Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[James R]

Pete:

MacM's argument is circular. It goes like this:

1. Assume that universal time exists.
2. Therefore, A's and B's local clocks tick at the same rate. (1 MHz for A is the same as 1 MHz for B.)
3. The signal "10" is sent by SBM from A to B.
4. B receives the signal from A, and says "A sent the number 10, which means A is ticking at one tick per second, as measured by A."
5. B reasons: "Because 1 tick per second is the same for A as it is for me, then I can also set my clock to 1 tick per second and our two clocks will be synchronised."
6. Because A and B's clocks are synchronised, absolute time must exist.

Notice that the assumption of absolute time was used to conclude that absolute time exists.

It ought to be obvious that circular reasoning doesn't produce valid conclusions, but MacM can't grasp the point.

 

[MacM]

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.

As we must if we are discussing reality and not distorted perception.

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.

Yes this happens to be correct. Every atoms and sub-atomic comonent have dilated reality. Our awareness is nothingmore that a close approximation of reality based on a macroscopic average and close proximity but in a rest frame.

Our view of reality is time shifted when in a common rest frame but at a distance. Your view of reality is shifted further in a non-ret frame. But your view is not the reality. The reality is the local x,y,z,t of the event. This is why GPS has to be corrected, it isn't reality and yields an incorrect answer if left uncorrected for the distortions of Relativity in the perception of reality.

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!

Funny. To have an actual understanding jof reality is a straw man but to call distorted perception reality is good science. Hmmmm.

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.

If you are speaking of x,y,zt then I would agree "You can't get any better". But if you are claiming your x',y',z',t' are equal to x,y,z,t as reality then you are clearly confused.

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.

Let me suggest before you blow off this information by claiming Kelly (and others) have lied about i.e. - The Navy memo written by Hafele himself, obtained via The Freedom of Information Act, or the published statment by the clocks designer as regarding the misrepresentation of the accuracy of the closkc, that you actually base such statments on fact and not assumptions.

The published record at hand are the only facts. If they are in error you are obligated to show they are in error, not assume they are in error to claim your view is superior. My position is at least posted in the form of published material. Yours is simply hot air rejected the published data. You are not even close to being on the same level of debate here. Come back when yo have some evidence, much less jproof, of your assertions that Kelly and others have lied and not H&K.

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.

Wrong again. I have never argued against time dilation as a perception but I do argue against it as a reality. If you agree then you are obligated to show which step in the numbered sequence posted above is false. You cannot have those sequences be valid and the conclusion be different than it is. The onus in on you not me at this point.

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.

You saying something 3-4 times? Does that make it correct. I think not. What makes a view correct is the infalible truth. Show a flaw in my example of the synchronized clocks.

Reference please?

Given above.

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.

Correction. It is not MY theory. It is statements of fact. Only x,y,z,t are valid event parameters of reality (As stated in my Emery definiton post above). An Event is independant of any other frames of referance.

The rest of this statement is gibberish.


[quotee]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.[/quote]

You said nothing above that merits even consideration much less a basis to accept distorted perceptions as reality. IF you view is valid why would you want to correct GPS signals if GPS's view is valid rality. You are a joke.

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.

I would be happy with a simple acknowledgement that the data from Relavistic experiments yield distorted perceptions of reality rather than all perceptions are reality.

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.

Perhaps that is why I have a better feel for what may be going on here than you.

Why 'of course'? Why do these decay patterns folow the theory of relativity? That 'blue glow' has been heavily researched in the nuclear industry.

What does that demonstrate that has any bearing on this discussion. I can explain Cerenkov Radiation in the same general veign as one can for the invariant characteristics of light.

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?

I have posted a "Conservative" view of the general data samples. As I stated initially the data was to erratic to publish but showed statistically positive results - BTW these were true averages without manipulation made as in H&K.

Also a new unit is being built which will produce better data; plus - Make a direct measure of the speed of gravity!!. So smoke that joint for a while. This unit unfortunatley is going to cost several thousand dollars and takes a bit of time to put together. Although I am getting interest from some manufacturing sponsors which will help.

Care to share? Or are we supposed to guess what you pasta bowl told you?

Posted on UniKEF Gravity. You as others are free to review for yourself.

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).

So then why are you arguing? I haven't ignored anything. It is obvious from introspection of the process that TD isn't real, hence any data that suggests it must somehow be explained. Accepting it as proof of physical impossiblities is not giving it explanation. It is giving up on science for pseudo-science and vodoo.

The conditions of truth by Relativity standards shows the failure of the Relativity principle. One must simply accept the data as an expression of yet unknown causes and look for them.

 

[MacM]

Near the bottom of the sciforums window is a link:
vB code is On
Click it.
In the new window, find the [ post ] link and click it.
Follow the instructions to link to a post.

Thanks. I had been using the "Cntrl+C" and "Cntrl+V" cut and paste but I have a computer jproblem and it quit working.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Pete:

MacM's argument is circular. It goes like this:

1. Assume that universal time exists.
2. Therefore, A's and B's local clocks tick at the same rate. (1 MHz for A is the same as 1 MHz for B.)
3. The signal "10" is sent by SBM from A to B.
4. B receives the signal from A, and says "A sent the number 10, which means A is ticking at one tick per second, as measured by A."
5. B reasons: "Because 1 tick per second is the same for A as it is for me, then I can also set my clock to 1 tick per second and our two clocks will be synchronised."
6. Because A and B's clocks are synchronised, absolute time must exist.

Notice that the assumption of absolute time was used to conclude that absolute time exists.

It ought to be obvious that circular reasoning doesn't produce valid conclusions, but MacM can't grasp the point.

Actually James I find this post a really good one, but not for the reasons that you have implied.

we have two POV's
My impression by your words is:

James states that time is entirely variable, that there is no real association between two events, that even if we recieve light into our eyes we can not determine the sources time of sending that light.

So all our calculations and mathamatics is irrelevant to determining distance and velocity simply because the sources time can not be fixed to the destination in any meaningful way.

ON one hand we have a state of direct relationship even if variable and on the other we have a totally unrelated relationship in time.

If time dilations can not be calculated becasue time is unable to be determined then I ask what's the point of all the math?


I'll clarify my point

1. Assume that universal time exists.

all mathamatics assumes this and not just MAcM.
Even Einstien assumed it when he stated that the length of a beam of light is invariant.

2. Therefore, A's and B's local clocks tick at the same rate. (1 MHz for A is the same as 1 MHz for B.)

I think clock [a] and clock must tick at the same relative rate, other wise the whole SR process fails.

4. B receives the signal from A, and says "A sent the number 10, which means A is ticking at one tick per second, as measured by A."

Because time is relative and not total chaos this is a fair thing to do.
Clock now knows what that velocity dilation relationship is. If not the laws of relativity fail, not to mention the entire universe.

. B reasons: "Because 1 tick per second is the same for A as it is for me, then I can also set my clock to 1 tick per second and our two clocks will be synchronised."
6. Because A and B's clocks are synchronised, absolute time must exist.

If the velocities of both [a] and stay the same [non acceleration}
then it is quite correct to make the assumption that the relative tick rates ratio will also stay the same, so by using a ratio the clocks can be synchronised.

Now the only mistake that I can see is that the 1 mhz for A is based on dilated time relative to thus when clock recieves [a]'s statement of ten per second it is a dilated second and yes both clocks have now got the same figure but using a different time rate to get that figure. However if clock knows the velocity of clock [a] a simply dilation table would be able to make the appropriate adjustments and declare a tick rate ratio.
If velocity is unknown then it is impossible to know the ratio.

So absolute relative time is possible thus absolute time ia available by default.

I am not sure exactly what MacM means by universal time though.

If dilation effects are physical and not subject to perception then possibly I see room for conflict on this point.

 

[James R]

MacM:

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.

Yes, I agree with all these things.

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.

Your term "the same instant" is meaningless unless you specify a reference frame. Therefore, unless you are more specific, I cannot agree with this statement.

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.

This is incorrect. The local clock times will be the same when the doppler shift settles down to a constant value, but that will not happen at the same instant according to either of the clocks.

Since you have mental blindness to issues of simultaneity, I am sure you will be completely mystified by the preceding paragraph. You will claim that such a thing is simply impossible. Implicitly, your claim your claim will be based on the same misconception you have carried all the way through this thread.

Gee, I am getting better at this predictive stuff, am I not?

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.

No, for the same reason.

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.

It will reproduce a local tick rate of 1 tick per second, where a second is measured locally. That will have no relation to the tick rate of the other clock, as I have previously explained.

10 - The monitor counter at each clock therefore will tick at the same rate as the clock that produced the SBM.

False.

11 - Finally ALL clocks and monitors will be ticking at the same exact rate with no induced affect by Relativity.

False.

12 - You cannot accept these stipulations and reject the clear conclusion. Your claim otherwise is false and flawed.

Correct. I reject these stipulations.

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.

That is no the basis on which I have argued. Please re-read the two posts linked above.

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'.

I haven't specified Albert's frame of reference. Let's say Albert chooses coordinates centred on his mouth. Now we have three sets of coordinates for the sneeze:

For me: (x,y,z,t) = (2,0,0,12 pm)
For you: (x',y',z',t') = (0,3,1.7,12 pm)
For Albert: (x'',y'',z'',t'') = (0,0,0,12 pm)

Note: There are no relativistic effects at work here.

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.

Everybody agrees on which events occur. They do not agree where or necessarily when they occur.

You have yet to explain why Albert's coordinate system is to be preferred to yours or mine. You have also yet to explain how the distance between yourself and Albert could be obtained, without a coordinate system.

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.

If you centre a coordinate system on an event, then that event will have coordinates (0,0,0,0). This applies for all events. Therefore, according to you, the only "real" coordinate is (0,0,0,0). That means it is impossible to measure distances between events, or relative times of events.

What a stupid claim.

Me: 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.

You: That is a lie, and you know it.

You just confirmed your nonsense view, above.

Me: MacM has here denied that time dilation has any real effects. This is contrary to experimental observations, and is a simple denial of reality.

You: That is affirmed.

MacM Claim A: Time dilation has no real effects.

Me: Why do these unspecified "processes" happen to exactly mimic the results one would expect from relativistic time dilation?

You: 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.

Waffle. You complain that relativity has no "process", then you ramble on about "the rate at which energetic changes occur", without providing any quantitative or other explanation of why that rate should vary. Your UniKEF suffers from exactly the same deficiencies you claim for relativity.

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.

Please show mathematically how we are to make these "corrections" you speak of, and explain how we can show that the underlying "reality" actually exists.

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?

No.

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.

MacM's claim B: Relativity is untested in some regimes, and is incorrect in those regimes.

Which regimes are you referring to?
Please provide proof that relativity is incorrect in those regimes.

 

[Quantum Quack]

1 mhz at velocity 0.6 c is different to 1 mhz at velocity 0.5c
but a relatively simple calculation would give you the dilation ratio would it not?

 

[MacM]

Agreed (premise A)

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.

I'll have to read again to be sure of what your MV implies but I think I agree with you with one stipulation. My intent regarding the simultaneity between A and B is based on reversability of Relvistic affects. That is to say if you follow the sequence you will find that the side band digital modulation encoded into the carrier beam will be received by each clock at the moment each clock reads the same accumulated time, if they were previously synchronized by signals as proposed.

And you are correct "Universal Time" does not mean time is the same everywhere when viewed relative to an event origin as percieved by a remote or moving observer.

However, neither is there any basis to not declare a higher order universally of a geo-creative time line as a reference from which all observations are made.

That is to say when an event occurs - i.e. - I broke the worlds mile speed record at "t", that that "t" exists throughtout the universe but that observers of that event will not percieve the event until any relavistic relationships between them as observers and the event ordinates have dissapated.

Such that the observation is at " t' " = "t + x" universally.

 

[James R]

QQ:

James states that time is entirely variable, that there is no real association between two events, that even if we recieve light into our eyes we can not determine the sources time of sending that light.

Sorry, but that is wrong.

We know the speed of light, so if we know where the source was went it sent the light and we know the time it was received, we can calculate at what time the light was emitted. The calculation MUST be carried out in one reference frame, though.

So all our calculations and mathamatics is irrelevant to determining distance and velocity simply because the sources time can not be fixed to the destination in any meaningful way.

Again, that is entirely wrong. A coordinate system uniquely specifies the location of all events in spacetime.

If time dilations can not be calculated becasue time is unable to be determined then I ask what's the point of all the math?

Time can be determined and time dilation can certainly be calculated. Time dilation is a result of transforming to a different frame of reference. There are mathematical equations which predict the results of such a transformation.

1. Assume that universal time exists.

all mathamatics assumes this and not just MAcM.
Even Einstien assumed it when he stated that the length of a beam of light is invariant.

False.

As I have shown above, the concept of universal time is incompatible with relativity. Please review the previous posts.

2. Therefore, A's and B's local clocks tick at the same rate. (1 MHz for A is the same as 1 MHz for B.)

I think clock [a] and clock must tick at the same relative rate, other wise the whole SR process fails.

You haven't explained why.

4. B receives the signal from A, and says "A sent the number 10, which means A is ticking at one tick per second, as measured by A."

Because time is relative and not total chaos this is a fair thing to do.
Clock now knows what that velocity dilation relationship is. If not the laws of relativity fail, not to mention the entire universe.

Wrong. Clock B knows NOTHING about the time dilation relationship from this information. This is also MacM's major misconception. Receiving the nuimber "10" doesn't tell B anything about how fast clock A is ticking relative to B. All it tells B is that A locally (i.e. in A's reference frame) measured 1 tick per second.

B reasons: "Because 1 tick per second is the same for A as it is for me, then I can also set my clock to 1 tick per second and our two clocks will be synchronised."
6. Because A and B's clocks are synchronised, absolute time must exist.

If the velocities of both [a] and stay the same [non acceleration}
then it is quite correct to make the assumption that the relative tick rates ratio will also stay the same, so by using a ratio the clocks can be synchronised.

False, as I have explained to MacM many times. Please review the previous posts.

Now the only mistake that I can see is that the 1 mhz for A is based on dilated time relative to thus when clock recieves [a]'s statement of ten per second it is a dilated second and yes both clocks have now got the same figure but using a different time rate to get that figure. However if clock knows the velocity of clock [a] a simply dilation table would be able to make the appropriate adjustments and declare a tick rate ratio.

That's right!

And how would B calculate the adjustment table? Answer: He would need to use relativity. So, the signal from A by itself is not sufficient to synchronise the clocks. Your need something else as well: either an assumption of universal time, or an assumption of relativity. These things have been independently tested in real-world experiments, and relativity has found to be correct, while universal time is wrong. Case closed.

If velocity is unknown then it is impossible to know the ratio.

False. The ratio is the data transmitted between the two clocks.

So absolute relative time is possible thus absolute time ia available by default.

No.

If dilation effects are physical and not subject to perception then possibly I see room for conflict on this point.

Perception is physical. They aren't two different things.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And how would B calculate the adjustment table? Answer: He would need to use relativity. So, the signal from A by itself is not sufficient to synchronise the clocks. Your need something else as well: either an assumption of universal time, or an assumption of relativity. These things have been independently tested in real-world experiments, and relativity has found to be correct, while universal time is wrong. Case closed.

this is amazing we actually agree.......

relativity by it's very nature affords us a way of dealing with variations in time rate....which means that no matter were we are or what velocity we are traveling we are able to determine a time rate ratio. agreed?

say a tick rate ratio of 1:1.2

1 being our frame of reference.

if we incorporate Earth time rates we can contrive a ratio of say

[et] 1 : [a}] 1.2 : 1.125 : [c] 1.89 and so on.

is this correct?

if so we have a means of calculating absolute time using Earth time as our reference.

we create an absolute datum line using Earth as our central reference thus we create our absolute time.
<img src=http://www.paygency.com/dilatedtimeaxisv3.jpg>

 

[MacM]

The tick rate argument is different, odd, and interesting. I need more information before assessing it.

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?

Sure. The actual number isn't important, except to establish a degree of accuracy desired. The 10/1 means if the local clock is running at 1 MHz it will induce a SBM of a frequency of 100KHz. That 10/1 modulation links the local clocks tick rate of 1 tick per second having a one decimal point accuracy. i.e. - 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, etc. If I were to modulate a 100/1 then I could have two decimal place accuracy.

This is because within the modulation envelope you have descrete pulses. In the duration of the 100KHz modulation envelope a 1 MHz carrier signal will have 10 frequency pulses. 9 or 11 pulses are not contained although there might be an acutal tick rate of 1.01 or 0.99 and you can't see it. the 10 would set it to 1 tick not .99 or 1.01. So it produces the degree of accuracy of information transfer.

Receiving a 10 code then (note that the 10 is unchanged by doppler shift such that the messge is received as 229KHz carrier with a 22.9KHz SBM - BUt still 10/1, B recreates A's tick rate from his 1 MHz standard running his clock and carrier beam.

While absolute precision could never be transferred, the purpose to to highlite the difference between an obserfvers view and the actuality of the others clocks operation and when in tis case Relativity would require you to say A's clock is running at only 0.229 ticks per second, you can jprove that it is actually still ticking at 1 tick per second. It is the perception of A's clock that is wrong and A's time hasn't changed in reality.

What is B assuming about what is happening on A's ship?

Without my synchronization system B thinks A's clock has changed and is only ticking at 0.229 ticks per second.

Is B assuming that A is still transmitting locally at 1MHz?

No B also thinks A's carrier beam has drifted to 119KHz. vice versa for A's view of B.

Is B assuming that A is still ticking locally at 1 tick per second?

Not in relativity. The claim is that B's view is the reality for clock A. that is the entire disagreement here. My efforts are to show that B's view in no way actually describes A's reality and that it can be shown that B's view is inconsistant with reality byt reproducing A's clock rate locally at B.

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.

 

[MacM]

Pete:

MacM's argument is circular. It goes like this:

1. Assume that universal time exists.
2. Therefore, A's and B's local clocks tick at the same rate. (1 MHz for A is the same as 1 MHz for B.)
3. The signal "10" is sent by SBM from A to B.
4. B receives the signal from A, and says "A sent the number 10, which means A is ticking at one tick per second, as measured by A."
5. B reasons: "Because 1 tick per second is the same for A as it is for me, then I can also set my clock to 1 tick per second and our two clocks will be synchronised."
6. Because A and B's clocks are synchronised, absolute time must exist.

Notice that the assumption of absolute time was used to conclude that absolute time exists.

It ought to be obvious that circular reasoning doesn't produce valid conclusions, but MacM can't grasp the point.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1 - I assumed nothing which you also must assume. Two clocks calibrated side by side have the same tick rate.

2 - That local observers see no change in their tick rate regardless of their speed relative to another observer.

These are the foundations of Relativity. Having said that and then inducing my system it shows that the other proclamations of Relativity are false. That is B's view of A and vice versa are not possible in reality and are not reality.

The repeated reference to universal time is your doing, not mine. I do not declare that all measured (perceived) time is the same. that would be universal. I claim the distortion of real time of an event is nothing more than perception and not a new reality. These are two different arguements. Please argue mine and not your version of mine.

 

[Pete]

Sure. The actual number isn't important, except to establish a degree of accuracy desired. The 10/1 means if the local clock is running at 1 MHz it will induce a SBM of a frequency of 100KHz. That 10/1 modulation links the local clocks tick rate of 1 tick per second having a one decimal point accuracy. i.e. - 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, etc. If I were to modulate a 100/1 then I could have two decimal place accuracy.

This is because within the modulation envelope you have descrete pulses. In the duration of the 100KHz modulation envelope a 1 MHz carrier signal will have 10 frequency pulses. 9 or 11 pulses are not contained although there might be an acutal tick rate of 1.01 or 0.99 and you can't see it. the 10 would set it to 1 tick not .99 or 1.01. So it produces the degree of accuracy of information transfer.

Receiving a 10 code then (note that the 10 is unchanged by doppler shift such that the messge is received as 229KHz carrier with a 22.9KHz SBM - BUt still 10/1, B recreates A's tick rate from his 1 MHz standard running his clock and carrier beam.

While absolute precision could never be transferred, the purpose to to highlite the difference between an obserfvers view and the actuality of the others clocks operation and when in tis case Relativity would require you to say A's clock is running at only 0.229 ticks per second, you can jprove that it is actually still ticking at 1 tick per second. It is the perception of A's clock that is wrong and A's time hasn't changed in reality.



Without my synchronization system B thinks A's clock has changed and is only ticking at 0.229 ticks per second.



No B also thinks A's carrier beam has drifted to 229KHz. vice versa for A's view of B.

I don't get it...
Wouldn't the modulated signal received be the same if A really was ticking at 0.229 ticks per second, and really transmitting at 229kHz?

Why does B refer to his own transmission frequency?
What does B's transmission frequency tell him about A?

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Yes, I agree with all these things.

Your term "the same instant" is meaningless unless you specify a reference frame. Therefore, unless you are more specific, I cannot agree with this statement.

This occurs by default if you accept (as you have all the above stipulations).

Since relativity is 100% reversable - i.e. you see me in motion and observer my motion via the doppler shifted carrier beam and I see ou in the same light (no pun intended) then both beams transmit like information to each observer in a real time synchronizaton. That is you would not see me begin to coast until some time after that actual event but I likewise have the exact time dealy in seeing you start to coast. Hence this doppler shift change would be recieved at the exact same time delay reference to t0 in both systems.

This is incorrect. The local clock times will be the same when the doppler shift settles down to a constant value, but that will not happen at the same instant according to either of the clocks.

You stand corrected.

As stated above the delay in seeing the doppler shift change is identical for both observers such that both observers see the others carrier beam frequency changing in an exact same fashion. Simultaneous in reality.

Further please note, that any signal processing delay will also be identical assuming identical equipment, such that instantaneous action is not required but only equal time periods of processing to keep the synchronizaton.

Also, this issue is moot in that I just stipulated above that each would look to a specific doppler shift (i.e. - pre-agreed relative velocity) for the timing communication to begin. Since observing each others doppler shifted carrier is the exact same thing as observing each other relative velocity, they must in accordance with Relativity remain synchronized.

Since you have mental blindness to issues of simultaneity, I am sure you will be completely mystified by the preceding paragraph. You will claim that such a thing is simply impossible. Implicitly, your claim your claim will be based on the same misconception you have carried all the way through this thread.

I would have to simply say that it doesn't seem to be I that are blinded on this issue.

Gee, I am getting better at this predictive stuff, am I not?

If you care to describe better and more intrenched and blinded?



No, for the same reason.



It will reproduce a local tick rate of 1 tick per second, where a second is measured locally. That will have no relation to the tick rate of the other clock, as I have previously explained.



False.



False.



Correct. I reject these stipulations.



That is no the basis on which I have argued. Please re-read the two posts linked above.



I haven't specified Albert's frame of reference. Let's say Albert chooses coordinates centred on his mouth. Now we have three sets of coordinates for the sneeze:

For me: (x,y,z,t) = (2,0,0,12 pm)
For you: (x',y',z',t') = (0,3,1.7,12 pm)
For Albert: (x'',y'',z'',t'') = (0,0,0,12 pm)

Note: There are no relativistic effects at work here.



Everybody agrees on which events occur. They do not agree where or necessarily when they occur.

You have yet to explain why Albert's coordinate system is to be preferred to yours or mine. You have also yet to explain how the distance between yourself and Albert could be obtained, without a coordinate system.



If you centre a coordinate system on an event, then that event will have coordinates (0,0,0,0). This applies for all events. Therefore, according to you, the only "real" coordinate is (0,0,0,0). That means it is impossible to measure distances between events, or relative times of events.

What a stupid claim.



You just confirmed your nonsense view, above.



MacM Claim A: Time dilation has no real effects.



Waffle. You complain that relativity has no "process", then you ramble on about "the rate at which energetic changes occur", without providing any quantitative or other explanation of why that rate should vary. Your UniKEF suffers from exactly the same deficiencies you claim for relativity.



Please show mathematically how we are to make these "corrections" you speak of, and explain how we can show that the underlying "reality" actually exists.



No.



MacM's claim B: Relativity is untested in some regimes, and is incorrect in those regimes.

Which regimes are you referring to?
Please provide proof that relativity is incorrect in those regimes.[/QUOTE]

 

[Pete]

I still don't know the maths...
B must do something like (this is a made up equation):

(frequency received) * (encoded number) / (factorX) = 1 second per tick at clock A

What is the formula B uses to find A's tick rate?

 

[James R]

I do not declare that all measured (perceived) time is the same. that would be universal. I claim the distortion of real time of an event is nothing more than perception and not a new reality.

Then you have a fundamental misconception about what relativity is.

Relativity is all about the differences between measurements made in different frames of reference.

If you make all measurements in one frame of reference only, then you will never need relativity. It is only if you ever want to compare measurements between two different frames that relativity is needed.

The problem is that your clock example tries to compare local times on clock A and B using two different reference frames at once. It can't be done. The clocks don't tick at the same rate, as seen from the reference frame of either clock. There is one reference frame where they do tick at the same rate, but you haven't mentioned that frame yet.

 

[Pete]

I'll have to read again to be sure of what your MV implies but I think I agree with you with one stipulation. My intent regarding the simultaneity between A and B is based on reversability of Relvistic affects. That is to say if you follow the sequence you will find that the side band digital modulation encoded into the carrier beam will be received by each clock at the moment each clock reads the same accumulated time, if they were previously synchronized by signals as proposed.

You need to read the post carefully.

I have shown that your sequence only proves that the signals will be received simultaneously in a particular reference frame (frame MV) - and that is not the reference frame of either clock.

Frame MV (for Mean Velocity) is the reference frame in which clock A and clock B have equal and opposite velocities.

 

[MacM]

I don't get it...
Wouldn't the modulated signal received be the same if A really was ticking at 0.229 ticks per second, and really transmitting at 229kHz?

Excellant observation.

However, you must remember that it is stipulated and in accordance WITH Relativity that the local rates do not change due to relative motion with another observer.

Why does B refer to his own transmission frequency?

It is the unchanging common standard dictated by Relativity itself. Both A and B still have 1 MHz signals as calibrated before seperation and given relative velocity. According to relative they both (locally) still have 1 MHz operating frequency.

The 229KHz signals being received by each clock from the other clock is a Relavistically distorted observation; which should be obvious based on the first premis that the local rates do not change. i.e no Lorentz contraction, no local ime rate shift, no mass change, etc. Physics of any reference frame remain the same. It is part of Relativity.

But then you turn around and try to call the dopppler shift view reality. It isn't. It is distorted perception of a reality. The reality is the first half of Relativity. Nothing changes locally.

The second half of Relativity is bunk. Not that these distortions do not occur. They do. We measure them but they are in conflict with the first half and must be considered perception and not reality.

All this is really nothing more than stipulating that something is "Green" in reality and then putting on red tinted glasses and claiming "No it is purple in reality". The facts of such a case I would suggest would be quickly point out that "No it is actually still green, you have a distored perception of that reality looking through red tented glasses.

Well Relativity is red tinted glasses. The object is in reality still green.

What does B's transmission frequency tell him about A?

Nothing other than the knowledge that A's carrier beam is actually at 1 MHz and that his perception of it as being 229KHz means they are moving at a specific relative velocity to each other.

 

[Pete]

Not in relativity. The claim is that B's view is the reality for clock A.

Wrong.
The claim of SR is that A's tick rate is 1/sec in A's frame, and 0.436/sec in B's frame.
B's view (0.229/sec) is not suggested to be the reality.

 

[MacM]

I still don't know the maths...
B must do something like (this is a made up equation):

(frequency received) * (encoded number) / (factorX) = 1 second per tick at clock A

What is the formula B uses to find A's tick rate?

CBF = Carrier Beam Frequency (same for both clocks)

SBMF = Side Band Modulation Frequency

MR = Modulation Ratio = CBF/SBMF

B receives A's CBF at 229KHz and notes the MR = 10

He then knows that his and A's CBF are in reality still the same and using his beam as the standard:

B's CBF / MR = 10. His monitor counter counts in 0.1 seconds per MR number. That is the control oscillator is calibrated to output 10 pulses per second and the counter counts in 0.1 second increments. After 10 pulses it will register 1.0 second. After one hour B's time it will display 3,600 seconds and so will A's clock.!

His monitor now is running at the same 1 tick per second as is A's in real local time. The two are synchronized.

 

[Pete]

Nothing other than the knowledge that A's carrier beam is actually at 1 MHz and that his perception of it as being 229KHz means they are moving at a specific relative velocity to each other.

Ack!
So B is assuming that A is still transmitting at 1MHz?

Why did you say differently before?
Remember?

Is B assuming that A is still transmitting locally at 1MHz?

No B also thinks A's carrier beam has drifted to 119KHz. vice versa for A's view of B.