Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[Paul T]

MacM,

The joke is you. You are another that makes a poor loser. Perhaps you should consider James R's lead above, be a man, and finally admit it when you are wrong or wrongfully have argued a point.

Loser? Loser what? So fast picking up winner already? Haven't seen a word from you about my calculation, though. Not long ago you challenged me to provide you mathematical proof and they were given, but...what was your comment again? Or, may be there was a word or two...they were wrong, but...what's wrong? Didn't you have possibly a slight capability to show us what's wrong with those calculation???

There are no permanent measureable accumulated time diffentials due to relative velocity in the physical display of clocks. Such affects are restricted to the period of moving observation.

Another bullshit. You are obligated and challenged to supply mathematical proof for your claim!

HINT: No relative velocity time dilation physically.

More bullshit. Zero evidence.

HINT: The twin does not get younger, due to relative velocity, upon being reunited with his brother. Affects, if any, would be non-inertial in nature, which involve a change in energy state due to acceleration by GR, not SR.

Even more bullshit. I will soon give you my explanation, why this is bullshit. Or, care to provide some math to justify your point?

HINT: H&K Atomic Clock Test claims actually violate Relativity, not prove it.

The result was not convincing, yes...but violate relativity? It's just your nonsensical talk as usual.

HINT: Since Relativity actually prohibits any time differential due to relative velocity alone, muon decay does not prove Relativity.

It proves somethingelse is at work that we have not yet explored and understand (primarily because the scientific community is to blinded by the absolute faith in Relativity and readily accept such data as proof that it is Relativity at work without actually following logically Relativity to its ultimate conclusion).

Whoaaa... pretty boring. Math please? Where did you get all that silly ideas?

For example the increased arrival of the number of muons at earth's surface could be due to Lorentz Contraction of distance, not time dilation. However, I personally do not accept LC of space but only of physical masses and then only as with TD on a perception basis not a physical basis.

How Lorentz Contraction works in this case? Some math and discussion please. Oh, then you also said...you do not accept LC. Hahaha. Full of contradiction huh. BTW, your above notion clearly indicates your understanding about Lorentz's contraction or time dilation. I meant...the lack of it....

HINT: Most, if not, all relavistic affects may be shown to be illusional, observational, perceptional and temporal in nature and not permanent measurable physical changes.

Please justify. Your blind claim doesn't prove anything. The word that I can think of now only...nonsense.

HINT: If you, as you have, misinterprete the meaning of Relativity's SR perhaps we should also start to analyze GR for simular flaws in the mis-application of its mathematics.

You must be kidding. You felt you are done with SR and now ready for GR? Hahahaha. You haven't even say one word about my computation. Right or wrong, say something....do not just spitting out more and more bullshit!

 

[Paul T]

MacM,

Earlier you said:

There are no permanent measureable accumulated time diffentials due to relative velocity in the physical display of clocks. Such affects are restricted to the period of moving observation.

The twin does not get younger, due to relative velocity, upon being reunited with his brother. Affects, if any, would be non-inertial in nature, which involve a change in energy state due to acceleration by GR, not SR.

without proof.

Further to my earlier proposed test with A on earth and B moving at velocity 0.6c away from earth, let's now make some finetuning.

Specify that B is actually travelling toward C, an observer on another planet located at 0.6 light year away from earth. This planet and earth are stationary. Do you know how long a light sent by A will be received by C? In case you cannot guess the answer, let me tell you...it's 0.6 year. How about the interval of clock ticking (every 1 second) information send by A? Hope you don't confuse, it's remain as 1 second.

Arrange in such a way so that when B passes A or C at close proximity, velocity of B is exactly 0.6c (no acceleration is involved here, not in our scope of test). In case you disagree, let me tell you that B actually accelerates before it reaches A and it passes C without decelaration. However, since B passes A and C at close proximity, during a very short duration of time of the passing moment, A and B or B and C have no problem telling each other about their clock reading.

In short, B passes A and travels to C. A tells C that B passes A at October 8, 2004 (doesn't matter the time), so when C receives this information 0.6 year later, C could mark on his calender the exact date B passed earth. B also mark on his calender the date of his passing earth (you know, October 8, 2004). Then the clock in A and B tick...tick...tick...of course every 1 second and at every tick they send out a light pulse. As shown before, A receives light pulse from B at interval 2 second and B also receives light pulse from A at interval 2 second.

Then, B passes C. Time dilation at works and therefore, according to B, the date of his passing C is 0.8 year after October 8, 2004 (not on October 8, 2005). According to C, however, the date is October 8, 2005 (exactly one year after B passed earth). Then B zooms away....who cares.

Now, MacM, what is your explanation? Is GR at work here (there is no acceleration involved)? I see no GR required here, where do you see GR has to be taken into account?

Is time dilation real or unreal? B tells C that his calender is only 0.8 year after October 8, 2004 and later C tells A on earth.

Actually, on B perspective, C is 0.6*0.8=0.48 light year away from A. His velocity is 0.6c so, he needs 0.48/0.6=0.8 year to complete his journey. This is Lorentz's contraction.

 

[MacM]

Laying the bullshit on a bit thick aren't you? So time is due to motion, which is due to time, which is due to motion....

Seems JamesR's definition stands. A clock is in motion which is 'induced' by energy. JamesR's definition of time is obtained by observing said motion.

Yet you used you 'AD HOC FIAT' line anyway. I swear, you're like a little kid who just learned a new phrase.

Hopefully it isn't to much of a disappointment but mine , nor does James R's definitions qualifiy as FIAT Declarations.

A fiat declaration is a statement that something is absolutely so but without supporting evidence.

Neither James nor I said our definitions were indeed actual fact. They are both opinions.

Now change or motion creating the concept of time is not "energy, motion, time, motion, etc" as you try to oversimplify. My view is that we live in a Dynamic Present comprised of past (information delayed) events which collectively at your spatial ordinant point create a specific dynamic present.

Every other ordinant point relative to yours consists of events that are both past and future relative to your dynamic present. When you move you therefore enter the past and future simultaneously.

There is a tendancy to think "Wait, motion requires time, delayed information requires time". I would agree with that as long as you recognize that time is nothing more than the energy inducing the motion or change. It is not a seperate 4th dimension but a property of an energetic space.

 

[Persol]

When you move you therefore enter the past and future simultaneously.

It'd be interesting to see you define motion without defining time... but I'd expect more language garbage out, and not math... so it probably wouldn't even be worth asking for.

Your definition is circular, as you basically just admitted.

 

[cb767]

Is it possible to get a straight definition of what MacM and James R believe as a definition of time? It would make it so much easier than having to dig through the 25 pages of posts.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

Loser? Loser what? So fast picking up winner already? Haven't seen a word from you about my calculation, though. Not long ago you challenged me to provide you mathematical proof and they were given, but...what was your comment again? Or, may be there was a word or two...they were wrong, but...what's wrong? Didn't you have possibly a slight capability to show us what's wrong with those calculation???

Another bullshit. You are obligated and challenged to supply mathematical proof for your claim!

More bullshit. Zero evidence.

Even more bullshit. I will soon give you my explanation, why this is bullshit. Or, care to provide some math to justify your point?

The result was not convincing, yes...but violate relativity? It's just your nonsensical talk as usual.

Whoaaa... pretty boring. Math please? Where did you get all that silly ideas?

How Lorentz Contraction works in this case? Some math and discussion please. Oh, then you also said...you do not accept LC. Hahaha. Full of contradiction huh. BTW, your above notion clearly indicates your understanding about Lorentz's contraction or time dilation. I meant...the lack of it....

Please justify. Your blind claim doesn't prove anything. The word that I can think of now only...nonsense.

You must be kidding. You felt you are done with SR and now ready for GR? Hahahaha. You haven't even say one word about my computation. Right or wrong, say something....do not just spitting out more and more bullshit!

Considering your completel lack of understanding and the fact that your "Mathematics" prove nothing regarding the issue, you can argue with yourself.

My point has been made and accepted by James R. You are not worth argueing with.

[post=691483]Here[/post]

Bye.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

Earlier you said:

without proof.

Further to my earlier proposed test with A on earth and B moving at velocity 0.6c away from earth, let's now make some finetuning.

Specify that B is actually travelling toward C, an observer on another planet located at 0.6 light year away from earth. This planet and earth are stationary. Do you know how long a light sent by A will be received by C? In case you cannot guess the answer, let me tell you...it's 0.6 year. How about the interval of clock ticking (every 1 second) information send by A? Hope you don't confuse, it's remain as 1 second.

Arrange in such a way so that when B passes A or C at close proximity, velocity of B is exactly 0.6c (no acceleration is involved here, not in our scope of test). In case you disagree, let me tell you that B actually accelerates before it reaches A and it passes C without decelaration. However, since B passes A and C at close proximity, during a very short duration of time of the passing moment, A and B or B and C have no problem telling each other about their clock reading.

In short, B passes A and travels to C. A tells C that B passes A at October 8, 2004 (doesn't matter the time), so when C receives this information 0.6 year later, C could mark on his calender the exact date B passed earth. B also mark on his calender the date of his passing earth (you know, October 8, 2004). Then the clock in A and B tick...tick...tick...of course every 1 second and at every tick they send out a light pulse. As shown before, A receives light pulse from B at interval 2 second and B also receives light pulse from A at interval 2 second.

Then, B passes C. Time dilation at works and therefore, according to B, the date of his passing C is 0.8 year after October 8, 2004 (not on October 8, 2005). According to C, however, the date is October 8, 2005 (exactly one year after B passed earth). Then B zooms away....who cares.

Now, MacM, what is your explanation? Is GR at work here (there is no acceleration involved)? I see no GR required here, where do you see GR has to be taken into account?

Is time dilation real or unreal? B tells C that his calender is only 0.8 year after October 8, 2004 and later C tells A on earth.

Actually, on B perspective, C is 0.6*0.8=0.48 light year away from A. His velocity is 0.6c so, he needs 0.48/0.6=0.8 year to complete his journey. This is Lorentz's contraction.

One must suppose that somehow you think all this means something. You are argueing with yourself.

[post=691483]Here[/post]

Bye.

 

[James R]

cb767:

Time is what clocks measure.

 

[MacM]

It'd be interesting to see you define motion without defining time... but I'd expect more language garbage out, and not math... so it probably wouldn't even be worth asking for.

Your definition is circular, as you basically just admitted.

Only if you still try to seperate time from energy of space. What I have said is what you call time is the flowing energy of space. Time is energy. It is not circular.

 

[cb767]

Wouldn't it be easier if we just said time is the difference between two instants?

 

[James R]

Energy is measured in Joules.

1 Joule = 1 kiolgram (metre/second)²

Notice that the second is different from the Joule.

Therefore, time cannot be an energy.

 

[MacM]

Wouldn't it be easier if we just said time is the difference between two instants?

Close (in my opinion). But the differance you speak of is differance in energy states of all tangible masses (events) throughout the universe at each instant of your dynamic present. That is the information about energy states (events) that comprise ALL events that constitue a given instant for you.

Such event simultaneity in your dynamic present are unique and exist nowhere else. Every planck ordinate point around your point of existance (actually trillions of points in space you occupy) have dynamic presents which consist of events (energy states) that are both past and future relative to the events that constitute your dynamic present.

Moving in space therefore you enter both the past and future simultaneously.

 

[James R]

MacM:

It is very easy to demonstrate that time dilation occurs for relative velocity motion. If you like, I can give you a thought experiment which will do just that, and involves no acceleration of the clocks during the relevant part of the test.

Talk is cheap. Do it. I would wager I can point out a major flaw in your claim or that your test does not result in direct clock comparisons which show a differance in accumulated times.

Please refer to the following thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=692125#post692125

Note that this is really just the same two-clock problem analysed properly. See if you can point out any flaw in the argument. You will need to do more than simply say something like "The maths is correct, but it isn't reality." Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.

I doubt you'll be able to follow the maths, actually.

"Time is not an enity such as a 4th dimension, it is a property of an energetic space. The illusion of time flow is due to the observation of change or motion induced by energy. Without change there is no time."

"Time is a property of energetic space" doesn't seem any better than my definition "Time is what clocks measure". In fact, it seems to be far too vague. After all, energetic space may have many different properties, but I think everybody agrees that clocks only measure time.

All clocks use processes to measure time. A good clock is, among other things, one whose processes are not affected by influences other than time.

Please describe such a clock.

Under most circumstances: your wristwatch, a grandfather clock, an atomic clock.

I infact NOTED: That I was reserving a 4th paragraph for clarification.

I'm betting we NEVER get to see that 4th paragraph. I'll be reminding you. Can you give me a specific date by which you intend to post it?

3. Can 2 events which happen at different times but at the same location exist in the same reference frame?

Thinking. My issue with "Can" requires I consider all preceeding non-inertial possibilites and affects before the current situation.

So, you're not sure of the answer?

What is a reference frame, MacM?

HINT: No relative velocity time dilation physically.

You have shown no such thing.

HINT: H&K Atomic Clock Test claims actually violate Relativity, not prove it.

Wrong. The H&K paper is commonly cited as evidence in favour of relativity.

HINT: Since Relativity actually prohibits any time differential due to relative velocity alone, muon decay does not prove Relativity.

Relativity prohibits no such thing.

For example the increased arrival of the number of muons at earth's surface could be due to Lorentz Contraction of distance, not time dilation.

You can't have one without the other.

HINT: Most, if not, all relavistic affects may be shown to be illusional, observational, perceptional and temporal in nature and not permanent measurable physical changes.

Maybe one day you might get around to supporting some of your claims. But I doubt it.

HINT: If you, as you have, misinterprete the meaning of Relativity's SR perhaps we should also start to analyze GR for simular flaws in the mis-application of its mathematics.

SR is built into GR. Any flaws in SR are also flaws in GR. Unfortunately for you, the main results of GR and SR have been verified. And there's a nice experiment called Gravity Probe B (look it up!) orbiting the Earth right now, collecting data which will most likely yet again support GR.

 

[MacM]

Energy is measured in Joules.

1 Joule = 1 kiolgram (metre/second)²

Notice that the second is different from the Joule.

Therefore, time cannot be an energy.

Notice that energy is a "Flow" m/S²

This flow of energy causes change (events) changes cause the concept of time flow. Without events (changes in energy) there is no measure of time .

Time is a property of a flowing energetic space. Time is a property of information about energy states.

Information flows at v = c.

 

[James R]

Notice that energy is a "Flow" m/S2

I have no idea what you mean. The only units of "flow" I know are volume per second, which would be m³/s. That's not the same as energy, so energy is not a flow.

There's also energy flux, which is power per unit area, and is a flow of energy, but the units of that aren't the same as seconds, either.

This flow of energy causes change (events) changes cause the concept of time flow. Without events (changes in energy) there is no measure of time .

Don't you need time before you can have an event? You've got things backwards.

Time is a property of a flowing energetic space. Time is a property of information about energy states.

I can't see why or how.

Information flows at v = c.

Not in general.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Please refer to the following thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=692125#post692125

Note that this is really just the same two-clock problem analysed properly. See if you can point out any flaw in the argument. You will need to do more than simply say something like "The maths is correct, but it isn't reality." Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.

I doubt you'll be able to follow the maths, actually.

I'll give it a read but I really don't see the necessity. You have already conceeded primary issues regarding no measureable time dilation due to relative velocity.

[post=691483]Here[/post]

You now seem to be running away from that admission.

OK. I read it and as I anticipated it says nothing new that changes the situation. Note first that you have presented only one view in that you only have light signaling in one direction.

Now re-write you scenario and reverse the direction of the light flow and deny that the entire situation is not alos reversed such that what you call time dilation vanishes in reality when both cars consider each others clocks accumulated time after the trip.

BTW: This is algebra (pretty simple algebra) not calculus. Your statement above "I doubt you'll be able to follow the maths, actually" is an unwarranted and false innuendo. Do you actually believe your repeated attempts to slander me alter the facts in your favor? It doesn't seem so.

Now show me both cars views of time dilation of the other cars clock. Set an artificial t0, show the respective views of time dilation. If you show anything other than "No Net Time Differential" in the clocks you have either made an error or violated Relativity.

Yes or No?

As I have shown you only get what you call time dilation due to relative velocity if you only consider one half of the mandates of Relativity.

Any such claim of time dilation as a physical reality violates Relativity. Time dilation is perception of a moving observer and not a real shift in time which accumulates on clock displays (or the twins ages).

"Time is a property of energetic space" doesn't seem any better than my definition "Time is what clocks measure". In fact, it seems to be far too vague. After all, energetic space may have many different properties, but I think everybody agrees that clocks only measure time.

Well I certainly don't and I'll leave it to others as to who has provided any definition at all.

"Time is what clocks measure" is absurd. I have made the point that I can call a pan of water a clock and judge time by the evaportation rate. I don't think you can say the pot is measuring time. ALL clocks are nothing but processes. None of these processes can be claimed to be measuring time but function (and change) through time and outside enfluences.

Under most circumstances: your wristwatch, a grandfather clock, an atomic clock.

All of which are subject to outside enfluences other than time.

I'm betting we NEVER get to see that 4th paragraph. I'll be reminding you. Can you give me a specific date by which you intend to post it?

Well as usual you make statements which are not valid. It took over a week for the first response. If I have not gotten a response within another week (16 Oct) I will post Para 4, with my own concerns as to the conflict I see with other things he has said.

So, you're not sure of the answer?

I haven't even had time to think about those two issues.

What is a reference frame, MacM?

It would be easy to simply look up a definition but I am not going to do that. I will when I find time attempt to make my own description but personally I see little value in your request. You just want to have something to argue about in my description. yada, yada, yada.

You have shown no such thing.

So now you flip-flop? [post=691483]Here[/post]

Wrong. The H&K paper is commonly cited as evidence in favour of relativity.

I do believe that has been my complaint. I did not say the H&K paper claimed it violated Relativity. I said it violated Reltivity and by your admission that relative velocity produces no measureable time dilation, you indirectly agreed. You can't have it both ways. Either you accept the reciprocity mandated by Relativity or you don't..

If you do accept Relativity then you must accept that the H&K claim violates Relativity, not proves Relativity - It matters not what they claim.

Relativity prohibits no such thing.

Ditto as to above.

You can't have one without the other.

Ditto as to above.

Maybe one day you might get around to supporting some of your claims. But I doubt it.

Well, lets go though it once again. Yesterday you [post=691483]Agreed][/post] that under constant relative motion there was no measureable time dilation affect because Relativity requires that each clock slow an equal amount.

Under those circumstances, I am citing Relativity. It is your burden to show that somehow you can produce a permanent time display change in a clock due to relative velocity.

It is funny you claim Relativity is valid and I don't understand it and yet you want to violate it and claim time dilation as a physical reality. I have only wanted to clarify what Relativity actually is. You want to change it. HeHeHe.

SR is built into GR. Any flaws in SR are also flaws in GR. Unfortunately for you, the main results of GR and SR have been verified. And there's a nice experiment called Gravity Probe B (look it up!) orbiting the Earth right now, collecting data which will most likely yet again support GR.

Don't have to look it up. I know all about it and the precession of its gyroscopes. Unfortunately I would anticipate a simular mis-interpretation of any data they may get ,just as they have altered and mis-interpreted H&K, etc. But we shall see.

 

[MacM]

I have no idea what you mean. The only units of "flow" I know are volume per second, which would be m³/s. That's not the same as energy, so energy is not a flow.

Not so fast. J = m/s²

m/s is flow as in motion. Being seconds squared simply means the flow is not linear. Further more I would suspect that any definition of time-energy will require different units than we are accustomed to as in Joules. Something like the amalgamation of time-space or UniKEF.

We are talking about time, not gallons per minute which is a volume. I suppose if you wanted to get down to it the concept of planck length would created a volume of information flow since ou would have a cross-section.

Don't you need time before you can have an event? You've got things backwards.

You do have trouble assimulating information don't you. Energy is time, time is energy, it is energy flow which causes events and hence the concept of time flow. This is not a chicken and egg problem. Time and Energy are the same enity.

I can't see why or how.

I'm not at least bit surprised.

Not in general.

Then why do you use a light signal in you car example. Granted there are other forms of information, i.e. - sound, heat, etc., but this discussion has been about Relativity and Relativity in general is not dealing with sound, etc but with the finite and invariant speed of light.

Or are you convienced that time flows at the speed of sound.

 

[MacM]

James R,

Now as to your repeated request for a definition of a frame.

An inertial frame is a set of coordinates which can be used to specify an event or existance.

i.e. - A exists at x,y,z,t. Which are the 3 spartial coordinates and t is the temporal or time at the location.

Otehr events or existances are designated by either t1, t2, t3, etc or in case of only two frames is designated as t and t', etc.

Physics are invariant in all frames but the relationship between referance frames is found via Lorentz Transformations.

 

[Paul T]

One must suppose that somehow you think all this means something. You are argueing with yourself.

[post=691483]Here[/post]

Bye.

Well, I am not surprised. You didn't find any serious flaw in the calculation, did you? Are you a man or a kid? Be a man, admit your mistake if you can't prove that you are right.

Just FYI, I have many more ways to make the calculation. I have picked the method that I thought was the simplest and might suit the level of your intelligence. This has been proven wrong...I was still over estimate your intelligence. Think there is no way for you to understand the issue since the simplest math that I could think of, the one that even grade school kids should understand, you are still unable to grasp. What can I say?

If you have a slightly more intelligence than you are now, you should had stopped this whole bullshit long ago. You should see from my calculation that time dilation formula was not applied symmetrically since the case such as twin paradox is not symmetrical. Actually, its the time dilation formula in SR that is not symmetrical. Using Lorentz's transformation (and its inverse version), for example, we will have a better sense since the applied equation for both observers are identical. Gosh...I don't expect you to grasp all this explanation. So, please sit back, relax and enjoy your victory.

BTW, have you received reply from Todd? Did he agree with you that SR produce no "real" time dilation? Did he agree with you that in the case of twin paradox, the travelling brother would have the same age when they reunited with his earth brother? Remember to post his reply.

 

[Quantum Quack]

time is an amount of "change"