Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[Quantum Quack]

If we take two objects A and B and place them in a void of nothing and they are separating at a speed of say 0.9c how are we to determine which has negative velocity.?

Do we arbitarilly choose one object over another or is there some other means that I can't see?

I ask this question for a particular reason, for me an important reason and possibly important to the conflict in this thread.

If we assume one of the objects abritarilly then we have established an asymetrical state, in our equations.

Intuitively the two objects would be equally dealt with in that niether would assume a negative velocity....I understand that this is not the case although I wait a definitive answer.

Once an asymetrical emphasis is established in a symetrical situation are we not running the risk of loosing symetry in our formulations? And if that is the case then is this acceptable?

Reciprication requires absolute symetry I would think.

The logic that says the other clock is always slower than the other clock means there is no reciprication...[I think] there for neither clock is faster regardless of frame......I am hopeful jamesR you will see why I have mentioned this.?

 

[Quantum Quack]

-10 * -10 = 100 correct? {shit I have even difficulty remembering this ha]

It is quite a logical statement.....

 

[MacM]

I ask this question for a particular reason, for me an important reason and possibly important to the conflict in this thread.

If we assume one of the objects abritarilly then we have established an asymetrical state, in our equations.

Reciprocity means you must also reverse that arbitrary assumption and calculate the reverse situation. That is where it becomes clear that Relativity is perception and not reality.

Intuitively the two objects would be equally dealt with in that niether would assume a negative velocity....I understand that this is not the case although I wait a definitive answer.

Once an asymetrical emphasis is established in a symetrical situation are we not running the risk of loosing symetry in our formulations? And if that is the case then is this acceptable?

Reciprication requires absolute symetry I would think.[/quote

It does, even in cases of non-inertial frames as long as the case involves symmetry of motion.

The logic that says the other clock is always slower than the other clock means there is no reciprication...[I think] there for neither clock is faster regardless of frame......I am hopeful jamesR you will see why I have mentioned this.?

Your conclusion is accurate. Each clocks sees the other as running sower by the same amount such that upon dierct comparison later in a common rest frame there is no time dialtion in physical reality. It is only created as an illusion of moiton where only one view is considered.

 

[MacM]

-10 * -10 = 100 correct? {shit I have even difficulty remembering this ha]

It is quite a logical statement.....

You got it. This arguement is BS intended only to confuse the issue for others that aren't quite as adept to understanding the real situation.

Not only does (-)* (-) = + but when you apply reciprocity the opposite velocity sign is applied to the other clock and the result would still be symmetrical even if the +/- mathematics were not true.

They are in a no win situation but refuse to acknowledge it. PERIOD.

The fact that they find it easier to attack my competance rather than address this issue makes it clear. They lose.

 

[MacM]

Because your knowledge of relativity is just that little. You don't even familiar with Lorentz's transformation. When come to LT, v or -v make the difference. Learn more mister, don't stuck with just one or two formulas...and particularly not the wrong TD.

We duly note that yours is a war of unsupported words and failure to apply your mathematics using reciprocity and showing an actual differance in the result.

Why? Because there is none. Knock off the verbal bullshit and doing the Texas two step. Produce the calculation showing such time dilation exists when properly framed mathematically to include both views or shut the hell up.

Challenge:

Clocks A and B have a relative velocity of 0.9c. They arrived at this condition from equal acceleration apart in deep space where their is no gravity affect.

Now calculate A's time from A's view and A's view of B's time based on tick rates where 1 = 1 tick per second. This is done to remove the issue of simultaneity from the arguement so as to concentrate on the issue at hand - Relative Velocity affects by Relativity.

A's rate ?________, A's view of B's rate?_________

Now apply reciprocity:

Calculate B's view of B's clock and B's view of A's clock.

B's rate?_________, B's view of A's rate?__________

Having gotten correect time dilation factors, what is the differential in terms of recorded times of A - B and B - A's recorded rates locally?___________

What is the differance between A's view - B's view of the other clocks rate and vice versa?________________

Just as expected "None". There is no time dilation in physical reality.

In the event you choose to not perform the calculations yourself let me post the correct answers to the above kindergarten quiz on Relativity.

A's view of A's rate = 1.0000, A's view of B's rate = 0.4359 ticks per second.

B's view of B's rate = 1.0000, B's view of A's rate = 0.4359 ticks per second.

Differentials:

A - B and B - A = 0.0000

A's view - B's view and vicea-versa = 0.0000

Now show an error in my computation or admit your failure to properly lable Relativity's time dilation as being perception and not reality.

We all understand that tick rates correlate directly to accumulated time.

HINT: There is no changes in the twins ages DUE TO RELATIVE VELOCITY.

HINT: Claims that muon decay or the H&K Atomic Clock tests prove relativity are fraudulent statements. Both actually violate Relativity itself with respect to relative velocity and Relativity.

 

[Persol]

Anybody else find it funny when MacM gives hints?

Your 'reciprocity' is still the same argument you were using when you challenged the Earth/Ship problem. This has been done for you numerous times. I'm not quite sure what it is you don't grasp. Hell, just look at a time-space diagram.... they've posted dozens.

 

[Pete]

Having gotten correect time dilation factors, what is the differential in terms of recorded times of A - B and B - A's recorded rates locally?___________

I don't understand this question, Mac. Can you spell it out, please?

 

[MacM]

Anybody else find it funny when MacM gives hints?

Your 'reciprocity' is still the same argument you were using when you challenged the Earth/Ship problem. This has been done for you numerous times. I'm not quite sure what it is you don't grasp. Hell, just look at a time-space diagram.... they've posted dozens.

For the record: Readers he failed again to accept the challange to answer the simple case presented, not has he given any errors in my presentation.

That should tell you something.

 

[Pete]

Try this, Mac.

In all frames, the spacetime interval between two ticks of Clock A = 1 light-second
In all frames, the spacetime interval between two ticks of Clock B = 1 light-second

Spacetime interval is a combination of distance (s) and time (t) between two events:
spacetime interval = √(t² - s²)

Now:
Do you agree that in frame A, there is zero distance between two ticks of A's clock?
Do you agree that in frame B, there is some distance (0.9 light-seconds) between two ticks of A's clock?
Do you agree that in frame B, there is zero distance between two ticks of B's clock?
Do you agree that in frame A, there is some distance (0.9 light-seconds) between two ticks of B's clock?

What do you conclude from this about the time between events?

Do you find it so difficult to consider that if distance is relative, then time might be as well?

 

[MacM]

I don't understand this question, Mac. Can you spell it out, please?

You are pulling my leg aren't you.?

Do the relative velocity time dilation for respective clock views and subtract one from the other. That is make the assumption that A is at rest and calculate B as per A's view.

Set B at rest and calculate B's view of A's rate.

1 - A's clock rate as per A's view minus B's rate per B's view.

2 - A's view of B's rate minus B's views of A's rate.

 

[Pete]

1 - I clearly stated "Valid" refutation. Yours was crap.

2 - See Refutation of your Refutation [post=685076]Here[/post]

James R's refutation was perfectly logical - as was mine.

Your attempt at rebuttal relies on assuming that A's clock rate in B's frame is the same as B's local rate - which is what you were attempting to prove to begin with.

Do you need another tutorial on circular logic?

 

[Pete]

You are pulling my leg aren't you.?

Do the relative velocity time dilation for respective clock views and subtract one from the other. That is make the assumption that A is at rest and calculate B as per A's view.

Set B at rest and calculate B's view of A's rate.

1 - A's clock rate as per A's view minus B's rate per B's view.

2 - A's view of B's rate minus B's views of A's rate.

OK - but what's the point?

All you've done is demonstrate the symmetry of time dilation.

You conclusion (that time dilation is perception, not reality) is a non-sequitur. You might as well be reading tea-leaves.

If you want to talk about the reality of time dilation, why don't you address the original post of the thread?

 

[MacM]

James R's refutation was perfectly logical - as was mine.

Your attempt at rebuttal relies on assuming that A's clock rate in B's frame is the same as B's local rate - which is what you were attempting to prove to begin with.

Do you need another tutorial on circular logic?

I won't argue if it is logical or not but it isn't correct. Also stop assuming what I believe and solve the relationships for yourself or at least show mathematical error in my presentation.

 

[MacM]

OK - but what's the point?

All you've done is demonstrate the symmetry of time dilation.

You conclusion (that time dilation is perception, not reality) is a non-sequitur. You might as well be reading tea-leaves.

If you want to talk about the reality of time dilation, why don't you address the original post of the thread?

You seem to have conceeded the numerical computations but want to agrue the conclusions. I do find that bizzar since the net result is zero. There can be only one conclusion "There is no time dilation in physical reality". It is a perception imposed on the moving observer but does not affect clock tick rates physically.

 

[Pete]

Each clock rightly maintains that (in their own frame), they stopped before the other clock.

Certainly. And the amount of such differential view is equal. Hmmm. Seems they actually stopped simultaneously.

Only to fools.

If you apply numbers to each clocks view where each say they stopped 30 minutes before the other clock, what does that tell you?

It tells you exactly what it says. Wvents that happen in one order in one frame happen in a different order in another frame.

Why are you so desperate for it to mean something else?

The answer isn't really all that difficult.

You making it difficult for yourself by dogmatically refusing to consider the possibilty that time isn't universal.


It's not that difficult, Mac.

Do you accept the possibility that time and space are intricately intertwined, that time can look like space and vice versa?

Do you accept that the notion of "in the same place" is relative? That things that happen in the same place for me happen in different places for you?

Is it really so hard for you to extend that concept to "at the same time"?

 

[Pete]

There can be only one conclusion "There is no time dilation in physical reality".

I disagree, and I challenge you to spell out your logic.

 

[MacM]

Only to fools.

hardly a scientific or conviencing answer.

It tells you exactly what it says. Wvents that happen in one order in one frame happen in a different order in another frame.

Do the calculation in the Challenge and post your data. Is that so difficult?

Why are you so desperate for it to mean something else?

I am not the one that is desperate.

You making it difficult for yourself by dogmatically refusing to consider the possibilty that time isn't universal.

I am not considering time is universal. I do claim you (and others here) misrepresent the meaning of Relativity with respect to reciprocity for constant relative velocity and/or congruent simultaneous acceleration..

Do you accept the possibility that time and space are intricately intertwined, that time can look like space and vice versa?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Do the calculations and post your data.

Do you accept that the notion of "in the same place" is relative? That things that happen in the same place for me happen in different places for you?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Do the calculations and post your data.

Is it really so hard for you to extend that concept to "at the same time"?

It is not hard to extend any concept as long as it is viable in its results and conclusions. But data using the relavistic formulations show, without valid arguement, that there is no net time differential between clocks due to relative motion.

Do the calculations and post your data.

 

[MacM]

I disagree, and I challenge you to spell out your logic.

Right after you do the calculations and post your data.

 

[MacM]

Try this, Mac.

In all frames, the spacetime interval between two ticks of Clock A = 1 light-second
In all frames, the spacetime interval between two ticks of Clock B = 1 light-second

Spacetime interval is a combination of distance (s) and time (t) between two events:
spacetime interval = √(t² - s²)

Now:
Do you agree that in frame A, there is zero distance between two ticks of A's clock?
Do you agree that in frame B, there is some distance (0.9 light-seconds) between two ticks of A's clock?
Do you agree that in frame B, there is zero distance between two ticks of B's clock?
Do you agree that in frame A, there is some distance (0.9 light-seconds) between two ticks of B's clock?

What do you conclude from this about the time between events?

Do you find it so difficult to consider that if distance is relative, then time might be as well?

You appear to not only have insufficent information to stipulate 0.9 light-seconds but I disagree with your conclusions. However, this is off topic. If you post it elsewhere I may participate.

Do the relative velocity calculation showing reciprocity and post your data.

 

[Pete]

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.

But in any given reference frame, the velocities are not necessarily reciprocal (there is only one frame in which they are).

Let's see why this is important in the context of your synchronization procedure.


In [post=684082]this post[/post], I addressed Mac's attempt to show that two moving clocks can be synchronized in all frames at once.

Here is the point of divergence:

6 - Based on this any change in the system relative between clocks will be observed by each clock at the same actual instant if the change(s) are induced locally at each clock at the same instant.

I maintain that this is only true if the two clocks have equal speed in opposite directions.
For example, it isn't true if one clock is stationary and the other is moving.

Mac says that the relative velocity is all that matters, and went on to develop his "reciprocity" notion.

We followed with a short discusion about cars on the highway.

Let's take it from there:

Mac maintains that for two objects in constant relative motion, if two events happen at the same time on both objects, then each will observe the others event at the same time as well.

Let's test it out:

Object A is sitting still.
Object B flies past at 0.5c

When B is 1 light second away, both objects simultaneously send a flash of light to each other.

According to MacM, this means that both objects will receive the others flash of light at the same time.

Is this true?