Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[MacM]

MacM:

Most of your reply to me was irrelevant waffle, so let's cut to the chase.
I wrote:
And your reply was:
This is your entire "argument" (if you can call it that).
But look what you've done. You talk about the "true" tick rate of a clock. You define the "true" rate to be the rate as measured in the clock's rest frame.
But your argument, as you say, relies on this (which is another direct quote of your post):
If there is no absolute motion or velocity, what makes the clock rate as measured in the rest frame any more "true" than the rate measured in any other frame?
In relativity, no reference frame is preferred. On the contrary, in MacM's world, the rest frame of the clock is preferrred. It is the "real" frame, and all other frames are "perception".
It is you who is in conflict with the "basic premiss" of relativity. Relativity says no preferred frames. MacM says rest frame = reality and all others are "lesser" frames.
Your conclusion, from your assumption that the rest frame of a clock is special or preferred, is:
But you haven't shown this. You have simply assumed it, without proof, as you hav done all along.
You have multiple clocks, and each one has a particular tick rate in its own rest frame. But have you established that clock A ticks at the same rate as B in B's rest frame? No. You haven't even started to address that question. You have suggested no method for comparing the tick rates of two clocks. You make a measurement of clock A's rate in one reference frame (A's rest frame). Then you make a measurement of clock B's rate in a different reference frame (B's rest frame). Then, without any proof at all, you claim that B's rate, if measured in A's frame, would be the same as B's rate measured in B's frame, and vice versa.
You'll need to do better than simply repeat unfounded assertions.
You claim:
But you have completely failed to establish this as fact. It is based on nothing other than MacM's "common sense", and we all know how fallible that is as an indicator of truth.
Here's another formulation of your "argument":
The term "proper time rest rate" specifies a reference frame - the rest frame. Yes, I agree that, by definition, clocks tick at their rest rate when they are in their rest frame. There's nothing controversial about that.
You again refer to the proper time as "real time", which shows your preference for one frame over all others.
You again provide no argument to show that a clock's rate in any frame other than its rest frame must be the same as the rate in its rest frame.
This is false.
You need to explain why rest frame time is "real time", and why rest frame time must equal time in all other reference frames.
You stand corrected.

Considering you choose to ignore the obvious and distort every issue and expand, expand, expand your posts without meeting the requirement of having met your burden, plus continue to make unwarranted assertions that invoke SRT as your proof, I decline to repeat the proof.

When you show me the airplane clocks view or the lab clock in the H&K experiment then and only then can you claim SRT is reality. You cannot because there is no such recipical action. Which verifies my view.

Until you show otherwise I am afraid it is you that are full of unending hot air and lack an understanding of the requirements of Relativity.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

I just noticed a later response of yours:



This suggests to me a worrying lack of understanding of what a reference frame is, which I thought you would have understood after 2 years of discussions.

Please define the term "reference frame" for me, so I can be sure that you know what the term means.

A single clock ticks in an infinite number of reference frames, not just one. Prove to me that you know what a reference frame is.

Your habit of such posts only verifies my suspicion that you have no actual answer to the question and issue.

Now show us the the airplane pilots view of the earth clock in the H&K experiment or admit your claims are absolutely phooney and the claim that H&K proved SRT is an absolute joke.

 

[MacM]

Try ask the same question to a group of kindergarten kids, who obviously know nothing about relativity (generally), let alone understand it. Don't you expect them to give you the same answer as you have given above? Those answer like yours are very naive answer. What proof do you have to justify them? Well, if you are no more than a kindergarten kid, you don't have to give any explanation.

I cannot say you have never heard (as you obviousely had) about moun decay matter and how their relative speed to observer somehow lengthen their life. You are free to reject any time dilation involvement in that process, but if you are intelligent enough, you at least could accept the recorded data and possibly also accept that SR's time dilation formulae in a very strange way (you think) predict the process quantitatively. Let's do not make any attempt to conclude that therefore SR must be correct, just accept the data first.

Now, move on...can we design a clock that work based on moun decay...just for convenience sake? Theoretically, no problem. What do you think about this clock running speed for A and B, compared to C (on earth)? Is it too much to accept that those "moun clocks" must not show the exact same time or date? If A and B carry such clock, after 1/2 year the captain reverse its motion and move back to earth and reach earth (C) after a total one year of travelling, again, is it wrong to say that earth's muon clock should not show the elapse time of one year, but more? That's what actual tests have shown us. Now, what evident can you offer to prove that your kindergarten kids' answers are correct?

Indeed, the same comment should be addressed to you. There is no basis for your assumption of non-existence of time dilation as so-so many tests have proven that time dilation is not only an imagination. You may not like the term "time", but you can actually settle with simple clock-ticking instead of accepting there is "time" involve as I noticed you once said "time" is not measureble. It seem that in your mind you see time as some kind of mystical stuff...something that cannot measured, that even the clock that you have not measuring time. Get over it, MacM...you don't have to picture time in such an abstract fashion. Just see it as clock ticking and yes...just settle with that simple thing. When your clock or watch tick one second, okay just see that as one second time.

Well, speaking of niave.

Before you can even begin to make claims about my knowledge and or understanding. You should at least attempt to justify your habit of accepting conflicting premises.

1 - By what justification do you claim a clock meaures time? It doesn't it is a process.

2 - By what limited mentality can you justify claiming that a clock actually ticks at different rates in multiple frames as James has just claimed? You can't.

Per Relativity itself the clock always views itself as being at rest and that it is the observer that is in motion. There simply is no basis for its tick rate to change. It always ticks in its only frame of existance in reality which is v = 0.

All other frames are frames of a moving observer and not the frame of the clock. That is why we call him an "Observer" Observer's observer.

HINT: Have perceptions.

Observers percieve different tick rates in different frames of reference other than the clocks rest frame but clocks exist and tick in their frame which is always at rest.

Clocks tick rate do not change. Your perception of their tick rate change.

3 - Before you say anythingelse you are required to explain why you have no recipocal change in the earth clock which satisfies the airplane pilot and clocks view of the earth clock in H&K before you can make any claim about H&K having proven time dilation.

Or are you proposing that Relativity only works one direction and isn't truely relative such that there is no reciprocity?

Don't even bother making any claims until you understand the issue and address these basic flaws in your position.

 

[MacM]

2Inquisitive,

Have you noticed what I have noticed?

James R and Paul T when given an issue which they can't address always divert the issue and make FIAT declarations about SRT and what has been proven and claim that it is only lack of understanding (acceptance) of their view that is the problem.

There is never a problem with Relativity.

1 - Where is the justification to claim a clock measures time? It is a process and is subject to change which has nothing to do with actually changing of time.

2 - What is the basis for their arguement that a clocks tick rate changes as a consequence of an observers velocity relative to it? There is none.

A clock always sees itself as at rest hence can only tick in the rest frame, meaning there is no other frame of existance for the clock other than its frame v = 0.

All other frames of referance are frames of observation relative to its real frame, hence it's rate (in absence of some sort of absolute motion or velocity basis) never changes, only the perception of its rate changes.

3 - Where is the reciprocity in their claims. Relative means relative, as in recipocal or with reciprocity. Where is the slowed earth clock in the H&K experiment they claim proves TD?

There is none. Yet we are supposed to be impressed with the claim that TD has been proven, even though it is only one half of the relavistic process.

4 - My logic is immutable inspite of their personal attacks. Their personal attacks simply highlight their inability to address these basic issues.

5 - A muon clock? Whatever, does Paul T think that means? Yes please Paul show us a muon clock and while you are at it show us all those earth clocks that lost time due to the muon's view of earth clocks while you are at it.

Show us earth clocks that display multiple times simultaneously so as to satisfy each and every one of those muons that are arriving on earth at different velocities even as we speak.

OH SHIT my computer screen is flickering, must be my computer clock trying to be correct for all those different muons at the same time.

What a joke.

6 - The arguement is not if we percieve of a variable time due to relative motion but if time changes. It is clear that perception of the observer does not actually alter time but only his view of time. Time is absolute even within the definitions made by Relativity. It is only our perception of time that changes. Not time itself.

 

[James R]

MacM:

When backed into a corner, you just pretend that issues haven't been raised. Then you try to change the subject.

You don't know what a reference frame is, do you? If you did, you could have explained in one or two sentences.

And you obviously have no answer to the objections I raised in my last post, either.

Considering you choose to ignore the obvious and distort every issue and expand, expand, expand your posts without meeting the requirement of having met your burden, plus continue to make unwarranted assertions that invoke SRT as your proof, I decline to repeat the proof.

I have distorted nothing. If you think I've got your position wrong, then clarify what you mean. Don't be a cry baby.

As for expanding posts, brief explanations don't sink in with you, so it becomes necessary to explain everything as if to a small child. Even that doesn't really work, though. You still don't understand, or you choose to ignore explanations. One or the other.

When you show me the airplane clocks view or the lab clock in the H&K experiment then and only then can you claim SRT is reality.

What do you want to see, exactly? What would convince you?

You cannot because there is no such recipical action.

What do you mean by "reciprocal action"? Why do you think there should be "reciprocal action"?

Which verifies my view.

How?

Until you show otherwise I am afraid it is you that are full of unending hot air and lack an understanding of the requirements of Relativity.

You have made it abundantly clear that the last person anybody should trust on pronouncements about relativity is you.

James R and Paul T when given an issue which they can't address always divert the issue and make FIAT declarations about SRT and what has been proven and claim that it is only lack of understanding (acceptance) of their view that is the problem.

In your case, it always is the problem.

And we always address the issue, too, so to claim otherwise is just a lie, plain and simple.

There is never a problem with Relativity.

You've never shown one, that's for sure.

1 - Where is the justification to claim a clock measures time? It is a process and is subject to change which has nothing to do with actually changing of time.

If clocks don't measure time, then what can be used to measure time? Anything? If not, then time is a meaningless concept.

2 - What is the basis for their arguement that a clocks tick rate changes as a consequence of an observers velocity relative to it? There is none.

The basis is:

1. The laws of physics are form invariant in all frames of reference (verified by experiment).
2. The speed of light is constant for all observers (verified by experiment).

A clock always sees itself as at rest hence can only tick in the rest frame...

Wrong. It ticks in millions of frames, all different. You don't know what a reference frame is, do you?

All other frames of referance are frames of observation relative to its real frame, hence it's rate (in absence of some sort of absolute motion or velocity basis) never changes, only the perception of its rate changes.

Why is the rest frame "real", and all other frames are "perception"?

You dodged the question last time it was asked. Do you want to justify yourself now? Can you?

3 - Where is the reciprocity in their claims. Relative means relative, as in recipocal or with reciprocity. Where is the slowed earth clock in the H&K experiment they claim proves TD?

Time dilation in the H&K experiment was not symmetrical, because it resulted from general as well as special relativistic effects.

Maybe you ought to read up on what you're talking about.

4 - My logic is immutable inspite of their personal attacks.

Your "logic" is worthless. It is simple ego, ass-like stubbornness and a healthy dose of sheer stupidity.

Their personal attacks simply highlight their inability to address these basic issues.

No, they highlight the frustration which comes with attempting to explain things to a fool.

Show us earth clocks that display multiple times simultaneously so as to satisfy each and every one of those muons that are arriving on earth at different velocities even as we speak.

No clock displays two times simultaneously in a single reference frame. This must be the 100th time I've said that.

Do you plan on understanding this any time soon?

What a joke.

Yes, you are.

You used to be semi-rational, but I don't think you're capable of it any more. These days you're in la-la land.

Time is absolute even within the definitions made by Relativity.

You clearly don't know the first thing about relativity.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

When backed into a corner, you just pretend that issues haven't been raised. Then you try to change the subject.

Not at all. I simply am tired of you changing the subject and having me chase around answering stupid questions rather than you addressing the baisc issues I have raised.

You don't know what a reference frame is, do you? If you did, you could have explained in one or two sentences.

Of course I do. That is nonsense. But it is you that have no answer to the root questions here and I will not be shuttled all over. You will address my question first. If you do that LEGITAMATELY then perhaps there would be need to consider things further but since my objections are primary, no other issue need be considered until those objections are met.

And you obviously have no answer to the objections I raised in my last post, either.

Of course your questions have answers but I am not going to allow you to answer my question with questions. Answer the root questions or hang it up.

I have distorted nothing. If you think I've got your position wrong, then clarify what you mean. Don't be a cry baby.

I'm not crying. I'm laughing at your inability to do anything but assert wrongfully that the problem is my understanding. It is you that have failed to address the issue.

As for expanding posts, brief explanations don't sink in with you, so it becomes necessary to explain everything as if to a small child. Even that doesn't really work, though. You still don't understand, or you choose to ignore explanations. One or the other.

You would mean of course that your essays on why you are right and I must therefore be wrong are being rejected. That is not the same thing as not sinking in.

What is not sinking in is that you do not seem to be able to understand the absolute nature of the basic objections. When faced with those absolute notions you switch to well but this has been proven or that has been proven, when in fact nothing of the sort has been proven.

Indeed the whole arguement about H&K being valid or not is moot.

If we accept the published claim (versus the unpublished raw data and Hafele's own statments in his report to the Navy about the tests), then H&K actually disproves Relativity, not proves Relativity.

Why because there is no earth clock which shows the required reciprocity where the airplane clocks and pilots view of the earth clock being slowed exists.

In accordance with relativity the airplane pilots view would be that it was the earth clcok that slowed.

Hint: To be inaccordance with Relativity both clocks must slow by equal amounts, hence no measureable time differeance between clocks should occur. Since they claimed an affect which caused clocks to show a differance in time then they have proven Relativity is not valid not that it is valid.

What do you want to see, exactly? What would convince you?

Show me the earth clock which have slowed to satisfy H&K or multiple muon views of earth 's time. Can you do that? I thought not. It is required via relativity. You do understand that do you not?

you mean by "reciprocal action"? Why do you think there should be "reciprocal action"?[/qluote]

You claim to understand Relativity and you must ask this question?

you have made it abundantly clear that the last person anybody should trust on pronouncements about relativity is you.

Really then answer my questions and perhaps things might change.

clocks don't measure time, then what can be used to measure time?

I have no idea but that is your problem not mine.

Why is the rest frame "real", and all other frames are "perception"?

Could be it is mandated by Relativity. You should try thinking before engaging mouth. A clock always sees itself as at rest and it is the observer that is in motion.

By what distorted mental process do you then suggest that the clocks tick rate changes. It never moves. It is constantly at v = 0. Its rate therefore never changes. It is only the moving observers view (perception) of its tick rate that changes. Not time itself but the perception of time.

You dodged the question last time it was asked. Do you want to justify yourself now? Can you?

I have decided it is futile to chase you around answering irrelavant questions. Nothing you have to say has any meaning unless you first answer my question. Relativity can not be reality unless you show a flaw in the basis I have presented. You haven't.

If relativity is not real then answering a bunch of questions about a flwaed concept has no merit and is a waste of time. You must first show Relativity is real and physically possible.

Your "logic" is worthless. It is simple ego, ass-like stubbornness and a healthy dose of sheer stupidity.

Ditto I'm afraid. Don't get pissed just because you can't answer some simple basic questions.

No, they highlight the frustration which comes with attempting to explain things to a fool.

A fool is one that accepts things not only unproven but physically impossible and in conflict with other aspects of the same theory.

No clock displays two times simultaneously in a single reference frame. This must be the 100th time I've said that.

Why do you think to keep repeating that has any meaning. I have maintained that positioned all along. The problem is you keep claiming that each reference frame is a different reality for the clock and it is not. It is a different view of an observers (perception). The clock is in and reamins in its rest frame. It only ticks in it's rest frame. You only observe its tick rate from other frames. It does not tick in those frames.

HINT: SRT is perception not physical reality.

Do you plan on understanding this any time soon?

Ditto.

You clearly don't know the first thing about relativity.

Ditto.


Now:

1 - By what basis do you claim a clock measures time?

2 - By what basis do you claim that any clock ticks in any frame other than its relavistic frame of existance which is always at rest?

3 - By what basis do you claim my view and/or your views as well as those infinite number of other views are in any fashion changes in physical reality and not perceptions or observations?

4- Where is the reciprocity in your proofs of relativity. I want to see the H&K Pilots view up held. You do understand that Relativity requires such recipocal action do you not?. Where is the slowed earth clock. Your only claim is that t2 = t1 (1 - v^2 / c^2 ) ^.5 have been proven.

If that were the case then where is the slowed earth clocks to satisfy H&K as well as the millions of muon views of earth clocks?

You will properly answer these rudimentary questions or there can be no discussion. All other issues are moot in absence of proving relativity is or can even be real.

 

[Paul T]

Well, speaking of niave.

Before you can even begin to make claims about my knowledge and or understanding. You should at least attempt to justify your habit of accepting conflicting premises.

1 - By what justification do you claim a clock meaures time? It doesn't it is a process.

2 - By what limited mentality can you justify claiming that a clock actually ticks at different rates in multiple frames as James has just claimed? You can't.

Per Relativity itself the clock always views itself as being at rest and that it is the observer that is in motion. There simply is no basis for its tick rate to change. It always ticks in its only frame of existance in reality which is v = 0.

All other frames are frames of a moving observer and not the frame of the clock. That is why we call him an "Observer" Observer's observer.

HINT: Have perceptions.

Observers percieve different tick rates in different frames of reference other than the clocks rest frame but clocks exist and tick in their frame which is always at rest.

Clocks tick rate do not change. Your perception of their tick rate change.

3 - Before you say anythingelse you are required to explain why you have no recipocal change in the earth clock which satisfies the airplane pilot and clocks view of the earth clock in H&K before you can make any claim about H&K having proven time dilation.

Or are you proposing that Relativity only works one direction and isn't truely relative such that there is no reciprocity?

Don't even bother making any claims until you understand the issue and address these basic flaws in your position.

This is my earlier question to you:
Try ask the same question to a group of kindergarten kids, who obviously know nothing about relativity (generally), let alone understand it. Don't you expect them to give you the same answer as you have given above? Those answer like yours are very naive answer. What proof do you have to justify them? Well, if you are no more than a kindergarten kid, you don't have to give any explanation.

Your long story above contain no answer to them! Or, should I say you know no better than kindergarten kids???

1 - By what justification do you claim a clock meaures time? It doesn't it is a process.

You still think time as something mystical. I asked you to just think it in a simplified manner as something that you can measure, that is whatever your clock show...that is time. You can say it is the process that the clock measure, so be it...now just accept that time, forget about time that you can't measure for the time being.

2 - By what limited mentality can you justify claiming that a clock actually ticks at different rates in multiple frames as James has just claimed? You can't.

Per Relativity itself the clock always views itself as being at rest and that it is the observer that is in motion. There simply is no basis for its tick rate to change. It always ticks in its only frame of existance in reality which is v = 0.

You obviously have no ability to understand the issue. I remember you skipped reading the description about my proposed test with observers A, B and C once the description a bit technical.

3 - Before you say anythingelse you are required to explain why you have no recipocal change in the earth clock which satisfies the airplane pilot and clocks view of the earth clock in H&K before you can make any claim about H&K having proven time dilation.

I don't remember how many times the answer have been given to you. The plane and earth are not symmetrical. The "twin paradox" also the same, the two observers are not symmetrical. You repeatedly asking stupid question.

 

[MacM]

This is my earlier question to you:
Try ask the same question to a group of kindergarten kids, who obviously know nothing about relativity (generally), let alone understand it. Don't you expect them to give you the same answer as you have given above? Those answer like yours are very naive answer. What proof do you have to justify them? Well, if you are no more than a kindergarten kid, you don't have to give any explanation.

Your long story above contain no answer to them! Or, should I say you know no better than kindergarten kids???

You still think time as something mystical. I asked you to just think it in a simplified manner as something that you can measure, that is whatever your clock show...that is time. You can say it is the process that the clock measure, so be it...now just accept that time, forget about time that you can't measure for the time being.

You obviously have no ability to understand the issue. I remember you skipped reading the description about my proposed test with observers A, B and C once the description a bit technical.

I don't remember how many times the answer have been given to you. The plane and earth are not symmetrical. The "twin paradox" also the same, the two observers are not symmetrical. You repeatedly asking stupid question.

NOTE: The shoe is on the other foot. If you cannot show that Relativity can exist and is real then there is no reason to even pursue other questions about its purported functions.

It is you that need to respond to my questions and not with unsupported verbal assaults or by more questions but an actual answer to the questions.

1 - By what basis do you claim a clock measures time.

2 - By what basis do you claim a clock exists in any frame other than a rest frame?

3 - In absence of some absolute motion or velocity concept (prohibited by Relativity) do you claim a clock ticks in any frame other than a rest frame?

4 - Where is there any evidence what-so-ever to show reciprocity as required by Relativity. i.e. - clocks slowing down to be in agreement with millions of muons view of earth clocks. Your response of attacking me claiming I have been told many times that the issue is not symmetrical, is a smoke screen for the fact there is NO evidence of any reverse affect as required by Relativity.

You are obligated and challenged to show mathematically that the airplane pilot sees "NO" relavistic affects for the earth based clock and why.

Do not think you can weave and dodge the issue by some statement of how GR and SR are complimentary in this case and therefore there is no net affect; otherwise H&K would not be able to claim any supporting data.

Either H&K is totally fabricated and false or there is recipocal data for earths clocks to support the airplane pilots view. Now stop bumping your gums and go to work. You have a very large task ahead of you indeed.

Failure for you to respond to these questions with viable answers means you have lost this debate.

Let me suggest you forget your personal assaults and innuendos and concentrate on supplying a real scientifically acceptable answers. It is you that are still in kindergarten.

 

[MacM]

READERS:

I do not anticipate that this post will have any beneficial affect upon the ardent non-thinker members here, that do nothing but attack the intelligence and understandings of others.

However, I think it is important to allow the visitors (considering the high volume of readers to this thread) to know that old MacM is not some kindergarten know nothing that they would like to make you believe.

The following attachment from a physicist from the U. of Ga, seems to be the only one thus far that understands the situation and agrees with my assessment.

1 - The first paragraph clearly states the "reciprocity" issue, which others here seem to choose to ignore. What it means is that for the case of relative motion (excluding GR affects) there should be no measureable time differance between the earth clocks and a clock moving in an airplane such as in the H&K atomic clock tests.

That claim is phooney on its surface. Relative velocity cannot produce a measureable shift in accumulated time between clocks when clocks are brought back and compared. Since the function has a equal affect from the other clocks perspective. Both clocks slow equally according to the theory.

The claim therefore that the H&K test proved Relativity's time dilation, is outright fraud. Such results are not allowed by Relativity.

2 - Second paragraph. I do question his statement that the two clocks can never be brought together and compared for their accumulated time however and I will be pursueing that further with him.

3 - Paragraph 3. He is absolutely correct and I am in full agreement with him on the issue of actual tick rates of clocks and possible "Perception" of different ticks rates by a moving observer.

Only the local proper time (tick rate) becomes displayable accumulated time and the view of a moving observer is only a distorted perception and does not alter time of the clock in physical reality.

This is the only way to not produce impossibilities of physically requiring multiple tick rates in physical clocks.

What experts here seem unable to learn is that ALL clocks always (due to Relativity) see themselves as being at rest and their tick rate DOES NOT change. That means their accumulated time is not subject to or change as a function of the perception of a moving observer.

I'll accept your apologies gentlemen without predjudice.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3327&stc=1

NOTE: There is a 4th paragraph which I will post as soon as I recieve confirmation as to his meaning.

 

[Paul T]

MacM,

There is nothing wrong with answer given by Todd Baker. I agree with his comment... but wondered, why did you ask him in the first place if then you don't think he had given you the correct answer or if you still think your own way instead of accepting his answer?

1 - The first paragraph clearly states the "reciprocity" issue, which others here seem to choose to ignore. What it means is that for the case of relative motion (excluding GR affects) there should be no measureable time differance between the earth clocks and a clock moving in an airplane such as in the H&K atomic clock tests.

Sorry, you misunderstood his answer. He clearly said: "The theory of special relativity is unequivocal -- a moving clock runs at slower rate than a stationary clock." You simply ignored this statement and went on interpreting wrongly his next sentence: "From A's perspective B's clock runs slower and from B's perspective A's clock runs slower." He said nothing about "no measureable time differance between the earth clocks and a clock moving in an airplane" or something lead to such interpretation. I'll give you explanation about this matter later.

2 - Second paragraph. I do question his statement that the two clocks can never be brought together and compared for their accumulated time however and I will be pursueing that further with him.

I think, it's depend on the set up of test you mentioned to him. If you said: B travel in a spaceship away from earth..bla-bla-bla (but never said anything about returning trip), then of course you cannot compared the clock side by side. Anyway, hope to hear some good news from you.

3 - Paragraph 3. He is absolutely correct and I am in full agreement with him on the issue of actual tick rates of clocks and possible "Perception" of different ticks rates by a moving observer.

He is certainly correct on that, but unfortunately you again misinterpreting his words. If you want to "see" the tick rate of other clock (say the one in spacecraft), you ask the captain to send you some kind of light signal, say every second. If the spacecraft moving away, you will receive the light signal every -- say -- 2 seconds. Does it mean the clock in the spacecraft tick every two seconds? No, of course...it ticks every one second in its own reference frame. The two seconds interval that you receive is the mix of time dilation and the increase of distance (due to the spacecraft motion) that the light has to travel, it is not the pure ticking rate of the clock in the spacecraft. There is nothing about perception or that there is something unreal, or whatever.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

There is nothing wrong with answer given by Todd Baker. I agree with his comment... but wondered, why did you ask him in the first place if then you don't think he had given you the correct answer or if you still think your own way instead of accepting his answer?

Sorry, you misunderstood his answer. He clearly said: "The theory of special relativity is unequivocal -- a moving clock runs at slower rate than a stationary clock." You simply ignored this statement and went on interpreting wrongly his next sentence: "From A's perspective B's clock runs slower and from B's perspective A's clock runs slower." He said nothing about "no measureable time differance between the earth clocks and a clock moving in an airplane" or something lead to such interpretation. I'll give you explanation about this matter later.

You do have a funny way of back peddeling. Of course he did not elaborate on the issue. He got straight to the point. That point however means just what I have said. If A slows 10 minutes in B's view, then B slows 10 minutes in A's view. RESULT: No measurable time dilation due to relative velocity.

Now show any other conclusion. Reciprocity eliminates any H&K claims by Relativity itself.

I think, it's depend on the set up of test you mentioned to him. If you said: B travel in a spaceship away from earth..bla-bla-bla (but never said anything about returning trip), then of course you cannot compared the clock side by side. Anyway, hope to hear some good news from you.

I have indeed sent a return reply with some clarifications.

He is certainly correct on that, but unfortunately you again misinterpreting his words. If you want to "see" the tick rate of other clock (say the one in spacecraft), you ask the captain to send you some kind of light signal, say every second. If the spacecraft moving away, you will receive the light signal every -- say -- 2 seconds. Does it mean the clock in the spacecraft tick every two seconds? No, of course...it ticks every one second in its own reference frame. The two seconds interval that you receive is the mix of time dilation and the increase of distance (due to the spacecraft motion) that the light has to travel, it is not the pure ticking rate of the clock in the spacecraft. There is nothing about perception or that there is something unreal, or whatever.

Now who is elaborating beyond his statement.? Whoa!.

He clearly states that what you observe is not what the clock is doing.

That is virtually verbatum my point this entire time. Observation is merely observation and you observing the clock running slow is not the clocks true rate.

In my last message to him I have asked for his response to my assertion that all clocks always see themselves in a state of rest. Hence cannot be affected by the observers relative motion.

Any guesses as to who he will agree with? You or I?

 

[Paul T]

by Paul T;
"Now, move on...can we design a clock that work based on moun decay...just for convenience sake? Theoretically, no problem."
=======================================================

Perhaps you could give me the details of how such a clock could be designed. I mean
the actual mechanics. To begin with, how long does a muon live? The often-quoted
2.2 microseconds is their average mean-life in their 'rest frame.' Why do some live less
than 1 microsecond in their rest frame? Why do some live 10 microseconds in their
rest frame? Could it be because some are more energetic than others? Exactly how
fast are the muons travelling in their 'rest frame'?
Now on to the decay sequence of a 'cosmic ray' (proton?) entering Earth's atmosphere. Do all protons collide with an atom's nucleus at exactly the same altitude?
And what altitude is this exactly? Do all the resulting pions decay into muons and neutrinos at exactly the same altitude? How fast are the pions travelling and does
'time dilation' have any effect on their lifetimes of a few nanoseconds? Exactly how
fast are the muons travelling? Is it .95c? Or .99c? Are they all travelling at the same
speed? Do some muons travel at an oblique angle toward Earth's surface and some
straight down toward the Earth, affecting their travel times? Ahh, but how do they
reach the Earth's surface. I can think of three possibilities.
(1) SR is correct and 'time dilation' extends their lifetime in Earth's frame of reference.
(2) The muons travelling at near the speed of light in Earth's magnetic field or gravitational field increases their energy and thus their lifetimes.
(3) SR's equations that nothing with mass can travel at or beyond the speed of light
does not hold true and the muons are travelling at 7 to 14 times the speed of light.

Now, tell me again why a muon's lifetime of 2.2ms is increased by time dilation and why
some muons expire in less than a microsecond? Try to keep it on an adult level, none
of those childlike thought experiments of trains travelling at near 'c' speeds and looking
at clocks lightyears away that are travelling at near 'c' speeds. SR is full of those
childlike thought experiments that are impossible to actually perform, thus making it
impossible to descredit them. And, Paul T, has your captain really travelled one-half
light year into space, then reversed his course and returned to Earth to show his
clock recorded less time? You said it had been PROVEN by actual tests.

Sorry, I am not interested to go into the detail design for the muon clock. If you are interested, you are welcome to pursue it further.

Thought experiment should not be made based on pure imagination only, it should be made with reference to the known principles or tests results. One of that test result that we are talking about here is the muon life. Do you know that when we talk about elementary particles lifespan, it is their mean life that we actually mean? It means that you could find muon that has only 1 or 5 microsecond lifespan.

About your question : "And, Paul T, has your captain really travelled one-half
light year into space, then reversed his course and returned to Earth to show his clock recorded less time?" Well, I thought you knew that it was thought experiment that you don't like that I was talking about. Certainly, the prove that we have are just fractional such as muon life lengthen, etc. Since, in the thought experiment the clock runs based on muon decays rate, hence the prove is partially built-in. That's what I meant.

 

[Paul T]

He clearly states that what you observe is not what the clock is doing.

No? It's not about clock? So what is it?

 

[James R]

MacM:

Once again, your bluff and bluster is hardly worth a response. Briefly:

1. You don't know what a reference frame is. If you did, you would be able to give a definition. Instead, you act like a child and say "I do know! I do know! Waaaa!" Put you money where your mouth is.

You repeated the same stupid statement as before in your last post:

The clock is in and reamins in its rest frame. It only ticks in it's rest frame.

2. The H&K experiment was not symmetrical, as I said before. You don't undersand that, either.

3. If clocks don't measure time, then nothing measures time, and time is a useless concept. Suffice it to say that your assertion is ridiculous.

4. The rest frame is just one frame among an infinite number of other frames. Relativity says it is not special, contrary to your claims. So don't pretend you're talking about relativity when you say the rest frame is "real" and all others are "perception".

5. Your four questions were answered before. Your memory is failing. Recall:

1 - By what basis do you claim a clock measures time?

Because if a clock doesn't measure time, nothing measures time.

2 - By what basis do you claim that any clock ticks in any frame other than its relavistic frame of existance which is always at rest?

Define "reference frame". Then we'll talk about this. Go on - I dare you.

3 - By what basis do you claim my view and/or your views as well as those infinite number of other views are in any fashion changes in physical reality and not perceptions or observations?

Perceptions are reality. Views are not dreams.

4- Where is the reciprocity in your proofs of relativity.

In the very formulation of the theory, from the very first postulate: The forms of the laws of physics are invariant in all inertial reference frames.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Regarding Todd Baker's response to you via email, attached above:

1 - The first paragraph clearly states the "reciprocity" issue, which others here seem to choose to ignore.

Baker is correct.

What it means is that for the case of relative motion (excluding GR affects) there should be no measureable time differance between the earth clocks and a clock moving in an airplane such as in the H&K atomic clock tests.

Wrong. It clearly says that moving clocks run slow. Thus, excluding GR effects, the clock on the plane runs slow as seen by the Earth and, reciprocally the clock on Earth runs slow as seen by the plane while both are in motion.

It's a point that even beginners in relativity usually grasp with no problem. MacM is a different case, however.

Relative velocity cannot produce a measureable shift in accumulated time between clocks when clocks are brought back and compared.

As Baker points out, though MacM missed it of course, to bring clocks back and compare them requires that they accelerate, which destroys the symmetry.

The claim therefore that the H&K test proved Relativity's time dilation, is outright fraud. Such results are not allowed by Relativity.

MacM doesn't understand the simple twin "paradox".

2 - Second paragraph. I do question his statement that the two clocks can never be brought together and compared for their accumulated time however and I will be pursueing that further with him.

It is quite simple: to bring the clocks back together, at least one of them must be accelerated. A child would understand that.

3 - Paragraph 3. He is absolutely correct and I am in full agreement with him on the issue of actual tick rates of clocks and possible "Perception" of different ticks rates by a moving observer.

On the face of it, I completely disagree with Baker, here. I think his expression is sloppy. But then again, MacM is hiding part of his response, so this might not be an honest reflection of what he said.

I'll accept your apologies gentlemen without predjudice.

But what about this:

NOTE: There is a 4th paragraph which I will post as soon as I recieve confirmation as to his meaning.

You're being blatantly dishonest.

Post the 4th paragraph. Stop censoring things that don't suit your argument. That is intellectually dishonest, and deceptive.

I can only assume that whatever you are hiding does not support your position. Therefore, as always, you pretend it doesn't exist.

You're a fraud and liar, MacM.

 

[Paul T]

MacM,

As I said, I am now going to give you some explanation. This is certainly not new, it had been said before...but this time let me elaborate a little so hopefully you will have a better grip on the issue.

A on earth. B moving at velocity 0.6c away from earth. At t=0, A and B coincide. Both A and B has clock that ticks every 1 second and every time the clock tick a light signal is sent out. What the interval of light signal received by A and B?

Remember doppler effect formulae t' = t*sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]? Here, t=1 second and v=0.6c and therefore t'=2 seconds. Both A and B use the same formulae. Agree?

Now, let's see the process step by step. Assume time dilation formulae: t'=gt (g=1.25) as correct (if it is not correct, we will know from the result).

Check the interval of signal received by A (by computing time required for second signal to reach A):

B send signal at t=1 second, but according to A this is 1.25 second and B should have already moved 1.25 second*0.6c=0.75 c second away. Time for light to travel this distance is 0.75 second, so total time is 1.25+0.75=2 second. Same as result obtained using doppler effect formulae, right?

Check the interval of signal received by B (by computing time required for second signal to reach B):

A send signal at t=1 second while B is at 0.6c second away. Time required for this signal to reach B is [0.6c second/(c-0.6c)]=1.5 second. Total time is 1+1.5=2.5 second. All time here is according to A. How long is this 2.5 second according to B? It's 2.5*0.8=2 second. Again, same as the result obtained using doppler effect formulae.

Do you find that time dilation had been mis-applied here? Do you think time dilation formulae should not be used at all? If yes, please provide the correct computation showing that 2 second interval with your own way.

 

[MacM]

No? It's not about clock? So what is it?

Well whatelse do you suppose he is refering to since he speaks of tick rate?

Particularily since it was in response to my inquiry about clocks and variable tick rates being perception or reality.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Once again, your bluff and bluster is hardly worth a response. Briefly:

1. You don't know what a reference frame is. If you did, you would be able to give a definition. Instead, you act like a child and say "I do know! I do know! Waaaa!" Put you money where your mouth is.

You do make a poor loser.

You repeated the same stupid statement as before in your last post:

And you are giving the same stupid answers. Only this time I am not standing alone.

2. The H&K experiment was not symmetrical, as I said before. You don't undersand that, either.

Of course not. But GR and non-inertial frames are not at issue. The only issue is the claim that constant relative velocity alters time. The clocks were run East and West. Relative velocity is still relative velocity. The only difference was the magnitude of the relative velocity.

Unfortunately for you your claims that H&K proved time dilation is that it didn't actually happen. The results showed no such affect, as admitted by Hafele himself in the internal report to the Navy before the publication of the altered data was done.

*********************************************
"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything....the differance between theory and experiment is disturbing".

- Hafele, Secret Unites States Naval Obvservatory, internal report, 1971.
***********************************************

What is funny is that because of the reciprocity requirement of Relativity, to claim any such evidence occured, violates that aspect of Relativity. You keep trying to create issues which are not real.

Perhaps you would enlighten us on just how you create a relative velocity which is NOT symmetrical. HeHeHe. You have dug yourself quite a hole on this one. Good luck.

3. If clocks don't measure time, then nothing measures time, and time is a useless concept.

You are finally starting to get the picture.

Suffice it to say that your assertion is ridiculous.

Suffice it to say your postion is totally unsupported and is in conflict in of and within itself. That makes your view ridiculus. We will wait to see your "Asmmyterical Relavistic Velocity" :bugeye: .

4. The rest frame is just one frame among an infinite number of other frames. Relativity says it is not special, contrary to your claims. So don't pretend you're talking about relativity when you say the rest frame is "real" and all others are "perception".

Who said Relativity was correct. Not me for sure. But you haven't responded to the issue of if a clock ever sees itself in anyother frame other than a rest frame, now have you?

Are you claiming clocks some how sense absolute motion? Or is Relativity correct and they only view themselves as being at rest and in no other frame.?

5. Your four questions were answered before. Your memory is failing. Recall:

Because if a clock doesn't measure time, nothing measures time.

I have no disagreement with this statement other than you want to claim clocks do measure time, when any highschool student could tell you that clocks are processes and in no manner actually measure time.

Define "reference frame". Then we'll talk about this. Go on - I dare you.

Like I told you you aren't getting off the hook by trying to change the subject or ask other questions. Just address mine. If you do that then and only then is there anything to even discuss. Because unless you can properly answer these basic questions, any further discussion is a discussion of something shown to be false or undefined in the first instance.

Perceptions are reality. Views are not dreams.

You do seem to have a particularily difficult time comprehending the obvious.

In the very formulation of the theory, from the very first postulate: The forms of the laws of physics are invariant in all inertial reference frames.

And?

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Regarding Todd Baker's response to you via email, attached above:

Baker is correct.

You forgot to also note that so was I. I believe it was you that could not understand what reciprocity meant.

Wrong. It clearly says that moving clocks run slow. Thus, excluding GR effects, the clock on the plane runs slow as seen by the Earth and, reciprocally the clock on Earth runs slow as seen by the plane while both are in motion.

Why stop here why not finish the cycle. If they both run slow by equal amounts (due to relative velocity) then relative velocity can jproduce no measuremable differential in accumulated times on the clocks. H&K data is prohibited by Relativity itself. Any affects assuming there are any would necessarily be non-ineritial and NOT relative velocity induced.

It's a point that even beginners in relativity usually grasp with no problem. MacM is a different case, however.

Your continued false allegations as to what I do or do not understand are starting to fray around the edges don't you think. I seem to have it all quite well organized. Clearly better than you. You jump from claiming relative velocity has no reciprocity to they have reciprocity but that you still get measurable differentials due to relative velocity alone. You don't.

As Baker points out, though MacM missed it of course, to bring clocks back and compare them requires that they accelerate, which destroys the symmetry.

You lie again. baker made no such statement. However, I would agree that acceleration or non-inertial motion must occur to bringthem bvack together. But that is.

1 - Moot since we are discussing only relative velocity affects.

2 - Since no data is taken dur non-inertial periods it has no bearing on the issue at hand.

You do seem to have a problem following simple proceedures. Or you deliberately attempt to side track the conclusion by interjecting irrelevant BS.

MacM doesn't understand the simple twin "paradox".

Speaking of repeating ones self. For the 40th, at least, time, there is a big differance between not understanding something and rejecting it because it is flawd. I reject it. Now adfdress the basis of my rejection with something other than slander and off topic issues.

It is quite simple: to bring the clocks back together, at least one of them must be accelerated. A child would understand that.

The only problem with this comment is that you have made it. It asserts indirectly that I have somehow claimed otherwise which I never have.

On the face of it, I completely disagree with Baker, here. I think his expression is sloppy. But then again, MacM is hiding part of his response, so this might not be an honest reflection of what he said.

Pardon me for getting absolutely frank here. Fuck you James R. I have witheld nor altered nothing in his response. Your allegations are outright false and slanderous.

But what about this:

You're being blatantly dishonest.

Post the 4th paragraph. Stop censoring things that don't suit your argument.

That is intellectually dishonest, and deceptive.

I can only assume that whatever you are hiding does not support your position. Therefore, as always, you pretend it doesn't exist.

You're a fraud and liar, MacM.

Once again a BIG FUCK YOU James R. I'm hiding nothing. The fact is he made a reference to another link and within that link were some things which appear to conflict with other things he has said and I have asked for clarification.

When that clarification is received it will be posted. In the mean time I post nothing that serves no purpose other than to confuse the issue. You might notice that I am getting very precise in my presentation and it is getting a bit tougher for your to continue to bullshit your way around the issues. So expect me to continue to do the same.

In the mean time you have plenty on your plate to resolve. You can start by showing us your "Asymmetrical Relative Velocity Affect".

 

[James R]

MacM:

1. You don't know what a reference frame is. If you did, you would be able to give a definition. Instead, you act like a child and say "I do know! I do know! Waaaa!" Put you money where your mouth is.

You do make a poor loser.

No answer? Point proven.

Unfortunately for you your claims that H&K proved time dilation is that it didn't actually happen.

You will recall that I have never relied on the H&K experiment to prove relativity. Even if it is completely fraudulent and false (and I have no reason to think it is), it matters not a single jot to the correctness of relativity.

You only brought it up as a diversion from the main game. Bait and switch.

If clocks don't measure time, then nothing measures time, and time is a useless concept.

You are finally starting to get the picture.

For the record: MacM does not believe time exists.

Now you're really getting nutty.

But you haven't responded to the issue of if a clock ever sees itself in any other frame other than a rest frame, now have you?

You never raised that as an issue. Am I supposed to read your mind now?

Anyway, we can't talk about anything to do with reference frames until you understand what a reference frame is.

I will wait until you provide a definition of "reference frame" before I respond to any further questions from you which require that concept.

I have no disagreement with this statement other than you want to claim clocks do measure time, when any highschool student could tell you that clocks are processes and in no manner actually measure time.

You need to get out in the real world. Go out in the street and ask the first stranger you see what clocks measure. The answer will be "time". I guarantee it. And highschool students won't say any differently.

Like I told you you aren't getting off the hook by trying to change the subject or ask other questions.

I'm not on a hook.

Just address mine.

Already done. See the past 1500 posts to this thread.

In the very formulation of the theory, from the very first postulate: The forms of the laws of physics are invariant in all inertial reference frames.

And?

Follow it through. You work it out. Start using your brain, if you have one.