Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
- Status
Pete said:
Duh! indeed. You mean after these many months you finally agree that time dialtion is perception and not physical reality. That is all I have ever said. You have belittled that view. Why?
Note: You haven't addressed the fact that each clock "sees" the other clock as having an equally different time.
I am afraid not. It is inherent in Relativity otherwise it is not relative.
What about "Address the reciprocity issue do you not understand".
Last edited:
James R said:
I would say no.
What is the game here to keep asking questions until I screw up and then say"Ah Hah, see you don't understand"?
BS. Address the reciprocity issue - That is all that this thread is about. My understandings have nothing to do with that issue. You can either address it or you can't or won't which is it?
James R said:
It is not irrelevant. It is the same function you apply in Relativity. thatr is calculating only half of the situation. that procues a non-linear response, a curve. But applying reciprocity shows that each are affected equaly which results in NO NET AFFECT. Sorry. You are out done.
I think at this juncture the Presidential campaign has the best answer "You can run but you cannot hide".
Stop with trying to make road block and asking irrelavent questions. the issue of reciprosity is above this detail and you know it.
Pete said:
Bull! Every example I have given has had one clock at rest and one with velocity; except a few cases where I deliberately set each in relative motion to a thrid clock and/or where each had an equal velocity relative to the third clock, which was at rest.
For which no VALID refutation has ever been given. A lot of wishy washy irrelevant efforts or confuse or divert the issue was but not valid refutation.
Actually it wasn't presented that way but either clock can be considered at rest and each clock actually considers themselves at rest in any case. As recall I stipulated two clcoks in space to get GR out of the picture of an earth bound clock and simply said one clock was accelerated away until reaching a preagreed doppler shift.
You cannot claim A<---0.9c----->B is not 0.9c for each regardless of any frame assignement of either clock such as being in a rest frame.
Last edited:
MacM:
Game over.
You're answers are inconsistent with your own definition of "reference frame".
Conclusion:
Either
A. You don't believe your own definition of what a reference frame is.
OR
B. You don't actually understand the concept of a reference frame.
OR
C. You're so muddle-headed, you don't think rationally.
OR
D. Some combination of A,B and C.
Since we have established that you don't have a clue about reference frames, or logical thinking, or both, and since relativity is all about reference frames, there's really no point going on, is there?
You can't get to first base in a discussion of relativity.
Your crazy, mixed up, flip-flopping, inconsistent notions about reference frames making any discussion of substantive issues a complete waste of time. All conclusions you draw are inherently and fundamentally flawed at the most basic level, except for the odd occasion where you happen to make a correct statement by chance alone.
Game over.
You're answers are inconsistent with your own definition of "reference frame".
Conclusion:
Either
A. You don't believe your own definition of what a reference frame is.
OR
B. You don't actually understand the concept of a reference frame.
OR
C. You're so muddle-headed, you don't think rationally.
OR
D. Some combination of A,B and C.
Since we have established that you don't have a clue about reference frames, or logical thinking, or both, and since relativity is all about reference frames, there's really no point going on, is there?
You can't get to first base in a discussion of relativity.
Your crazy, mixed up, flip-flopping, inconsistent notions about reference frames making any discussion of substantive issues a complete waste of time. All conclusions you draw are inherently and fundamentally flawed at the most basic level, except for the odd occasion where you happen to make a correct statement by chance alone.
I'm sorry you couldn't follow the clearly spelled out refutation ([post=684082]link[/post]).MacM said:
It shows that your synchronization procedure work only for the reference frame in which the two clocks have equal and opposite velocities.
You rebuttal to that post was to suggest that relativity dictates that the two clocks do indeed have equal and opposite velocities and to avoid the question of reference frame.
Because that view is wrong.MacM said:
Your leap from:
"If each clock is stopped after one hour in their own frame, then of course they'll read 3600 seconds."
to:
"time dilation is perception and not physical reality"
is sadly misguided, and once again demonstrates your misunderstanding of SR.
You didn't ask... but if you insist:MacM said:
Each clock rightly maintains that (in their own frame), they stopped before the other clock.
Crap.
Prove it.
Please don't make me impugn your intelligence again.MacM said:
Do you really not see the relevance? Or are you simply unable to work through the logic?
It's really not that difficult.
James R said:
Short memory indeed James R.
1 - I clearly stated "Valid" refutation. Yours was crap.
2 - See Refutation of your Refutation [post=685076]Here[/post]
One point of clarification however, since I posted that I have realized that the accuracy is much higher. The 10 harmonic side band modulation divides the 1 MHz carrier into 100,000 which means 0.00001 second pulses to the counter which means after 100,000 pulses 1 second will be recorded. Accuracy of the information is 10,000 times more accurate than I had taken credit for.
Last edited:
Pete said:
There is no basis whereby you can claim that if B is moving away from A at 0.9c, that from B's perspective A is not also moving away from B at 0.9c.
(Recall we are discussing only reltive velocity).
Each clock (observer) sees themselves as being at rest.
Pete said:
Sorry but that happens to be the bottom line when you cut out all the double talk and bullshit.
Certainly. And the amount of such differential view is equal. Hmmm. Seems they actually stopped simultaneoulsy. If you apply numbers to each clocks view where each say they stopped 30 minutes before the other clock, what does that tell you?
The answer isn't really all that difficult.
HeHeHe. Nice try but it is you that must prove the obvious is not reality, not the other way around.
I wouldn't be using the term "again". You havn't answered the question correctly so far.
My logic is fine. Yours seems to have hit a snag.
Now lets try once more.
With a constant relative velocity of 0.9c between clocks after one hour according to their clock do you agree that they will jpercieve the other clock as reading 1,569.2 seconds? Yes or No.
Now that each clock both read 1,569.2 seconds it is clear that no time dilation between clocks has occurred. That is verified by the fact that each having stopped their clock at 3,600 seconds, they both still read 3,600 seconds on comparison. That is in agreement with the equal time dilation view.
Only if one clock sees the other to have a number different than that clocks view of his time can there be any difference.
It can't happen and doesn't happen. It is really that simple. Time dilation computes equal for both clocks hence they remain synchronized.
Last edited:
MacM:
In my thread which discussed the derivation of SR, I never specified that either car was stationary. Such an assumption is not necessary. There is no absolute standard of rest.
I have addressed the issue multiple times. In fact, you have ignored some of the posts I have made on the topic. I specifically addressed your point in a post about one page back in this thread, which I can only assume you did not bother reading, since there was no reply to any of the comments I made there.
Let's face it. All you are doing now is backing away from anything solid. Since it was proven that your detailed scenario did not do what you claimed, you have presented a number of vague, shady alternatives with ill-specified conditions. You have taken to posting one line assertions without proof, as if they are worth something.
Your new scenarios keep shifting the ground backwards and forwards. One moment, you have one light signal; the next you have two. One moment you insist on viewing the clocks from a reference frame half way between them; the next you insist on viewing them from one clock's frame. Your proposed methods of stopping and starting the clocks are all over the place, generally not specified at all.
What it comes down to is what I said before, but you ignored. All your recent efforts essentially amount to: MacM sets the time on a clock. MacM later reads off the time he set + some predetermined amount. MacM claims his reading says something about relativity, or "reciprocity" or some spur-of-the-moment meaningless MacM concept.
At the start of this thread we had the potential to create a scenario which would be useful for actually reaching conclusions. Now, we just have vague, useless statements, plus a load of "you said - I said - you haven't proven - I have shown - you're a liar - no, you're the liar" bullshit.
You have nothing solid.
You have no mathematics.
Your claims are unsupported.
You have proven you can't even be consistent with your own views.
You have a shocking memory for previous points which have been discussed in full.
You have shown that you don't even have the ability to understand relativity, let alone refute it.
Your definitions are so vague as to be utterly meaningless.
You can't even set up a consistent scenario without changing it every 2 minutes.
You ignore all points you'd rather not see.
You constantly misrepresent other people's statements.
You put words into people's mouths which they never said.
You twist and turn and bait and switch.
Challenge:
Post a scenario (anything you like) and analyse it mathematically to show either:
A. The correct result is not the same as the result relativity predicts, because the
perceptual outcome is not the same as the real outcome.
OR
B. Applying the theory of relativity results in a true self-contradiction, which invalidates that theory.
Put up or shut up.
In my thread which discussed the derivation of SR, I never specified that either car was stationary. Such an assumption is not necessary. There is no absolute standard of rest.
I have addressed the issue multiple times. In fact, you have ignored some of the posts I have made on the topic. I specifically addressed your point in a post about one page back in this thread, which I can only assume you did not bother reading, since there was no reply to any of the comments I made there.
Let's face it. All you are doing now is backing away from anything solid. Since it was proven that your detailed scenario did not do what you claimed, you have presented a number of vague, shady alternatives with ill-specified conditions. You have taken to posting one line assertions without proof, as if they are worth something.
Your new scenarios keep shifting the ground backwards and forwards. One moment, you have one light signal; the next you have two. One moment you insist on viewing the clocks from a reference frame half way between them; the next you insist on viewing them from one clock's frame. Your proposed methods of stopping and starting the clocks are all over the place, generally not specified at all.
What it comes down to is what I said before, but you ignored. All your recent efforts essentially amount to: MacM sets the time on a clock. MacM later reads off the time he set + some predetermined amount. MacM claims his reading says something about relativity, or "reciprocity" or some spur-of-the-moment meaningless MacM concept.
At the start of this thread we had the potential to create a scenario which would be useful for actually reaching conclusions. Now, we just have vague, useless statements, plus a load of "you said - I said - you haven't proven - I have shown - you're a liar - no, you're the liar" bullshit.
You have nothing solid.
You have no mathematics.
Your claims are unsupported.
You have proven you can't even be consistent with your own views.
You have a shocking memory for previous points which have been discussed in full.
You have shown that you don't even have the ability to understand relativity, let alone refute it.
Your definitions are so vague as to be utterly meaningless.
You can't even set up a consistent scenario without changing it every 2 minutes.
You ignore all points you'd rather not see.
You constantly misrepresent other people's statements.
You put words into people's mouths which they never said.
You twist and turn and bait and switch.
Challenge:
Post a scenario (anything you like) and analyse it mathematically to show either:
A. The correct result is not the same as the result relativity predicts, because the
perceptual outcome is not the same as the real outcome.
OR
B. Applying the theory of relativity results in a true self-contradiction, which invalidates that theory.
Put up or shut up.
- Status