Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
- Status
James R said:
And I have actually measured gravity in ways you have not. That knowledge tells me there is more to this than a bunch of formulas on a piece of paper.
I have not claimed they don't. I have claimed that the data does not support Relativity to the exclusion of other alternatives. As is the case with most such data. And therein lies the problem. Simply because it conforms to the mathematical predictions of Relativity doesn't mean that Relativity is the correct answer.
James R said:
Yes, I did read it some time ago. But at the time without know this background I had this feeling that it all seemed a bit to pat. So am I willing to suspect someting smells. You bet. And the data presented as actual raw data (if true) makes it clear something smells.
False. I posted a link which showed him releasing his own statement and the fact that he had been threatened for his carrer if he persisted on trying to get published in a journal on that issue.
There were others that also made statements about that and the Freedom of Information issue. But again, you nor I can confirm any of this without seeing the documentation first hand. One possibility is the fact that apparently Nature ran a story and had communication with a number of these people, so without drawing any conclusions, I would say to the least that it is not simply fabricated bullshit.
Without accepting your conslusions regarding other evidence, I agree that if they did commit fraud in this case that that in of itself has no bearing on Relativity. In favor or against. My purpose for raising this issue is because of the amount of times I have seen it waved around as "Proof" for Relativity and I would have to say at this point that I wouldn't bet an hours pay on it.
Your still missed the point entirely. The x',y',z',t' and the x",y",z",t" 's that you have given are infact the very frames of references for which Albert is independant of. Albert is Albert standing where he is standing in absolute time and space without reference to anything other than the rest of the universe.
the only valid physical arguement for Albert (I would prefer an event) is Alberts relationship to you, me and the rest of the universe. That is where his Dynamic Present exists, nowhere else. That is Alberts physical reality. Everything else is merely an observers view of where Alberts Dynamic Present is. That is called perceptions and why you call them observers.
I have for days now but you have incorrectly rejected it.
Wrong again. You make that claim but you have not supported it. It is quite clear that motion does not alter the digital signal. It is immune from your precious relativity. Why? Because it is not analog and can't be changed by your mathematics. The 10/1 frequency ratio is still 10/1 at any velocity (doppler shifted frequency). "A's"true local time is correctly applied to "B's" local system such that B and A see A's true tick rate in direct constrast to B's Relavistic view. It shows that B's Relavistic view is inconsistant with "A's" true tick rate. That regardless of Relativity A and B continued to ACTUALLY retain the same tick rate and remained synchronized. The conclusion is obvious. You just don't want to make it.
Answered infact several times. Only in the Theory of Relativity but not in reality due to #2 immediately above. True tick rates DO NOT change as a consequence of Relativity. It is an illusion, a distortion of reality and upon return the twins will still be the same age and their watches will still read the same amount of time accumulated.
#2 above is one very good reason to believe that H&K lied because it simply cannot happen. That is a fair reason I think.
Answered several times.
1 - No clock, including muons, measure time perse. They are creatures of processes. Processes vary (look at the atomic clocks setting on the bench +/- 8ns per hour, different when the enviornemnt changed or they were moved. The only thing is apparently they didn't change in a manner to support that the change was the result of time dilation due to relative velocity. Hmmmm.
I don't know enough about that process to have a comment and I don't know that they do or that they have really proven anything. I think that is evident by virtue of the fact that there are major cost projects ongoing to still try and prove time dilation affects. If GPS were proving it then it would suggest there would be no need for further testing, now would there?
That has the connotation of "It depends on what the meaning of IS IS".
It does correctly predict many things but the reality of those predictions are not necessarily based on the validity of Relativity to the exclusion of alternative causes for the results.
I have admitted no such thing. I stated it is useful. But I have also satated and restate here because you refuse to look beyond the mathematics in that regime where it makes acceptable predictions, that the mathematics are totally incorrect and jpredict assinine and impossible conclusions; which you seem to buy without batting an eye saying "Oh, well it is counter intuitive but then that is Relativity and we just know Relativity is correct."
Which I find hilarious considering that you yourself admit that it most certainly, most likely and most probably is not absolutely correct. You just don't seem to be able to be a realist and accept that Relativity is nothing more than a useful algorithum over some range and decline to look any further. Certainly if we continue to operate in this fashion nothing will ever replace it because nothing is being developed. (I know there are some working on that but far to few)
Answered above.
Considering that in fact all of your questions had been answered several times before, I still want to emphasize your tendancy to distort the facts is not appreciated.
James R said:
This is the very sort of thing that I am referring to. I have been spending hours here answering bullshit by people like Persol and Paul T that have not actual contributions to make and Billy T's post which was quite good if still misinformed and your lengthy rather arbitrary arguements and misquotes and mis-statements and having had already answered each of the historical questions you listed several time in the past for you to claim I have never nswered your is a gross distortion of the truth and then you very often post crap like this.
If you think I cannot or will not respond to you, you are mistaken and your innuendo (spelled it right) has no probative value what-so-ever. Your arrm surely must be getting soar from patting yourself on the back.
MacM said:
And we're back to the crux of the issue.
MacM thinks he has proven the existence of universal time, yet has not answered the regular rebuttals to his thought experiments. Every time he gets stuck, a new thought experiment emerges and the merry go round begins again.
If the thread could stick to that one issue in only one experiment, perhaps we might get somewhere.
Pete said:
Pete my friend. I was never stuck. You folks seemed stuck. It was time to try and give you a different picture to view. But I am more than willing to stay with the modulated carrier beam concept. It works, inspite that you seem to think not. You have failed to show how it doesn't.
Care to try again?
MacM:
Do you have a reference to the Nature article?
So, according to you, it is impossible to measure the distance between two objects, and it is impossible to measure time. Yet, for some reason, time and space are absolute. Unmeasureable, yet absolute at the same time.
Surely by settting up a coordinate system, I am referencing "the rest of the universe". Without setting up a coordinate system, how do you propose I determine how far away from me you are standing? And in that case, what makes my coordinate system better than yours?
Having failed to prove universal time, you're now running away from the concept of space and time all together. Every man is an island, unable to refernece anything in the outside world, according to you.
That is a lie, and you know it.
Another lie.
Agreed previously.
False. Previously refuted.
For the record:
MacM has here denied that time dilation has any real effects.
This is contrary to experimental observations, and is a simple denial of reality.
Why do these unspecified "processes" happen to exactly mimic the results one would expect from relativistic time dilation?
You are misinformed. There are no major tests going on now aimed solely at confirming time dilation. Time dilation is an accepted fact. And GPS is one of the things which proves it.
So, you think relativity is a fluke when it gets things right.
You leave a loophole open here, saying that it only gets "many things" right, but not everything of course, because you don't believe in time dilation.
The short answer to the question, according to you, must be "No, relativistic maths is NOT right." Why not have the balls to say it? You believe it, so say it.
Then I would like a clear statement from you, saying: "I, MacM, say that relativity is mathematically incorrect."
Note: Here is an unambiguous claim that "the mathematics are totally incorrect", at least in some instances.
Now, you will need to back up that claim with a demonstration.
Show me which parts of the mathematics of relativity are totally incorrect.
I apologise for expecting a response too fast. That was impatient on my part and I am sorry.
Do you have a reference to the Nature article?
So, according to you, it is impossible to measure the distance between two objects, and it is impossible to measure time. Yet, for some reason, time and space are absolute. Unmeasureable, yet absolute at the same time.
Surely by settting up a coordinate system, I am referencing "the rest of the universe". Without setting up a coordinate system, how do you propose I determine how far away from me you are standing? And in that case, what makes my coordinate system better than yours?
Having failed to prove universal time, you're now running away from the concept of space and time all together. Every man is an island, unable to refernece anything in the outside world, according to you.
That is a lie, and you know it.
Another lie.
Agreed previously.
False. Previously refuted.
For the record:
MacM has here denied that time dilation has any real effects.
This is contrary to experimental observations, and is a simple denial of reality.
Why do these unspecified "processes" happen to exactly mimic the results one would expect from relativistic time dilation?
You are misinformed. There are no major tests going on now aimed solely at confirming time dilation. Time dilation is an accepted fact. And GPS is one of the things which proves it.
So, you think relativity is a fluke when it gets things right.
You leave a loophole open here, saying that it only gets "many things" right, but not everything of course, because you don't believe in time dilation.
The short answer to the question, according to you, must be "No, relativistic maths is NOT right." Why not have the balls to say it? You believe it, so say it.
Then I would like a clear statement from you, saying: "I, MacM, say that relativity is mathematically incorrect."
Note: Here is an unambiguous claim that "the mathematics are totally incorrect", at least in some instances.
Now, you will need to back up that claim with a demonstration.
Show me which parts of the mathematics of relativity are totally incorrect.
I apologise for expecting a response too fast. That was impatient on my part and I am sorry.
MacM said:
What carrer MacM? You meant career, I think. Dr Kelly starts talking BS about physics after retiring. What kind of career a retired person has to worry about? Who want to threaten you to reap you off from your career if you persist want to publish your UniKEF, for instance? They just simply reject your papers, what's the big deal?
James R said:
I am going to reply point by point to this distortion of fact. However, let me serve notice that it is being done under extreme difficulties. For the past two weeks something has happened to my computer and I am unable to "Cut & Paste" information into an editable file. I either get nothing or garabage links back to the site from which the "Cut" was made but not the information. I have reloaded Windows98SE but to no avail. As yet I have not figured out what is going on. This makes it damn near impossible to respond to long posts since the reference to your posted comments do not show in the "reply" mode. One has to respond from memory as to what it referred to.
Because of that I don't have time this morning to try and by hand make notes of your replies as to what they referrence to that I can respond without getting totally lost.
Therefore I will skip this post until this evening when I have time to try and pull it all together. So I am not ignoring you.
James R said:
Now this is an example of what I can no longer do. That is "Cut and Paste" the URL to a specific post. I get nothing on the screen is such an attempt.
However, this post is shorth enough that I have made notes regarding your referenced posts and can reply.
This first one simply shows a complete lack of understanding about the process that has been advocated.
Let me repeat in a short format.
1 - You have already agreed that clocks are identical.
2 - That they are calibrated at rest side by side to each other.
3 - You have agreed that according to Relativity neither clock's local "proper" time changes due to motion.
Therefore A and B both still have 1 MHz beams locally when reaching their stated relative velocity.
4 - Both under go identical doppler red shift and are observed by each other as transmitting at 0.229 MHz.
5 - You agreed that a light signal in the form of a side band modulation (SBM) of the carrier will travel at the same invariant velocity as the carrier beam, hence require precisely the same amount of time to traverse between ships.
6 - Based on this any change in the system relative between clocks will be observed by each clock at the same actual instant, if the change(s) are induced locally at each clock at the same instant.
7 - Achieving a specific doppler shift will be percieved by both clocks at the same instant since both beams are equal and are undergoing the same identical relative motion.
8 - Using said doppler shift as a control trigger (I'm changing the trigger to be more precise instead of looking to a non-changing doppler shift showing constant velocity, I will accelerate to a specific doppler shift), each clock will simultaneously transmit its local beat frequency ratio by SBM and that SBM will be received by respective clocks simultaneously.
9 - Having received same that ratio i.e. - 10/1 means the 10/1 SBM when applied to the local 1 MHz standard will re-produce the 1 tick/second rate at B that created the 10/1 SBM at A which represents it's actual tick rate.
10 - The monitor counter at each clock therefore will tick at the same rate as the clock that produced the SBM.
11 - Finally ALL clocks and monitors will be ticking at the same exact rate with no induced affect by Relativity.
12 - You cannot accept these stipulations and reject the clear conclusion. Your claim otherwise is false and flawed. Try again.
Try again. This is nonesense. You are argueing that the clocks aren't actually synchronized in that one clock may be defective and not running at 1 tick per second but 100 ticks per second. I can just as well claim you can not prove SR because your clock may be broken.
Such outlandish distortions in the arguemnt simply show your desperation to find fault where there is none.
But for now I must go to work. I see my crew has arrived.
Last edited:
Paul T said:What carrer MacM? You meant career, I think. Dr Kelly starts talking BS about physics after retiring. What kind of career a retired person has to worry about? Who want to threaten you to reap you off from your career if you persist want to publish your UniKEF, for instance? They just simply reject your papers, what's the big deal?
The big deal is you still can't read. The career threat wasn't made to Kelly. It was made to the designer of the clocks.
My reference to gravity and UniKEF was in response to the issue raised by James R that he has actually measured muons in the atmosphere. The point being "What does that prove, I have measured things he hasn't, it doesn't prove my point nor his. His measurement is just a measurement. When that data may not yet have been properly evaluated as to what it means.
My contention is that it simply means the decay process has been altered by the energy exchanges in the process and has nothing what-so-ever to do with time. The muon clock rate has shifted just as my water pan clock data will shift with energetic changes. It proves nothing about time perse.
Last edited:
Paul T said:
My point had nothing to do with UniKEF as applying to SR but that James R's arguement that he has measured muons in the atmosphere has no more authoity than my having measured something in gravity.
There is a differeance however, his measurements show nothing new that many many people have not already measured. My work has. That should tell you something regarding the possibility of whose work actually is on the frontier and who is not.
James R said:
Now taking this post one step at a time so that I can be sure what your comments are based on. That means if you see this and it is incomplete, I haven't finished but am reviewing the next block pending editing my response in this post.
The information I posted mentioned articles by Nature but did not specify issue number or dates. I suppose if you want to challenge that point you can contact Nature and get confirmation or a denial of that fact. I don't feel I need to because I accept it as being true unless there is some basis to believe otherwise. Your assertion that it isn't true is based on absolutly nothing and I don't intend to be trapped chassing all the false allegations others wish to advance. The onus is on you to show there is something wrong with the articles, not to just cast aspertions and have the poster out chasing wild gueese.
Yours is of course the typical distortion of the facts as they are and of what I have said. Of course you can measure but your measurement is simply based on your observaton and will not correspond to Albert's.
Albert's(assume an event such as a sneeze) is his alone as Albert's event x,y,z,t, which is independant of your observation x',y',z',t'. Your measurements are nothing more than your reference frame observations of Albert's event and time-space ordinates of the actual event. Albert's is the only physical reality. Yours is perception of the actual event. Events only occur locally. They are not subject to alteration or exclusion as a function of any observer.
All persons have to use the same coordinate system. They will not get the same results. But the x,y,z,t of the event is the only physical reality coordinates of the event. Allotheers are merely observations or perceptions of the event.
Having failed to prove universal time, you're now running away from the concept of space and time all together. Every man is an island, unable to refernece anything in the outside world, according to you.
Addressed above and the post prior with numbered sequence of events. Which numbered sequence do you suggest is invalid? If all events are correct the conclusion must also be correct which makes you in error, not me.
Add to this a simple note. Your habit of calling people liars when it is in fact you that have misunderstood or misrepresented what was said or the meaning of posts, is not productive. Please stick to the actual issue and stop with the diversions.
Good. The digital signal does not get altered. Now you must somehow retract the fact that light travels the same velocity in both directions, or that somehow the distance is not the same in both directions, or that with light being of a finite velocity and distance fixed that signals somehow do not become generated nor recieved simultaneously, or that one or the others clocks for some strange reason ceases to remain relative (reversable with identical affects at each clock such that clocks have a different local frequency), for the synchronzation to fail.
Which component of my loop are you claiming is defective?
Not so. Only by unsupported fiat have you claimed to refute anything. You must not be specific of which step ofthe outlined jprocess is invalid, how and why.
That is affirmed. I will point out however that it is not upto me to explain your data. It is up to you to show a flaw in my analysis. You have not done so. Until you can your data is pseudo-science and is in opposition to these physical facts of the example case.
You can't have it both ways. Either SR is illusional or some factor in the synchronization stipulations is in error. Where is the error?
Perhaps because that is the rate at which energetic changes occur in the real universe. Perhaps because time-space is related by your SR function (1 - v^2/c^2) without explanation or UniKEF's dynamic energetic space by (c+v) * (c-v) = (c^2 - v^2)*c^2 = (1 - v^2/c^2) which is the same result with a cause but understanding that all views other than the ocal event view is merely perception and not physical reality.
On this pooint I may have to stand corrected. As yet I have not identified tests I tought were scheduled. I thought the multibillin dollar "Galieo" project ws such a test. It turns out to be just an independant European GPS type system.
Having acknowledged that however let me hasten to add the following. Noting before you or others do that the source is "The Journal of theoretics" which doesn't have conventional peer review, the fact is the article I link is from the Lab of High Energy, Joint Institute of Nuclear Research, Moscow.
I do think they are a credable organization:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-5/Str_tdil1.htm
and the following. I do not give special credance to this group over you or your group but simply post it to show that not all scientist agree with your absolute view of the correctness of the meaning of all this data.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/flag96.htm#E
Now the point I would like to make here is that none of this directly addresses the issue at hand. Certainly GPS is requiring relavistic adjustment. I have not argued against relavistic perceptional errors. It stands without objection to get information which matches reality we would indeed be required to adjust for the distortion of reality due to such affects.
Logically I find it difficult to not see how you do not recognize that this actually confirms my view. To get real information that matches actual physical reality one must first extract via appropriate corrections the distortions of the perception by Relativity.
That is to say my view of where I am and at what time it is, is the only correct view and a GPS uncorrected view yields the incorrect result. That confirms my view not yours. You are not correcting my position and time you are correction GPS's view of my position and time to make it fit reality. Thank you for helping make my point.
Fluke is probably the incorrect definition. But certainly the mathematics may be correct in some if not most cases but it is formulas without a physical cause and the interpretaion of such results in absence of the underlying physical reality leads you astray as is evidenced in this thread.
I believe Relativity causes distortion in perception but doesn't alter reality.
Why would I say that when I have repeatedly acknowledged that the mathematics generally works? But what that means is a different matter. For example in my olymics example. I claim that I broke the worlds record for the mile run. I claim that your view of my effort that I ran far to slow and didn't break the worlds record is false and that you have a distorted perception of the reality.
I have never said that and you are attempting to get me to make an error which I won't do.
In turn let me get a clear statement from you. "In your example you did not actually break the worlds record for the mile run because my relavistic view of your performance is more correct than your reality at the event".
Yes or No?
My x,y,z,t are physical reality of the event. The Relavistically altered view of GPS is a distorted perception of reality and must be corrected to be useable to define reality.
Now your repeated effort to take statements out of context and redefine their meaning, in no way alters my post and the validity of the statement.
Unless your are prepared to claim and prove relativity in the regimes untested and for which this comment was clearly limited. It is a titally different statement than to say "the mathematics are totally incorrect" and that they never predict things correctly. You are distorting and misapplying the comment. Can you not defend Relativity without such tatics? If not I think you are in deeper trouble than I here.
Last edited:
You continue to argue this, and continue to ignroe everyone who points out the problem. According to this latest excue of yours NOBODY can determine 'the reality of the event'. You are always in motion and always a certain distance away from the event. You will see an event at a different time than I do... even completely ignoring the effects of SR. Hell, your two eyes see you hand at two different times (a small delay, but a delay). Does that mean it isn't a physical event because you can't place the time. Your misinterpretation of this event (and you imagined definition of universal time/space coordinates) both require that you have some method of defining them. NONE EXIST.
Either way you are not experiencing the Event directly and have no easy method of determining the time and location. This is just another straw man!
You can't pick any space coordinates that are 'better' than any other... and you can't pick a set of time coordinates which all processes obey. That makes your imagined need of universal time and space unneeded and unuseful.
So it's more likely that H&K are a fraud than it is that Kelly is a fraud? Uh huh. Evidence would be nice. Sadly you've shown none except for Kelly's... which are no more supportive than H&K.... and that's all assuming that this was an issue in the first place, which it isn't.
We've listed other processes which show the same thing and have been done MANY times. Yet you continue to ignore that and argue against time dilation... even though that's what the experiments support.
I've told you 3 or 4 times that not everybody lives in your time zone.
Do you know how science works? People test each other's theories for flaws. Your quoted paper has never actually been tested (or at least has never passed). H&K is quoted so often because of the ideas it supports... BUT IT IS NOT A STAND ALONE EXPERIMENT. There are many others experiments which show the same result.
Reference please?
And THIS is where your theory is complete rubish. No matter what, you need some method of determining the location and time of an event. You choose to use a velocity equation (speed of light) which has been experimentally shown to be wrong. Others choose to use relativity (time dilation) which experiments have shown to be correct.
MacM, why the hell are you trying to pass this off as science. You have demonstrated NO good reason that this is for the wrong reasons, and your logical about 'real events' is flawed as I detailed above.
Wait... why not? Are particle accelerators also 'not such evidence'? Why not? What experiment (one actually obtainable) would actually make you happy? My guess is none, because you just threw out two of the most accurate/frequent experiments ever done.
Please supply a scientifically supported reason and not this bullshit. The collision rate and effect is well calculated for muons. Being a nuclear engineer you of all people should know this.
Why 'of course'? Why do these decay patterns folow the theory of relativity? That 'blue glow' has been heavily researched in the nuclear industry.
Yes, and did it incredibly poorly while using very poor math and little to no probability. Note that you said you'd have your report about a year ago. It never materialzied. Did you pasta bowl spring a leak?
Care to share? Or are we supposed to guess what you pasta bowl told you?
Fine, nombody cares to argue against your unsupported and unreviewed source. We gave you several other proofs of time dilation as well... which you kindly ignored (particle accelerators) or gave bullshit responses to (muons).
Agreed (premise A)MacM said:
Agreed as clarified (premise B)
Agreed (premise C)
Agreed (premise D)
Follows logically from premise B and premise C
Agreed (premise E)
Agreed (premise F)
Agreed as clarified and qualified. (premise G)
Logically follows from premise F and the definition of velocity.
The qualification (in bold) is necessary unless a further premise is made about universal time.
Clarified meaning - if an event at clock A is simultaneous with an event at clock B, then each clocks observation of the events at the other clock will happen simultaneously.
(premise I)
Agreed subject to the inclusion of premise H - The clocks have equal speeds in opposite directions.
Logically follows from premise G and premise H.
Note that premise H immediately specifies a reference frame - there is only one reference frame in which the clocks have equal speeds in opposite directions. I'll call this frame MV. (for Mean Velocity).
(premise K)
Agreed as qualified subject to the inclusion of premise J.
Follows logically from premise I, premise H, and a further premise:
the acceleration of the two ships is equal magnitude, opposite direction (premise J)
Premise J is also required for frame MV to be inertial.
Aside
This bit is interesting - "both beams are equal and are undergoing the same identical relative motion".
It indicates a very fuzzy understanding of Special Relativity.
Mac seems to be implying that because reference frames are essentially arbitrary, that velocity is arbitrary in a given reference frame.
In other words, Mac seems to be implying that in any reference frame (say A's frame), we must affirm that A and B have equal speed - something which is clearly nonsense (in A's frame, A's velocity is zero, but B's velocity is not), and is not an implication of SR.
The only frame in which the source of the beams are undergoing identical motion is the mean velocity frame - frame MV.
Agreed as qualified
Follows from premise I and premise K.
That's enough for the argument for universal time - simultaneity has been demonstrated in the mean velocity frame (MV) only, not universally.
The tick rate argument is different, odd, and interesting. I need more information before assessing it.
B receives a number from A encoded in the SBM. That number is 10.
B is also receiving a beam from A at a particular frequency. That frequency is 229kHz.
B is transmitting a beam at 1MHz, and has a clock ticking at 1 tick per second.
B recently transmitted a number encoded in its 1MHz beam. That number was 10.
I don't understand what you mean by "10/1 means the 10/1 SBM when applied to the local 1 MHz standard will re-produce the 1 tick/second rate at B that created the 10/1 SBM at A which represents it's actual tick rate." Can you spell out the maths?
What is B assuming about what is happening on A's ship?
Is B assuming that A is still transmitting locally at 1MHz?
Is B assuming that A is still ticking locally at 1 tick per second?
It's OK to make these assumptions, as long as you spell them out - I don't like to guess what you're thinking, because I'm often wrong.
So... let me relay my understanding...
B receives a number from A encoded in the SBM. That number is 10.
B is also receiving a beam from A at a particular frequency. That frequency is 229kHz.
B is transmitting a beam at 1MHz, and has a clock ticking at 1 tick per second.
B recently transmitted a number encoded in its 1MHz beam. That number was 10.
I don't understand what you mean by "10/1 means the 10/1 SBM when applied to the local 1 MHz standard will re-produce the 1 tick/second rate at B that created the 10/1 SBM at A which represents it's actual tick rate." Can you spell out the maths?
What is B assuming about what is happening on A's ship?
Is B assuming that A is still transmitting locally at 1MHz?
Is B assuming that A is still ticking locally at 1 tick per second?
It's OK to make these assumptions, as long as you spell them out - I don't like to guess what you're thinking, because I'm often wrong.
- Status