Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[MacM]

The Hafele and Keating experiment is really mostly of historical interest these days, anyway.

In 2004, we have a system of GPS satellites in various orbits around the Earth. They reproduce the results of the H&K experiment on a continuous basis. In fact, the entire system has to adjust for relativistic effects to work correctly.

Fact: for the GPS system to give locations on Earth to a resolution of less than 30 metres, relativistic effects must be taken into account.

Criticism of H&K, even if justified, is irrelevant in 2004.

Funny. We are debating H&K and you come along and want to change the subject to some other "{roof" example. Seems to me you were quite the guy accusing me of "Bait & Switch" when I changed example in effort ot try and clarify a point. Why is it you think you can but others can't.?

The fact is H&K found no such time dilation on physical clocks. That matches my view not ours. If SR were valid then why didn't the clocks show it?

Of course I forgot they just weren't accurate enough. HeHe. Funny I have seen you and others here vouch for H&K and the atomic clock data proving your point. that doesn't really seem to be the case now does it? Shown you were wrong and wham change arguements.

 

[MacM]

PS Was Kelly's paper ever accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal? If so, please provide the reference.

Well, now thats a dodge if I ever saw one. What you can't read data and see withot holding hands around the campfire that clocks that switch results during a test or that produce the opposite affects, that something smells?

I will also post if you would like, the fact that the designer of the clock was refused publication of a caveat about all this which he claims they misrepresented the accuracy of the clocks and that he was told it would be the end of his carerr if he insisted on trying to make that known.

And we all thought the Blue Wall was something. Shssssh.

 

[MacM]

So you agree that SR predicts real changes; that the predictions of SR are not simply perception?

Sorry but how the He_l can you conclude that from my statement?

I'll repeat it this time with highlites: "I agree that it is their claim..... and that "it is based on misinterpretation and misrepresentation, not physical reality"

So what was going on in all your thought experiments where you stated that you applied SR and found that the results were perception only?
Were you not actually applying SR?

Were you not able to follow?

I am an olympian, I am running the mile and I set the worlds record by wide margins. This is displayed on large precise clocks at the event. I am hralded and placed on a mount and given the Gold Medal.

You my twin are goofing off in your private spaceship let time slip up on you (no pun intended) and are going at relavistic speeds trying to get back to earth to watch me run in the olympics. But as usual you are late, so you open your super telescope and are watching from space.

I clearly won the race but you noted that I was running very slow and couldn't possibly have broken the worlds record and the olympics really should spend their money more wisely and get some good clocks and stop watches because they are all just so wrong. So did the judges make a mistake? Hardly.

Did your view of the event alter the event? Hardly. The event time is the ONLY physically REAL time. All others are observation or perceptions ONLY.

 

[James R]

Getting a little hot under the collar there, MacM?

Don't worry, I deleted the other three copies of your last post.

You have an intriguing set of double standards. I am supposed to critically examine in detail every nutball website you bring up, and every kooky claim from every crank you can find with an internet search. Yet you are free to ignore every point that I make, and never answer any questions put to you.

And when you are proven wrong you are also free to go on as if it never happened.

I've already addressed your olympic runner example, of course, but don't let that worry you. Just pretend you never saw my post - just like all the other ones.

 

[Pete]

Sorry but how the He_l can you conclude that from my statement?

I'll repeat it this time with highlites: "I agree that it is their claim..... and that "it is based on misinterpretation and misrepresentation, not physical reality"

Right, try again...
Please bear in mind that I'm not asking what you think are the claims of people (relativists, I believe you call them), I'm asking about your understanding of the predictions of the actual SR model.

I don't give a damn whether you think it corresponds to reality or not.
I do care a little that you understand what you're criticizing.


So, once more:
Do you agree that if the Universe was accurately represented by the SR model, that in the classic twin paradox the twins will have different biological ages when the travelling twin returns to Earth?

 

[MacM]

Right, try again...
Please bear in mind that I'm not asking what you think are the claims of people (relativists, I believe you call them), I'm asking about your understanding of the predictions of the actual SR model.

I don't give a damn whether you think it corresponds to reality or not.
I do care a little that you understand what you're criticizing.


So, once more:
Do you agree that if the Universe was accurately represented by the SR model, that in the classic twin paradox the twins will have different biological ages when the travelling twin returns to Earth?

I do have to be careful since others will state later that I flip-flopped and had sid it was true.

I will repeat my answer which is "that is their claim", "IF their claim were reality then of course it would be true" but that is entirely unlikely at best.

 

[Pete]

Your Olympics example is pretty silly, as the time taken for me to view the race through my telescope would actually be much shorter than the time it took you to run it. That is due to the perception effects of light travel.

If I were so inclined, I could sit down and figure out the time it took you to run the race in my reference frame. I'd then find that it was longer than the time recorded on the judge's stopwatches.

Would that give me concern? Hardly, as I know I'm in a different reference frame. I don't expect the time that passes for me during your race to be the same as the time that passes for you. Why would I?

 

[Pete]

I will repeat my answer which is "that is their claim"

I'm not interested in anyone's claims, I'm interested in the prediction of the model.

Do you agree that that is the prediction of the SR model?

There's no shame in flip flopping if you come to realise you've been wrong in the past. That's the difference between science and dogma.

 

[MacM]

Getting a little hot under the collar there, MacM?

I am assuming that you are referring to Paul T. Well it is less than funny how he can come into a conversation and based on nothing but shear imagination make statements as though they are somehow fact which are absolutely contridictory to the evidence and then challenge others to prove their point.

It is idiodic crap. Plus he will never shut up but keeps repeating the same off topic, irrelevant crap. i.e - How do I know this guy Kelly got the data. How could he they wouldn't give it to him, etc, etc. How does Paul T suppose he would know any of this? He doesn't it is made up BS. Let him address Kelly's view of the data, if he chooses but this is BS and there is no need to waste time here answering such off the wall outlandish and meaningless dribble.

Don't worry, I deleted the other three copies of your last post.

I am not sure what you are talking about here. Please explain and give just cause.

You have an intriguing set of double standards. I am supposed to critically examine in detail every nutball website you bring up, and every kooky claim from every crank you can find with an internet search. Yet you are free to ignore every point that I make, and never answer any questions put to you.

This statement is your pipe dream. I have answered each and ever question. It is you that ignore the answer or simple quote SR or something and make like the question is therefore irrelevant. Quoting SR does not prove SR. How many time do you need to be told that.

My posts (according to you are allways nutball because they support my arguement. that is not to say I haven't run across some but I would like to see you claim Kelly (a Phd) is a crack pot or that he and others cannot read and understand when a clock gives data that is +/- 8ns drift and 0.6ns is your sought after data point, it is just a bit much to claim you have any useful information, much less make the extraordinary claim that has been made (and supported by you here in the past).

If Kelly is a nut job then what does that make Hafele? The document gotten through the Freedom of Information Act is his statement to the US Navy saying the damn test didn't support the conclusion.

And when you are proven wrong you are also free to go on as if it never happened.

If that were to ever happen that would be a different case. You sir have not proven anything. You have ignored the most simple issues and try to distort conclusions.

I've already addressed your olympic runner example, of course, but don't let that worry you. Just pretend you never saw my post - just like all the other ones.

This is what I am talking about.

HERE AND NOW: Does your observation of my running the race alter the fact that I broke the worlds record? YES or NO. If you answer is "No"which it must be if you are even a little honest, then you must state your view is perception of the event and not the reality of the event. I don't want to hear crap about it is reality for you. That is a crap answer avoiding the issue.

It is distortion. Your view also shows that by the precision clock timing the actual event that I did indeed break the record. Saying by your clock I didn't is a gross misrepresentation and totally false.

SORRY. You can either be honest about this or frankly I have no further interest in even discussing this with you. It is pointless. You go arond repeating how you have time and again proven me wrong. You have yet to do that. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. You say I don't answer your questions after I have. It really is outrageous.

 

[MacM]

Your Olympics example is pretty silly, as the time taken for me to view the race through my telescope would actually be much shorter than the time it took you to run it. That is due to the perception effects of light travel.

Finally you stated it correctly. "Your perception". That has been and is my point. It is perception and not the reality of the event.

If I were so inclined, I could sit down and figure out the time it took you to run the race in my reference frame. I'd then find that it was longer than the time recorded on the judge's stopwatches.

False. Now you want to apply your "Perception" only to my running rate but not the judges stop watches. See how you are. Now you are trying to claim you are shifting my actual running speed even for the judges locally at the proper time of the event. That is ridiculus.

Would that give me concern? Hardly, as I know I'm in a different reference frame. I don't expect the time that passes for me during your race to be the same as the time that passes for you. Why would I?

If SR is true and I do not by this accept that it is, then you shouldn't, you should just realize that you is a distorted time and not the reality of the event. What is so hard about admitting that?

My example is not "Pretty Silly", it is "Pretty Straight forward and simple".

CONCLUSION: Those that claim the view of an observer is reality of the event are fooling themselves but don't let them fool you.

 

[Pete]

Mac, please do me the courtesy of reading what I say.
Read my post again. Please.
If you don't get it, please let me know and I'll explain.

And don't forget the other question:

I will repeat my answer which is "that is their claim"

I'm not interested in anyone's claims, I'm interested in the prediction of the model.

Do you agree that it is the prediction of the SR model that the twins have different biological ages?

 

[Paul T]

The fact is H&K found no such time dilation on physical clocks. That matches my view not ours. If SR were valid then why didn't the clocks show it?

This is crap? How did you get the conclusion that "The fact is H&K found no such time dilation on physical clocks." FACT??? Did you get the idea from Kelly's paper? Kelly's conclusion was:

The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests.​

Read very carefully. I did not see such conclusion means: "The fact is H&K found no such time dilation on physical clocks. " Stop making nonsensical claim, MacM.

 

[MacM]

Mac, please do me the courtesy of reading what I say.
Read my post again. Please.
If you don't get it, please let me know and I'll explain.

And don't forget the other question:


I'm not interested in anyone's claims, I'm interested in the prediction of the model.

Do you agree that it is the prediction of the SR model that the twins have different biological ages?

Well Pete I'm finding this very courious. I have said three times now that the model claims "yes" an actual age difference in twins after being seperated by relativie velocity. I don't know how to make it any more clear. I have answered "Yes" IF the model is accurate then certainly it would be true. HOWEVER,I also say it is BS. I disagree with that model and for very good reasons.

My view of Relativity may be simply put. You can get the correct answer mathematically but for the wrong reasons. You misinterprete data and subsequently make false predictions as to what the forgoing mathematics seem to imply.

This view is in general expressed in the following link:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/webster.kehr/Chapters/Chapter040-Anemometer.htm

 

[MacM]

This is crap? How did you get the conclusion that "The fact is H&K found no such time dilation on physical clocks." FACT??? Did you get the idea from Kelly's paper? Kelly's conclusion was:

The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests.​

Read very carefully. I did not see such conclusion means: "The fact is H&K found no such time dilation on physical clocks. " Stop making nonsensical claim, MacM.

Paul T, I cannot believe you are argueing this point. Just where do you see any conflict with that statement and "they found no time dilation on the clocks"? The tabulated data did not and does not support their conclusion as published and tauted by other like you that are ardent believers in the theory, which is butressed by the evidence of written statements by Hafele himself to the US Navy about the test.

What is your problem accepting the fact that this atomic clock miracle proof of Relativity just never happened.

 

[Persol]

I have said three times now that the model claims "yes" an actual age difference in twins after being seperated by relativie velocity.

Yet you've tried to disprove it using SR... odd that.

HOWEVER,I also say it is BS. I disagree with that model and for very good reasons.

So you disagree with time dilation, even though it has been demonstrated? What are these "very good reasons"?

You can get the correct answer mathematically but for the wrong reasons.

To be blunt, we don't give a fuck. If you can show why it is wrong and not realistic you'd have a case... but no... all you ahve is your 'gut feeling'.

Trying to knock down H&K is nothing but a diversionary tactic. You know full well that that isn't the only experiment and sure as hell isn't the most accurate. Yet you ignore that, even though disproving H&K's accuracy doesn't do a damn bit of good for your argument.

You wonder why people treat you like shit, this is the reason.

 

[Persol]

Paul T, I cannot believe you are argueing this point. Just where do you see any conflict with that statement and "they found no time dilation on the clocks"?

Because that paragraph he quotes has nothing to do with statistics which would be needed to analyze this thing. You don't take one clock, even if it is the 'most accurate', and then make assumptions based on it.

Needless to say, I don't expect anyone to research another of your 'sources'... especially since this one does nothing for the topic at hand.

 

[Pete]

Mac,
So you do agree that the SR model predicts real effects, not just perceptual effects?

So, when you said you used the SR model in your thought experiments to show that it predicted only perceptual effects, you were not, in fact, using the SR model?

 

[Pete]

Repost, since you completely misread it the last time.
This time, please read my words carefully. I have added extras (in italics) to rub in the bleeding obvious.

Your Olympics example is pretty silly, as the time taken for me to view the race through my telescope would actually be much shorter than the time it took you to run it (which is of course the time registered by the judges). That is due to the perception effects of light travel. Note that this is the opposite of time dilation.

If I were so inclined, I could sit down and figure out the time it took you to run the race in my reference frame. I'd then find that it was longer than the time recorded on the judge's stopwatches (which is of course the time it took you to run it in your reference frame).

Would that give me concern? Hardly, as I know I'm in a different reference frame. I don't expect the time that passes for me during your race to be the same as the time that passes for you. Why would I?

 

[MacM]

Yet you've tried to disprove it using SR... odd that.
So you disagree with time dilation, even though it has been demonstrated? What are these "very good reasons"?
To be blunt, we don't give a fuck. If you can show why it is wrong and not realistic you'd have a case... but no... all you ahve is your 'gut feeling'.

Trying to knock down H&K is nothing but a diversionary tactic. You know full well that that isn't the only experiment and sure as hell isn't the most accurate. Yet you ignore that, even though disproving H&K's accuracy doesn't do a damn bit of good for your argument.

You wonder why people treat you like shit, this is the reason.

In your face twit. It would seem that Emery has a slightly better view of reality than you. See the definition of a physical event.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3286&stc=1

Extracted from:

http://webs.mn.catholic.edu.au/physics/emery/asc_space_continued.htm

I stand vindicated and rest my case. Up yours and your unearned ego.

 

[Paul T]

Pardon me for being blunt but you really are a jackass. You are talking absolute nonsense totally unsupported by fact. I read the damn paper and it is clear you either didn't or you have no reading compreshension.

Oooooo, you did read the paper? So, it seem that you had trouble to comprehend it and therefore went on claiming things that even your provided paper did not claim.

Try again. You lose, the data has been gotten by others. Before opening your distorting mouth again look at the attachements. Documents retrieved from archives of a Naval memo via the Freedom of Information Act show that Hafele himself told the government it was an unsupported conslusion.

Again, you had trouble to comprehend what you'd read. In the paper, Kelly said that the original H&K's test results were published for the first time in the said paper. How many time should I repeat this to you so that you would understand its meaning? Can we trust Kelly on that matter? Was the original data really first published by Kelly or indeed Kelly retrieved them from other people's or organization's publication. If Kelly retrieved them from somewhere else, then what the heck...should we trust other thing mentioned in the paper since the paper did not even present correctly simple fact about where the original data were first published?

Show where I said the data was easily obtained? You make shit up as you go and argue your own distorted claims.

I just have so shove it. You lose AGAIN.

Don't make a joke here, MacM. Do you think I am in a race with you? I was just trying to point out the truth about what the paper said and expect you not claiming things beyond the written fact.