Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[MacM]

MacM:

Your problem with the definition of a reference frame is becoming more and more relevant.

And your limited vision is also becoming apparent. See below.

If I set my watch right now to t=0, then in two minutes time I will exist at t=2 minutes, according to me. According to you, then 0.0000001 seconds after now, I cease to exist.

What you are missing is that two minutes later you still exist at t=0. The concept of time flowing is an illusion of change or events being recorded sequentially in the brain. Before you say so let me point out that I understand that to occur sequentially requires what you want to call time but we will get to that later.

The time t=0 does not shift. What shifts is objects or people in spacetime. In particular, even when they sit still in space, they still move through time.

Ah but t=0 does shift, otherwise you would cease to exist now. This is the very basis of my dynamic present formed of past events concept of time.

I exist at t=0. But I also exist at all other times, during my life span.

Your concept of time flow is infact only a dynamic present. An accumulation of mentally filed recollections of t=0's.

In light of this new knowledge, you might like to reconsider the meaning of the spacetime diagrams previously presented to you.

No object ever moves into the past and future simultaneously.

Here is where you are lost. You t=0 (Dynamic Present) very much indeed is comprised of nothing but past event throughout the universe as a function of information delay about such event (changes). They arrive at your spatial ordinate point at t=0 to create an instant called present. That is your existance in relation to the condition or state of everythingelse in the universe.

That dynamic present is unique to you and you alone. A person 2 feet from you does not share that unique dynamic present. His is comprised of events throughout the universe which via information delay that include conditions of other enities in the universe as they were both in the future and past in relation to the collective conditions in the unvierse that comprised your dynamic present. His t=0 exists both in the past and future relative to your t=0.

Every planck ordinate point around every other planck ordinate point exists both in the past and future relative to the specific ordinate point from which you mark your present of t=0.

Hence you must travel both into the past and future simultaneously when you are in motion.

Then how do you account for the fact that I can walk across the room?

It is called "Dynamic Present" in "Static" time. But I would expect you to be able to understand. You are to conventional to think outside the box. You don't grasp the uniqueness of reality that well as you have made clear.

Wrong. t=0 is one 3 dimensional slice of a 4 dimensional spacetime. It is the whole of space as it exists at one set time.

That is incorrect. At t=some value, any object might be travelling at velocity v.

(x,y,z,t) is one coordinate system. (x',y',z',t') is another coordinate system. I exist in both coordinate systems, provided they refer to the same universe - the one that I am in.

You either thought I errored or you simply missed it but you should not have put the " ' " after the second set of coordinates. We are talking of the "NOW" "Present" t = t and not t'.

My point is you do not ever exist in two coordinates at the same instant, so even in motion you are at rest and t=0. That is why you can assume either A or B is at rest.

What you call time flow is nothing more than energy causing change and information delay about such change reaching your ordinate point. It is not that time does not exist. It is a matter of time not being an independant enity. It is a "Property" of an energetic space.

In your universe their is no physical principle given for why gravity dilates time but you claim it does. In my universe gravity dilates time because the production of gravity is absorbing spatial energy.

 

[MacM]

To all interested people:

There has been much confusion about what a reference frame is or is not.

For that reason, I have started a thread, explaining the concept for those who, like MacM, are confused about the concept. Here it is:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=694403#post694403

Only one thing wrong with your post. I happen to concur with your referenced post on frames. So MacM is not confused about reference frames as you repeatedly and erroneously continue to state.

We happen to disgree as to the signifigance of frames and what they actually mean. If you read carefully I think you will see that my disertation about "Dynamic Present" in "Static Time" parallels your presentation of unique x,y,z,t existance.

So the problem is not my not understanding frames but your inability to interprete that all existance is at a local t=0 even when you are "In Motion".

In terms of your physics you are never in motion, it is the rest of the universe that is in motion. You only exist at rest v=0 and at t=0.

 

[Pete]

Actually "No". Your diagrams are good evidence that perspective alters the conclusion of what is simultaneous.

Essentially, this means our work here is done, since most arguments in this discussion have been over your denial of this concept.

Your post shows the timing from one perspective. Now reverse that perspective, just as I have done for time dilation and you find the reverse is true.

Of course. Perspective alters the conclusion of what is simultaneous.

You actually make it fairly easy to pose an interesting question. Since it would appear that in one direction the light takes 1 second to reach the observer and 10 seconds (basied on a relative veloicty of 0.9c) to reach the other.

However, that situation referse when you rightfully change your view of who is at rest.

Not quite.
Don't forget that perspective alters what is simultaneous... so when you choose a different reference frame, you can no longer count on the emissions being simultaneous.
In the reverse situation, the flash from the stationary observer is emitted before the flash from the moving observer. This obviously changes the numbers.

The question becomes this what does recievers mounted to each clock show was the respective time they receive light after having transmitted light?

Just as with clocks and accumulated times displayed, the answer that is reality is the one, and only one, that the recievers record and the recievers CANNOT record two different time delays between transmittal and recepit of light.!!!

I beg to differ - there are two receivers, each records one time delay.
Two different time delays are recorded.
Both are reality.

Whatever that recorded time delay is it is going to be equal in both directions. That will be the reality and not the two different times as projected by Relativity.

I agree it is the reality, and suggest that there are two different times.
I will work through the logic in the next post. Please forgive me for using a relative speed of 0.5c, it means I can reuse my diagram.

 

[Pete]

First, we need to establish some fixed events so that we don't fall into any simultaneity traps. We can only guarantee simultaneity across frames for events occuring in the same place at the same time, so let me add a couple of elements to the situation.

Let's add an Emitting device (E), stationary in A's frame and 0.5 light-seconds away, that receives flashes from A and B simultaneously, and simultaneously emits two more flashes.
We will also need a dummy object (D) stationary in A's frame to mark the event of B emitting a flash of light, like so:

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3357&stc=1">
Edit - The diagrams aren't precisely scaled.
For instance, in the last box in that diagram, B should obviously be further to the left.​

Following through to completion, we find that in A's frame, A receives a flash 1 second after emitting, and B receives a flash 2 seconds after emitting.

OK so far?

 

[Pete]

Now, we can look at the same situation in B's frame.
Here is the situation when B emits its flash:

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3358&stc=1">​

Note that initial distances are adjusted for length contraction, and that the emission of light from A is not marked because we don't yet know when that happened.
Rolling forward 0.87 seconds, B's light flash reaches E... and now we know where A's flash is as well!

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3359&stc=1">​

This means that if we want to, we can work backward and determine that A emitted that flash 0.29 seconds earlier, or 0.58 seconds after B emitted its flash.

Rolling forward another 0.87 seconds, we find that the two flashes reach their receivers simultaneously (interesting!!).

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3360&stc=1">​

So in B's frame, B receives a flash 1.73 seconds after emitting, and A receives a flash 1.15 seconds after emitting..

How did you go?

For reader convenience and efficient reuse, I have also combined all diagrams into a simgle image: Combined diagrams

 

[James R]

MacM:

Having had reference frames explained to you, you're now completely retreating into MacM fantasy land. I suppose it is the only place left to hide.

If I set my watch right now to t=0, then in two minutes time I will exist at t=2 minutes, according to me. According to you, then 0.0000001 seconds after now, I cease to exist.

What you are missing is that two minutes later you still exist at t=0. The concept of time flowing is an illusion of change or events being recorded sequentially in the brain. Before you say so let me point out that I understand that to occur sequentially requires what you want to call time but we will get to that later.

In fact, this agrees with the relativistic picture, and I understand that picture quite well, thankyou. Events are fixed points in spacetime. In my lifetime, I exist at many events. Some are at t=0; others are not.

Ah but t=0 does shift, otherwise you would cease to exist now. This is the very basis of my dynamic present formed of past events concept of time.

Your "dynamic present" is ill-defined and meaningless, as far as I can tell.

Your concept of time flow is infact only a dynamic present. An accumulation of mentally filed recollections of t=0's.

Did you bother reading my thread on reference frames? It is not true that every event occurs at t=0, MacM. If it was, the reference frame concept would be useless. More than that, the notion of time would be useless.

According to you, everything happens at the same time. You must be nuts.

You t=0 (Dynamic Present) very much indeed is comprised of nothing but past event throughout the universe as a function of information delay about such event (changes). They arrive at your spatial ordinate point at t=0 to create an instant called present. That is your existance in relation to the condition or state of everythingelse in the universe.

That dynamic present is unique to you and you alone. A person 2 feet from you does not share that unique dynamic present. His is comprised of events throughout the universe which via information delay that include conditions of other enities in the universe as they were both in the future and past in relation to the collective conditions in the unvierse that comprised your dynamic present. His t=0 exists both in the past and future relative to your t=0.

We are obviously talking about different things. I have been talking about the times measured on clocks, but you seem to want to now say that every clock always measures t=0.

On the other hand, maybe you are simply struggling to explain how one particular event is affected by events in its past. Relativity has a much clearer explanation than you do. Have you ever heard of "light cones"?

Every planck ordinate point around every other planck ordinate point exists both in the past and future relative to the specific ordinate point from which you mark your present of t=0.

Why can I not find the term "Planck ordinate point" in any physics textbook?

You just made it up, didn't you? And you didn't even bother defining it. It could be a pink MacM fairy from MacM fairy land, for all we know.

Hence you must travel both into the past and future simultaneously when you are in motion.

This is plainly nutty.

You are to conventional to think outside the box. You don't grasp the uniqueness of reality that well as you have made clear.

I certainly don't grasp the uniqueness of your "reality". Your reality has no time, yet all objects continuously travel both backwards and forwards in that non-existent time.

You make no sense. I don't ask for much, but some form of logic would be nice.

You either thought I errored or you simply missed it but you should not have put the " ' " after the second set of coordinates. We are talking of the "NOW" "Present" t = t and not t'.

Read my thread on reference frames and learn what a reference frame is.

In particular, note that events do not have to occur at t=0, or t'=0 or t''=0 or at anything=0.

My point is you do not ever exist in two coordinates at the same instant, so even in motion you are at rest and t=0. That is why you can assume either A or B is at rest.

Poor confused MacM.

Read my thread on reference frames. Every event exists at coordinates which depend on the chosen reference frame. You are always free to choose a reference frame such that one particular object is at rest, but it is not necessary. And objects are only ever at rest in their rest frames. They are not always at rest in every frame, like in your fantasy. If that was true, nothing would move, by definition.

Turn on your brain.

What you call time flow is nothing more than energy causing change and information delay about such change reaching your ordinate point. It is not that time does not exist. It is a matter of time not being an independant enity. It is a "Property" of an energetic space.

This is so vague and ill-defined as to be meaningless.

In your universe their is no physical principle given for why gravity dilates time but you claim it does.

That is false. Matter and energy curves spacetime, and that results in time dilation.

In my universe gravity dilates time because the production of gravity is absorbing spatial energy.

So energy is not conserved in your universe. And space has some kind of weird, undetectable energy, supposedly. And time goes both backwards and forwards at the same time. And clocks always read zero.

Give me a break.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Having written the previous post, I have had a few thoughts.

It seems this discussion has become very antagonistic. I am actually not the kind of person who likes dealing out judgments on the intellctual capacity, moral fibre and so on of other people. However, when dealing with people who actually can't grasp reality, and who insist that their particular fantasies are real, I can get frustrated, and that comes out in my posts.

It seems to me that you will never believe in anything other than your fantasy world which you created for yourself as a teenager. You are most likely too set in your ways to ever change. Certainly, I judge that nothing I say will ever have the slightest effect on your underlying delusions.

So, I think I'm going to stop here.

I'm sick of being annoyed that you can't understand simple explanations. I'm sick of repeating myself. I'm sick of having to re-iterate points which I spent time carefully explaining to you in detail in the past. I am sicking of wasting my time writing careful, detailed explanations which you discard with only the briefest glance and then pretend they were never posted.

I don't want to keep insulting you, and that is bound to happen if we continue. I'm sure you'd be a great guy to have a beer with or something, but when it comes to physics you have limited education, no real clues, an inability to cope with concepts and mathematics, and, most of all, a set of cherished preconceived notions which actually prevent you from considering counter-arguments rationally.

A wise man once said that it is a waste of time having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, so this is where I get off, for this thread anyway.

 

[Paul T]

I would be interested to see you explain your existance at some other time than t=0.

Hahaha, this guy must be a dead man. He believes that time always at t=0. This is funny.

 

[Pete]

Actually "No". Your diagrams are good evidence that perspective alters the conclusion of what is simultaneous.

You know, this means we could rewind over 850 posts and address your three clock problem once more.

Can you consider the possibility that when your three clocks are stopped simultaneously in clock A's rest frame, perhaps they are not stopped simultaneously in clock B's frame or clock C's frame?

 

[MacM]

Essentially, this means our work here is done, since most arguments in this discussion have been over your denial of this concept.

No. I reject the conclusions that you attach to such relavistic disparaties, not the simultaneity we observe.

In the reverse situation, the flash from the stationary observer is emitted before the flash from the moving observer. This obviously changes the numbers.

I beg to differ - there are two receivers, each records one time delay.
Two different time delays are recorded.
Both are reality.

Correct but you seem to choose to deny the reciprocity issue where the displayed delays reverse if you assume the other is at rest. The displays cannot and do not vary with an observers view. Only the predicted display actually changes due to relavistic mathematics. One is perception the other reality.

 

[Pete]

Mac, I very carefully worked through the reverse situation, and am insulted that you haven't bothered looking at it.

Regarding reciprocity, I'm really not sure what you mean by it, so I'm careful to work from more fundamental principles. If those principles indicate that "reciprocity" is denied, then so be it.

 

[Pete]

No. I reject the conclusions that you attach to such relavistic disparaties

Perhaps it is worthwhile re-examing the logic leading to those conclusions, since you now accept that motion affects simultaneity.

 

[MacM]

Perhaps it is worthwhile re-examing the logic leading to those conclusions, since you now accept that motion affects simultaneity.

Don't be frustrated. I have not ignored your posts or diagrams. i am working on how to best describe what I see happening there but I only have time this morning to respond to this post.

I have never denied simultaneity due to motion. I do suggest it has impliction that have different conclusion than those you advocate.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Having written the previous post, I have had a few thoughts.

It seems this discussion has become very antagonistic. I am actually not the kind of person who likes dealing out judgments on the intellctual capacity, moral fibre and so on of other people. However, when dealing with people who actually can't grasp reality, and who insist that their particular fantasies are real, I can get frustrated, and that comes out in my posts.

I will take this as a form of an apology, albiet a highly qualified one. However, it is accepted in that I fully recoginize that my view is not easily assimilated. Perhaps in part due to my own lack of good presentation. I have been trying become more sysinct.

It seems to me that you will never believe in anything other than your fantasy world which you created for yourself as a teenager. You are most likely too set in your ways to ever change. Certainly, I judge that nothing I say will ever have the slightest effect on your underlying delusions.

Your assumption that I do not understand the presentation and claims of simultaneity and/or Relativity are infact ill concieved. What you seem to not understand is how anybody could reject their conclusions; which I do. I am infact totally flexiable and willing to change my views when appropriate evidence is put forth or a sufficiently logical explanation is given.

As will become evident below however, many of your beliefs about what I believe are simply incorrect.

So, I think I'm going to stop here.

Certainly your perogative but I encourage you to reconsider.

I'm sick of being annoyed that you can't understand simple explanations. I'm sick of repeating myself. I'm sick of having to re-iterate points which I spent time carefully explaining to you in detail in the past. I am sicking of wasting my time writing careful, detailed explanations which you discard with only the briefest glance and then pretend they were never posted.

What you are sick of is the fact that you have not yet suceeded in conviencing me you are correct. But part of the problem is that you have no flexiability of your own to actually visualize new concepts. You often go off claiming I have said or believe something which is outright false and nonsense.

If I actually believed half of the things you and others here have asserted then I would be the first to agree it would be a nonsensical thought pattern but frankly that is not the case. I do not believe many of the things you seem to think that I believe.

I don't want to keep insulting you, and that is bound to happen if we continue. I'm sure you'd be a great guy to have a beer with or something, but when it comes to physics you have limited education, no real clues, an inability to cope with concepts and mathematics, and, most of all, a set of cherished preconceived notions which actually prevent you from considering counter-arguments rationally.

Yours unfortunately is a biased opinion based on your own preconcieved ideas of what reality is. Far to many times you have not listened or thought about what has been said and simply have rejected it outright since it is not already discussed in current text books.

A wise man once said that it is a waste of time having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, so this is where I get off, for this thread anyway.

Let me suggest you at least read my responses to your prior thread and perhaps continue to lurk at the discussion even if you opt to cease participation.

 

[Pete]

I have never denied simultaneity due to motion.

Remember your three clocks scenario, in which the three clocks are programmed to stop simultaneously in A's frame?

Remember how you said that this also meant that they stopped simultaneously in B's frame and C's frame?

 

[MacM]

MacM:

In fact, this agrees with the relativistic picture, and I understand that picture quite well, thankyou. Events are fixed points in spacetime. In my lifetime, I exist at many events. Some are at t=0; others are not.

Only partially accurate. True you exist in a time gradient such that you can say I exist now (t=o) and two minutes later claim I still exist and t=2. But that is not a valid thought. t doesnot equal 2 it equals t=0 which is always the present. t=2 is a historical record and no longer exists, it is referance a past existance, not the present.

Your "dynamic present" is ill-defined and meaningless, as far as I can tell.

That is actually funny since it is very much in deeping with your light cone view but properly expanded. More on this later.

Did you bother reading my thread on reference frames? It is not true that every event occurs at t=0, MacM. If it was, the reference frame concept would be useless. More than that, the notion of time would be useless.

Of course I read it and I agree with what you jpresent but not your conclusions as to what meaning or affect that has.

According to you, everything happens at the same time. You must be nuts.

This is a perfect example of where you go widly wrong. I hve never said that. I would never accept that and my view doesnot allow, require or cause that.

We are obviously talking about different things. I have been talking about the times measured on clocks, but you seem to want to now say that every clock always measures t=0.

Again this shows your lack of comprehension. All clocks do not measure t = 0. They measure and accumulate time in a dynamic t=0 frame, which is always the present.

On the other hand, maybe you are simply struggling to explain how one particular event is affected by events in its past. Relativity has a much clearer explanation than you do. Have you ever heard of "light cones"?

Of course and as far as they go they are valid but they are to limited to describe reality. Your light cone must be rotated full circle through every steradian degree which then causes each ordinate point within the cone around you to consist of both past and future, except your dynamic present which exists only at the vertex of the cone.

Why can I not find the term "Planck ordinate point" in any physics textbook?

You just made it up, didn't you? And you didn't even bother defining it. It could be a pink MacM fairy from MacM fairy land, for all we know.

In fact it is a term which I have created but I should lthink it is self explanatory. It is the entire volume of the universe layed out in grid points one planck length apart. each intersect of the grid is a spatial ordinate point.

This is plainly nutty.

I certainly don't grasp the uniqueness of your "reality". Your reality has no time, yet all objects continuously travel both backwards and forwards in that non-existent time.

You make no sense. I don't ask for much, but some form of logic would be nice.

Actually if ou had an ability to listen more and ask question more, rather than making fiat declaration about current concepts you would probably have converted by now.

Read my thread on reference frames. Every event exists at coordinates which depend on the chosen reference frame. You are always free to choose a reference frame such that one particular object is at rest, but it is not necessary. And objects are only ever at rest in their rest frames. They are not always at rest in every frame, like in your fantasy. If that was true, nothing would move, by definition.

Once again you have shown a complete lack of understanding. Of course from other frames of reference I or you do not remain at rest in those frames but my present, my existance, is always at t=0 and v=0.

Turn on your brain.

I clearly have.

That is false. Matter and energy curves spacetime, and that results in time dilation.

Of course you can explain this and give a good physical description of the process, right?

So energy is not conserved in your universe.

Why on earth would you think that.? Because energy flow is being absorbed and creates gravity?

Well you must also not forget that UniKEF is the flow of energy from every planck ordinate point in an ongoing creation of time-space.

The expansion of the universe is being powered by this influx of additional space (energy).

And space has some kind of weird, undetectable energy, supposedly. And time goes both backwards and forwards at the same time. And clocks always read zero.

You sure ran that through the blender. But with regard to wierd, undeticatable, let us not forget Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Now let me clarify the term "Reciprocity" since you are correct others have not applied it to Relativity but should. You have confused "Symmetry" with "reciprocity". They are not the same.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3363&stc=1

A sine wave is symmetrical, as can be a square wave or triangular wave etc. But varying function, i.e. - acceleration, then constant velocity and deceleration and including the gamma function in Relativity are not symmetrical.

Applying Reciprocity is to reverse whatever form of curve or graph of a function one has, it can even be a series of random noise spikes. You can aply Reciprocity which nullifies, cancels the net output.

That is what happens when you apply Reciprocity to Relativity. You do that by reversing the view of the frame of referance to the other observer or clock.

 

[MacM]

Remember your three clocks scenario, in which the three clocks are programmed to stop simultaneously in A's frame?

Remember how you said that this also meant that they stopped simultaneously in B's frame and C's frame?

I remember and there may be some ambiguity here but the 3 Clock Paradox was to compare clocks which were stopped simultaneously. I don't believe I claimed that excluded other frames from not seeing it as being simultaneous.

Infact as I recall I made a point of saying that B and C thought A stopped the test prematurely before the 10 hours test was over. It was the clock data as recorded by the clocks compared to the anticipated beliefs of the other clock observers that were of concern. Stopping all clocks in A's frame showed that the clocks did not record the time that others thought they should show.

 

[Pete]

I remember and there may be some ambiguity here but the 3 Clock Paradox was to compare clocks which were stopped simultaneously. I don't believe I claimed that excluded other frames from not seeing it as being simultaneous.

So it's not a problem for you that in B's reference frame, clock A keeps ticking after clock B stops?

 

[Janus58]

I remember and there may be some ambiguity here but the 3 Clock Paradox was to compare clocks which were stopped simultaneously. I don't believe I claimed that excluded other frames from not seeing it as being simultaneous.

It is not that the other frames do not see it as being simultaneous, it is that it is not simultaneous in their frames.

Infact as I recall I made a point of saying that B and C thought A stopped the test prematurely before the 10 hours test was over. It was the clock data as recorded by the clocks compared to the anticipated beliefs of the other clock observers that were of concern. Stopping all clocks in A's frame showed that the clocks did not record the time that others thought they should show.

What "anticipated beliefs" would those be. All the clocks were pre-programed to stop at pre-determined readings. Thus if clock A were pre-programed to stop when it read 10 hrs, the only "anticipated belief' that clock observers B & C could have is that clock A stopped when it read 10 hrs, regardless of what time clock A read according to B or C when B or C themselves stopped.

(And when I say the time clock A reads according to B or C, I do not mean what they see clock A reading, but the actual time on clock A at that instant according to A or B.)

 

[Pete]

you seem to choose to deny the reciprocity issue where the displayed delays reverse if you assume the other is at rest.

What do you mean by "displayed delays"?