed distance you ran and the time you took to get the result in the reference frame to which the record applies. Relativity will allow them to do that and get the right answer. MacMechanics will not.

The fact is even in SR you are proven wrong because you not only can see me run but you can see real time results of the race on their watches and see that the reality of the event was that I beat the worlds record. No if, ands, or buts.

What? The fact that SR verifies your record is supposed to prove that SR is wrong.... how?

You're really losing the plot.

 

[MacM]

James R,

Rather than respond to the increasing length of "Lies" that you seem to choose to advance, I will simply direct this conversation to a very straight forward issue and allow you to respond.

Show anywhere before or now, where you have shown that a digital signal is in any manner affected by SR and that in the original proposal that the true reading of clock "A" is not preserved in "B's" inertial frame.

That was my presentation. I rebutted each and every off topic issue you raised and frankly this is becoming the "Pot calling the kettle black". You sir are outright lying by claiming that I lied and have not rebutted your replies.

Given undistorted (percieved) information clocks tick at the same rate in both inertial frames in a real time manner. Tick per tick. Your SR is shown to be uneffective when given truth (reality) to deal with.

 

[James R]

Show anywhere before or now, where you have shown that a digital signal is in any manner affected by SR and that in the original proposal that the true reading of clock "A" is not preserved in "B's" inertial frame.

I spent quite some time explaining this point to you.

In particular, see here:

[post]679604[/post]

and here:

[post]680159[/post]

 

[MacM]

James R,

Since for the past few days I have lost the capacity to "Cut and Paste" I cannot display directly my response to your referenced post (1st link listed) which refutes your claims. For whatever reason you choose to ignore such refutation and falsely claim you have showed an error in the concept presented.

That fact for all to read may be found in that thread at 9/16/04 @ 4:38 PM.

Stop with the distorted claims of superiority on this issue. You have completely failed to show any error in my claims of absolute time in reality.

 

[Billy T]

Pete:
I respect your knowledge enough this accept your comment:

“R's response to D's challenge is not something anyone familiar with relativity would say.”

without even thinking more about it. I had “R” say this at the end of my short story mainly to subtlety suggest that neither MacM nor his opponents were going to convince the other, so as stated in the story, they should “agree to disagree” and try to at least part as “non-enemies” if not as friends. I.e. without excessive name calling. Etc. Unfortunately, name calling is often the termination when a thread has reached the point this one has. I don’t think this has happened YET in the posts I have read, except perhaps by my story’s NSF guy, “N”, when he left and in MacM’s reply to his final shot. I again note that I have read less than 10% of the posts, so I may be wrong.

Hope you liked my story and thought it relevant. (I have had to work with a few government contract agents and could not resist the opportunity to get a few digs in. I also am ashamed to admit that I have spent tax payer’s money near the end of a contract, mainly to make sure next year’s budget was not cut, under direct orders of my Ph. D. thesis advisor, who has been dead for many years, so I can now tell this. I included this irrelevant detail, mainly to discourage the practice, perhaps even with the unrealistic hope that cutting budgets that are frugally able to end the year with funds still available is so obviously stupid that by admitting it happens, I may be able to help change this practice. But I am straying too far from the thread.)

For All:
I don’t consider “You’re lying.” Etc. To be excessive name calling if (1) the caller’s reason for this view is clearly stated. And (2), the “lie” he/she is referring to is clearly referenced, preferably by quoting it.

James R:
Thanks for the reference. I’ll read it soon as time permits.

MacM:
I don’t mean to be mean, but

(1) Despite considerable new posting, you did not comment on my direct request, so I will repeat it:
Is my “compact summary” of your view both fair and accurate? (I am sincerely trying to understand you.)
(2) Also you admit:
“With respect to your muon I don't have an absolute answer.”

I did not ask for an “absolute answer.” I will be happy to consider ANY clear answer. I have already considered your first “answer.” My long evacuated tube, IMHO, destroyed your prior “answer,” which frankly was so confusing and unclear that it could have come from some mystic talking about:
Space energy messing up decay process times and need to violate conservation of energy if you accept SR etc.
(I was embarrassed for you.)

Finally:
You said: “Billy T's post is good even if we don't agree on everything, we seem to agree on some things.”

I am afraid we don’t have any shared views about the alternative view of physics you are arguing for here, (“Time dilation, is a false illusion.”), but we may agree on the need for good manors when discussing it. Fortunately we do agree on some, if not all, of the facts such as (and most important from my viewpoint) that muons, which were produced by primary cosmic ray high in the atmosphere, reach the surface of the Earth despite the fact that the travel distance divided by the speed of light is much longer than their life time. (If you were to dispute this fact it would be impossible for me to discuss with you.)


For all:
I may be somewhat self-centered, as I am the one mainly focusing on muons as "half of the twin paradox," which even has the advatages of no period of acceleration and that all clocks, observations, etc. are on Earth. However, because MacM has agreed his “Universal Time,” UT and SR make different predictions about both my muon "half paradox" and standard full paradox ( the astronaut twin’s biological age when he returns to Earth to visit his brother. --- MacM says they still look alike, and SR says that astronaut is still a young man (or woman if any ladies are reading) when he has the sad task of burring his obviously old brother’s body.) Why not press MacM, like I am on, the point where his UT and SR's predictions clearly and simply disagree and he admits it?

 

[James R]

I have tried, Billy T. Watch and learn as MacM continues to duck and weave to avoid the issue.

I will ask directly here:

MacM:

Why, in the classic twin paradox, do the twins display different biological ages when the travelling twin returns to Earth?

In a universe with universal time, where time differences are all "perception but not reality", this should not occur, should it?

 

[James R]

You have completely failed to show any error in my claims of absolute time in reality.

It is pointless arguing this yet again. The evidence is there for all to see.

 

[Billy T]

James R:

I have not seen MacM’s answer yet but bet I know what it will be, especially as you have made it hard for him to “duck and weave.”

He will say something like: “You are basing your results on your belief in SR. I have X times shown you it is wrong. You can not argue against me by assuming you are right. I will believe that the returning twin is younger when I see it, not based on your erroneous faith in SR, when I have proved that false”

This is why I carefully got him to first admit that the muons do come down to earth (that is too hard for him to deny) when they should not have if his Universal time were correct. I expect his attempt to reply will be to state that this fact has nothing to do with the question, which was, I remind you:

Show me what is wrong with my synchronazation of the monitor clocks?

 

[MacM]

James R:

I have not seen MacM’s answer yet but bet I know what it will be, especially as you have made it hard for him to “duck and weave.”

He will say something like: “You are basing your results on your belief in SR. I have X times shown you it is wrong. You can not argue against me by assuming you are right. I will believe that the returning twin is younger when I see it, not based on your erroneous faith in SR, when I have proved that false”

This is why I carefully got him to first admit that the muons do come down to earth (that is too hard for him to deny) when they should not have if his Universal time were correct. I expect his attempt to reply will be to state that this fact has nothing to do with the question, which was, I remind you:

Show me what is wrong with my synchronazation of the monitor clocks?

Simple answer. It doesn't. The twin (assuming only constant velocity issue here) will return the same age in relaity and SR prediction is wrong.

 

[MacM]

James R:

I have not seen MacM’s answer yet but bet I know what it will be, especially as you have made it hard for him to “duck and weave.”

He will say something like: “You are basing your results on your belief in SR. I have X times shown you it is wrong. You can not argue against me by assuming you are right. I will believe that the returning twin is younger when I see it, not based on your erroneous faith in SR, when I have proved that false”

This is why I carefully got him to first admit that the muons do come down to earth (that is too hard for him to deny) when they should not have if his Universal time were correct. I expect his attempt to reply will be to state that this fact has nothing to do with the question, which was, I remind you:

Show me what is wrong with my synchronazation of the monitor clocks?

Simple answer. It doesn't. The twin (assuming only constant velocity issue here) will return the same age in relality and SR prediction is wrong.

Here is the actual data taken by H&K atomic clock test purportedly "Proving" SR time dilation. What a joke. I would be imbarrassed. I had better data from my gravity test but won't publish them because it was only shown through averaging. Look at the unadultrated crap they call proof.

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm

 

[Paul T]

Simple answer. It doesn't. The twin (assuming only constant velocity issue here) will return the same age in relality and SR prediction is wrong.

Hahaha. Let's put into record your statement that SR is wrong. This is interesting. You always try to convince us that you don't...what the word, slay? relativity. You did. You like to deny on something and then do exactly what you have just denied.

 

[MacM]

Hahaha. Let's put into record your statement that SR is wrong. This is interesting. You always try to convince us that you don't...what the word, slay? relativity. You did. You like to deny on something and then do exactly what you have just denied.

You might actually read the H&K Atomic Clock data, posted immediately above, and then wipe that unjustified smile off your face. What a joke. This is your proof? LOL still laughing.

 

[Paul T]

You might actually read the H&K Atomic Clock data, posted immediately above, and then wipe that unjustified smile off your face. What a joke. This is your proof? LOL still laughing.

Hahaha. Did I try to prove that SR correct or H&K's experiment is fully satisfactorily? I simply said that you were inconsistent in your statement. If you convince that SR is really wrong then say so, do not say...or well, SR is useful but I don't fully accept it...bla...bla. That's the only thing I wanted to convey to you in my earlier message. Well, I am still....

About H&K's experiment, since you raised it, I want to ask you a few questions.

How do you know that A. G. Kelly PhD's paper is correct? Is it because it criticized SR...well, actually not...it did not really concern about SR, just about H&K experiment. And H&K's experiment unable to prove SR wrong, since as Kelly said it was inaccurate and did not prove anything (it did not prove SR wrong or correct!). That's if we trust everything that Kelly said...because I have another question.

Since H&K did not publish the original data, how on earth Kelly obtained the data? Kinda spooky huh? If H&K tried to cheat, they should had thrown the original data, right. So, how your Kelly obtained it????