Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[MacM]

Mac,
No one says that B's view of A's frequency (229kHz) is A's reality.
We do say that in B's frame, the reality is that A's frequency is different from A's local frequency and B's view of A's frequency.
If you understood Relativity, you wouldn't be confused on this point.

Allow me to remind you that you have been challenged to prove that the reality of A's frequency in B's frame is the same as the reality of A's frequency in A's frame.

You are attempting to prove it simply by assuming it - that's circular reasoning.

So, can you prove that A's frequency in B's frame is also 1MHz, without simply assuming that the frequency is the same in different frames?

You might start by quoting Relativity's premises.

1 - There is no change in A or B's actual rate due to relative motion. The parameters of the local system remain unchanged.

2 - Your assumption that the clocks each assume a different reality is untenable regardles of how you derive it.

3 - 0.9c according to Relativity means A has a tick rate of 0.316227766 according to B's view.

4 - 1 MHz at 3E8 m/s makes wave peaks 300 m.

5 - A tick rate of 0.3162277 means wave peaks of 948.68 m

6 - 3E8 m/s / 948.68 m/Hz = 316,228 Hz.

6 - What makes you get such feeling of false superiority by asserting others lack comprehension when you are not doing the mathematics correctly?

 

[MacM]

my guess is that they are both the same age when clock finally makes it to destination[x]

You would of course be right but they will argue differently.

 

[MacM]

Why guess when you can work it out properly?
Now's your chance to practice using the Lorentz transform.

Why limit your understanding of reality by forfieting the tools of reason and substituting circular mathematics. You can't have it both ways. Either Relativity is wrong to say a clocks proper time is unchanging reality and to also claim that an observers view is a different reality.

It is an inconsistant loop. Two different realities are not physically possible. Start over.

 

[Pete]

1 - There is no change in A or B's actual rate due to relative motion. The parameters of the local system remain unchanged.

Straight away, you're implying that "local rate" = "actual rate".
You can't quite grasp that possibility that "actual rate" could be frame-dependant, can you? Can't quite open your mind far enough? I can sympathise. I've been there.

2 - Your assumption that the clocks each assume a different reality is untenable regardles of how you derive it.

It's not an assumption, Mac. It's a result of the postulates of relativity.
Your continued blunt assertion that time is unchanged in different frames is not aiding your attempt at proving it.

3 - 0.9c according to Relativity means A has a tick rate of 0.316227766 according to B's view.

I think you've made a mistake in your maths - I can't tell how you derived that figure.
According to B's 'view', A's tick rate is 0.229 - but this isn't reality because it includes signal delay artefacts.
In the reality of B's reference frame, A's tick rate is √(1-v²/c²) = 0.436

- 1 MHz at 3E8 m/s makes wave peaks 300 m.

True, but apparently pointless... were you going to use this fact somewhere?

5 - A tick rate of 0.3162277 means wave peaks of 948.68 m

True again, but apparently irrelevant

6 - 3E8 m/s / 948.68 m/Hz = 316,228 Hz.

True again, with no new information. This is simply the reverse of number 5.
Was there a point here?

6 - What makes you get such feeling of false superiority by asserting others lack comprehension when you are not doing the mathematics correctly?

Why do you think I feel superior? I don't, actually. I feel embarrassed. For you. You seem like a bright guy, but you're really not showing it at the moment.

Please, can you consider the possibility that perhaps you don't understand relativity? I really don't know how you can continue to maintain that you understand it in the face of the simple facts that you get wrong, and sometimes keep getting wrong despite patient correction. When you say something, I try to check it out. Will you do me the same courtesy?

 

[Pete]

Mac,
May I gently return your attention to your attempt at proving that something that is simultaneous in one frame is necessarily simultaneous in another?

We were discussing [post=684082]my rebuttal[/post], in which I pointed out that you are assuming a reference frame in which A and B have equal and opposite velocities.

 

[MacM]

Straight away, you're implying that "local rate" = "actual rate".
You can't quite grasp that possibility that "actual rate" could be frame-dependant, can you? Can't quite open your mind far enough? I can sympathise. I've been there.

Please do not misconstrue rejection with failure to understand. I understand very well what Relativity claims. And it isn't reality. Sorry. You can join or stay joined with that mentality if you choose. But I happen to reserve the right to declare there is one and only one reality. You wish to believe in voodoo it is your perogative.

It's not an assumption, Mac. It's a result of the postulates of relativity.

Which are assumptions.

Your continued blunt assertion that time is unchanged in different frames is not aiding your attempt at proving it.

Not so your rejection of the obvious has nothing to do with the presentation of the facts. Your postulates of Relativity - Just how do they alter the result of sending the true tick rate by digital code.? It doesn't. Further more Relativity holds that there is no change in proper time due to motion. Proper time is actual physical tick rate. Your two view points via Relativity are in conflict.

Therefore it goes without valid arguement that A and B tick rate is and shall remain 1 tick per second, regardless of the postulates. Your acceptance that it is actually physically different in reality because B sees it that way is shear nonsense.

I think you've made a mistake in your maths - I can't tell how you derived that figure.

According to B's 'view', A's tick rate is 0.229 - but this isn't reality because it includes signal delay artefacts.

In the reality of B's reference frame, A's tick rate is √(1-v²/c²) = 0.436

You are of course correct. You confused me when you started talking about doppler and I then thought you had said frequency was .436MHz. My error.

True, but apparently pointless... were you going to use this fact somewhere?

True again, but apparently irrelevant

True again, with no new information. This is simply the reverse of number 5.
Was there a point here?

Only related to the thought that you had miscalculated doppler frequency. My error.

Why do you think I feel superior? I don't, actually. I feel embarrassed. For you. You seem like a bright guy, but you're really not showing it at the moment.

Superior in that you keep repeating the false accusation that I don't understand. I damn well do and I whole heartedly reject it outright, not because it is "Counter Intuitive" but because two or more simultaneous physical realities for a clock tick rate is a physical impossibility regardless of what is claimed by Relativity.

Please, can you consider the possibility that perhaps you don't understand relativity?

Once again you are confusing "Understanding or lack of it for "Rejection" of outright nonsense. Clocks having multiple tick rates simultaneously is beyond outrageous, it is totally unacceptable in physical science.

I really don't know how you can continue to maintain that you understand it in the face of the simple facts that you get wrong, and sometimes keep getting wrong despite patient correction. When you say something, I try to check it out. Will you do me the same courtesy?

Because I do understand. I know the claims and I can perform the correlations. But I outright reject the concept. Don't know whatelse to say other than you would do yourself a favor to put down that book of fairy tales and give some actual rational thought to what you have come to accept - "Multiple tick rates in a physical clock simultaneously".

It doesn't happen.

 

[MacM]

Mac,
May I gently return your attention to your attempt at proving that something that is simultaneous in one frame is necessarily simultaneous in another?

We were discussing [post=684082]my rebuttal[/post], in which I pointed out that you are assuming a reference frame in which A and B have equal and opposite velocities.

You are confusing yourself by trying to follow the yellow brick road. PER Relativity, the relative velocity between two observers MUST be equal.

I dare you to claim otherwise. If I am moving 100 Mph away from you that is what you see and I see you moving 100 Mph moving away from me. That is Relativity 101.

What are you thinking?

 

[MacM]

The following article is for Billy T to consider. Published in a prominent Russian Physics Journal with over 30 years research and data.

Radioactive decay is not truely random. It shows cyclic enfluances from cosmological sources. The finding has not been explained but it seems to link energy and other external factors to periodic decay cycles.

This should be taken into consideration in the muon challenge he posed.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html#figure 2

((This is my expectation, not stated in the article))
Relativity affects on muon life may infact be the result of energy enfluances and not relavistic time.

 

[Paul T]

((This is my expectation, not stated in the article))
Relativity affects on muon life may infact be the result of energy enfluances and not relavistic time.

This is indeed called a wild speculation.

 

[MacM]

This is indeed called a wild speculation.

I could agree with speculation. But I did find the discovery of such influances right up my view. So until it is explained in some other way I would have to believe it is the answer.

 

[James R]

MacM:

I am at the point where the only possible conclusion is that you are too stupid to understand the explanations which have been put to you. Or, failing that, too set in your habits, which you have carried with you for over 50 years, to actually be able to take in new information.

Pete said:

Straight away, you're implying that "local rate" = "actual rate".
You can't quite grasp that possibility that "actual rate" could be frame-dependant, can you? Can't quite open your mind far enough? I can sympathise. I've been there.

You replied:

Please do not misconstrue rejection with failure to understand. I understand very well what Relativity claims. And it isn't reality. Sorry.

You have never shown that it is not reality. All you have ever done is made unsupported assertions based on your own prejudices and nothing else.

You have no solid proof that it isn't "reality". And in fact, all available evidence is to the contrary.

Your wishful thinking and whinging about it won't ever change that.

But I happen to reserve the right to declare there is one and only one reality.

I respect that right. The one and only relatity happens to be described correctly by the theory of relativity, as far as we can tell. To deny that is to deny the one and only reality.

Pete: It's not an assumption, Mac. It's a result of the postulates of relativity.

MacM: Which are assumptions.

Correct. From the point of view of the theory, they are assumptions. But the predictions of the theory have been tested in hundreds of experiments, and found to be correct. Therefore, the only conclusion a sane person can come to is to agree that the assumptions are correct.

Not so your rejection of the obvious has nothing to do with the presentation of the facts. Your postulates of Relativity - Just how do they alter the result of sending the true tick rate by digital code.? It doesn't. Further more Relativity holds that there is no change in proper time due to motion. Proper time is actual physical tick rate. Your two view points via Relativity are in conflict.

Give it a rest.

The flaws in this stupid argument of yours have been patiently explained to you over and over again.

The postulates of relativity do not in any way affect your ability to send the number "10" across space and time. But the number "10" doesn't tell you anything about the rate at which a clock ticks.

And stop pretending that relativity has "two points of view". There is only one answer which is correct according to relativity.

Therefore it goes without valid arguement that A and B tick rate is and shall remain 1 tick per second, regardless of the postulates. Your acceptance that it is actually physically different in reality because B sees it that way is shear nonsense.

You have never provided the slightest shread of proof to support this stupid statement,

Superior in that you keep repeating the false accusation that I don't understand. I damn well do and I whole heartedly reject it outright, not because it is "Counter Intuitive" but because two or more simultaneous physical realities for a clock tick rate is a physical impossibility regardless of what is claimed by Relativity.

You're regressing, MacM.

Don't you remember any of our previous conversations on this point? Don't you recall how I told you over and over and over again that, according to any observer, any clock has one and only one tick rate at any time? Don't you recall having it explained to you that any particular observer sees one and only one reality at any time? Did you not understand the explanation?

Your failure to remember past conversations whenever it is convenient for you to forget them is dishonest and very annoying, to say the least. I am thoroughly sick of it.

Clocks having multiple tick rates simultaneously is beyond outrageous, it is totally unacceptable in physical science.

Yes, and it never ever happens. As has been carefully explained to you on many many separate occasions.

Because I do understand. I know the claims and I can perform the correlations. But I outright reject the concept.

You outright reject the results of hundreds, perhaps thousands of experiments. You reject evidence which is staring you in the face. You reject arguments which have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You have your head in the sand, and I don't think you'll ever pull it out.

You don't want to learn. You are not a real scientist.

 

[MacM]

James R,

I'm not going to bother replying the the "You are just stupid" post. I'll return the favor you are stupid. What a crock of crap to say an observer only sees one tick rate. HeHeHe. Some observation nobody including me has ever said an observer sees more than one tick rte. Now try the one you advocate, "A physical clock has multiple tick rates simultaneously in reality".

Hogwash.

I really fail to see your refusal to accept the obvious. That is perception not reality. The reality is a physical clock has one and only one actual tick rate.

It really does not matter what Relativity says. Pete keeps saying he is embarassed for me. Well let me tell you I am embarassed for the bunch of you. Not one has any vision or independant thought. You are stuck in your view.

BTW: You said I'm set in my ways for 50 years. How about you guys have been stuck in your ways for 100 years. It is time to take the cotton out of your ears and the blinders off your eyes and move on.

I'll end on this note:

1 - You have not responded to the information regarding the Russian fnding that radioactive decay is not random but subject to some type of cosmological cycle.

2 - You have failed to refute the synchronization of clocks using digital information signals via a light link.

3 - You have failed to satisfactorily explain how physical clocks can have multiple tick rates simultaneously.

4 - Overall you have failed to do anything but recite Relativity.

 

[Paul T]

Honestly, I have given up on you since quite a long time ago (many here had do the same). But, let me just clarify a few simple things:

I really fail to see your refusal to accept the obvious. That is perception not reality. The reality is a physical clock has one and only one actual tick rate.

Do you consider the clock on earth (in the case of earth and another clock carried by a moving spacecraft) as the one having "actual" tick rate?

Since you said "[there is] only one actual tick rate", both clocks (earth bound as well as the spacecraft bound clocks) must show the actual rate. In short, you don't think there is anything called "time dilation" what-so-ever (hope you did not copyright this stupid phrase ). You mentioned also about a "perception time", which I failed to see its usefulness, because I think according to you, in the case of twin paradox...the travelling twin B should age the same as the one on earth A when they rejoin...hence no time dilation what-so-ever (again).

You believe that "elongation" of muon life really happen although you don't think it has anything to do with time dilation (since you think there is no such thing called time dilation what-so-ever). Although, I have no idea how you reconcile the "muon life elongation" with "no time dilation what-so-ever", I am not going to say a word about it.

I do not want to argue with you on this twin paradox matter, since many had tried but...what should I say, they all failed. Since I am no better than any of them, I will fail too if I argue with you. Therefore, I just want to clarify what I think your opinion or believe is and then just live with it (think about it once in awhile and laugh ).

 

[MacM]

Honestly, I have given up on you since quite a long time ago (many here had do the same). But, let me just clarify a few simple things:

Do you consider the clock on earth (in the case of earth and another clock carried by a moving spacecraft) as the one having "actual" tick rate?

Since you said "[there is] only one actual tick rate", both clocks (earth bound as well as the spacecraft bound clocks) must show the actual rate. In short, you don't think there is anything called "time dilation" what-so-ever (hope you did not copyright this stupid phrase ). You mentioned also about a "perception time", which I failed to see its usefulness, because I think according to you, in the case of twin paradox...the travelling twin B should age the same as the one on earth A when they rejoin...hence no time dilation what-so-ever (again).

That happens to be precisely correct. Time dialtion is perceptional and not physical reality.

You believe that "elongation" of muon life really happen although you don't think it has anything to do with time dilation (since you think there is no such thing called time dilation what-so-ever). Although, I have no idea how you reconcile the "muon life elongation" with "no time dilation what-so-ever", I am not going to say a word about it.

Again precisely right. You should read the paper I posted to Billy t above regarding the finding that radioactive decay is not random but cyclicly linked to cosmology enfluences. Fits my view not yours.

I do not want to argue with you on this twin paradox matter, since many had tried but...what should I say, they all failed. Since I am no better than any of them, I will fail too if I argue with you. Therefore, I just want to clarify what I think your opinion or believe is and then just live with it (think about it once in awhile and laugh ).

Laugh away. Theu say ignorance is bliss. you should be a very happy guy.

PS: To assume anybody that rejects Relativity is ignorant is the height of arrogance.

 

[James R]

MacM:

What a crock of crap to say an observer only sees one tick rate.

Then you're full of crap, because that's what you've been saying all along. Your claim, in case you've forgotten, is that all clocks in "reality" tick at the same rate.

Some observation nobody including me has ever said an observer sees more than one tick rte. Now try the one you advocate, "A physical clock has multiple tick rates simultaneously in reality".

Read my previous post again, MacM. You didn't get it the first time. Your lie is exposed in black and white.

It really does not matter what Relativity says. Pete keeps saying he is embarassed for me. Well let me tell you I am embarassed for the bunch of you. Not one has any vision or independant thought. You are stuck in your view.

Yes, because our view is right, and nobody has given us any reason to change it.

1 - You have not responded to the information regarding the Russian fnding that radioactive decay is not random but subject to some type of cosmological cycle.

Bait and switch. Start a new thread, if you want to discuss that.

2 - You have failed to refute the synchronization of clocks using digital information signals via a light link.

Liar.

3 - You have failed to satisfactorily explain how physical clocks can have multiple tick rates simultaneously.

Read my previous post again. Wilful blindness is dishonest, and I'm sick of it.

4 - Overall you have failed to do anything but recite Relativity.

Wrong. I've explained exactly why you are wrong, and pointed out exactly what your major misconceptions are.

 

[Quantum Quack]

it is obvious that the bone of contention is simply the reality of what is called time dilation, and nothing else.

maybe there is another way of explaining the adjustments needed to achieve GPS and all the other evidence that shows that mass has changed it's tick rate.

although I can see no other way of describing the slowing of mass tick rate other than to call it time dilation.

The argument that it is perception I think is flawed in both camps. Dilation or mass tick rate dilation is a pheno that occurs whether we witness it of not.

unless every piece of practicle evidence is somehow explained away as illusion I can;t see how the concept of time dilation can be avoided.

Maybe if a list of adjustments that have been necessary to accomodate time dilation should be provided and an explanation why they are illusion be given.

GPS positioning is one I think, and no doubt there are many others.
The aeroplane clock experiment is another but has been compromised in some way.
what other examples of time dilation adjustments are there, in the physical world?

 

[SKULLZ]

Not to step on anyones toes,but hasnt recent research shown einstien to be horribly wrong in the belief light is a set speed of 186,000mps,
recent study suggests light has not always been this speed its just the *current* speed,its just that its been like that in a short time in the universe but a long time to us.

If thats the case it screws relativity up because relativitys basis for time dilation is the assumption that light stays the same speed no matter what.

This is what i was taught:

lets say there is a train travelling at 100mph and youre on the track observing,inside the train is a boy who can throw a ball at 60mph,he throws the ball,
how fast is the ball moving relative to you on the track?

answer 160 miles per hour

Now lets say a train moves at light speed (186,000mps)
and instead of the boy using a ball he turns on a torch,how fast is the light moving relative to you,well if youre to believe 186,000 miles per second is the universe constant,then the light from the boys torch will
travel at 186,000mps
not 372,000mps as common sense would tell you,you should get 186,000+186,000 relative to you on the track.

So einstiens solution to this was to say that if light never changes then time and distance must dilate.And are not the same for all observers.

However if einstien was wrong,along with maxwell then its light's speed that alters INSTEAD of distance and time.

 

[James R]

SKULLZ:

You're thinking of the experiments looking at whether there has been a gradual change in the speed of the light over the lifetime of the universe. There is no really convincing evidence that it has, so far, although a few groups have published what they think are positive results. But even if it turns out that the speed of light is slowly changing with time, it doesn't affect the day-to-day operation of relativity.

Also, yes, you are correct that Einstein might be wrong. But no experiment has yet shown that. All experiments seem to agree with the predictions of relativity.

 

[Quantum Quack]

i think if we could acually state what a ray of light actual is then we would know the answer to these questions.
From what i understand there is no definitive understanding of exactly what light is, except we seem to know what it isn't.

 

[SKULLZ]

SKULLZ:

You're thinking of the experiments looking at whether there has been a gradual change in the speed of the light over the lifetime of the universe. There is no really convincing evidence that it has, so far, although a few groups have published what they think are positive results. But even if it turns out that the speed of light is slowly changing with time, it doesn't affect the day-to-day operation of relativity.

Also, yes, you are correct that Einstein might be wrong. But no experiment has yet shown that. All experiments seem to agree with the predictions of relativity.

So you believe distance and time dilate when speed increases at extreme speeds,and that your time and my time are not the same?.

Well,to me that craps on common sense and allows for time travel,the twin paradox is not even a paradox,its fact if you consider theres an actual difference in time relative to speeds travelled.

Time travel into the future is therefore possible as a consequence.

Not only that,if time is different for all observers (your time and my time not being the same) then we have to say things like
"well you are in the past/future in comparrison to me"
under this concept it means the past and future exist independent of the present,they would have to cos it suggest there is no present as such.

Is there really a future version of me and past version of me?

Well if youre to believe relativity then YES the past is happening right now along with the future.

Apparently im the only person who thinks thats dumb,im not gonna dare say the whole thing is wrong,but i think theres more to consider,cos im not gonna believe time dilation effects and "time travel is possible" is a clear picture of reality,to me thats a clear picture they are missing something vital.

If light isnt a constant then we could say there is no time dilation and instead light dilates,light dilation seems more common sense,than the idea that going towards light speed and coming back to earth in the future.