Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[Pete]

FromB's perspective, those events were not simultaneous

I disagree

Then you contradict yourself.
You stated above that "perspective alters the conclusion of what is simultaneous".

Does B have a different perspective to A, or not?
Does this alter B's conclusion of what is simultaneous, or not?

 

[Pete]

"B" is stopped at the correct time to satisfy "A's" relavistic view.

Correct.

IT IS NO LONGER RUNNING. It does not and cannot continue to change recorded times.

Clock B can not accumulate any more ticks once it is stopped.

Being stopped at 4.359 hours "B", by relavistic time dilation expects "A" to only read 1.9 hours.

From B's perspective Clock A *can* accumulate more ticks after clock B is stopped.

 

[Pete]

All agree that B stops when it reads 35820 seconds.

How did you arrive at this number?

The three clock problem from the start of the thread.
Clock A stationary, Clock B 0.1c, Clock C 09.c

Having been physically stopped by "A" at its appropriate relavistic time (simultaneously with "A" reading 10 hours - IF Relativity is valid) then after its 4.359 hours of operation believes relavistically that "A" should read 1.9 hours = 6,840 seconds. It doesn't it reads 10 hours.

From clock B's perspective, clock A (or the clock A monitor if you like) reads:
35642 seconds when clock B stops, and
36000 seconds when clock A stops.

 

[MacM]

No - we found that the results were *not* reversed.

This is clearly worked through starting with [post=694446]this post[/post].
You say you can't see a problem with it. It is not a difficult scenario.

No. NOt "We", "You" found that the reslts were not equelivent. That is for me certainly an indicator that you have slipped up someplace. I just haven't had time to go though and find it yet.

But I can assure you it is there since it is mathematically unsound to claim that switching referance frames does not produce reciprocity. In reciprocity the numbers are equal.

Switching frames must contain reciprocity since both relative velocity and distance factors are equal. You simply cannot divide 100/10 = 10 in one view and in the otlher view have 100/10 = 9 or 100/8 = 12.5, etc.

Unfortunately you have failed to retain reciprocity somewhere. I will try to find it by this evening but I haven't had time yet to search through and pin point where you dropped the ball.

 

[MacM]

Prove it.

That sir is an unsupportable request. It is not unlike saying 10 * 10 = 100 and you saying prove it. It is a shallow retreat into irrelevant quagmire of proofs of mathematical principle which is beyond the scope I, and I susspect even you, are prepare to argue, especially in a forum such as this.

 

[MacM]

Am I far, or not?

Simultaneity depends on frame of reference (perspective, if you will), remember.

In one frame of reference (A's), they stopped simultaneously.

Correct so let me become more specific here rather than go back as I was prepared to do this morning and expand on something I said in an earlier post.

I have not meant to claim that when an observer sees his clock stop that he doesn't continue to see the other clock continue to run. He does.

But what you seem to fail to understand is he cannot and does not see the clock continue to run beyond the point at which it was stopped.

When "A" stops B's clock, "A" does ot see 4.359 hours he sees a lesser number and sees the clock continue to run up and until it stops at 4.359 hours as it should. But the clock is stopped at 4.359 hours and NOTHING about Relativity allows the clock to appear to A or B to continue to run past the accumulated time of 4.359 hours.

B sees his clock stop at 4.359 hours but sees A's as well under the 1.9 hours that he expects it to read according to his clock having stopped at 4.359 hours. But B also sees A's clock continue to run well past the relavistic calculation of 1.9 hours required by Relativity, as does A.

Recorded clock times do NOT match calculated relavistic clock times each observer claims is real time dilation or change by Relativity. According to B's clock stopping at 4.359 hours and inaccordance with time dilation as viewed from B's perspective A's clock should stop at 1.9 hours. It doesn't.

A's clock stops and records 10 hours, not the 1.9 hours required by Relativity for time dilation from B's view to be physically real.

Can you comment on this issue?

 

[Quantum Quack]

<img src=http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3349&stc=1>

Pete with reference to the two diagrams:

Am I correct in saying that it is the invariance of light that causes the lack of reciprication.

Now if we use bullets instead of light then reciprication is available regardless of frame perpective but becasue the velocity of A and the fact that that velocity is unable to be subtracted from teh velocity of light we have a state that is not reciprical.

 

[MacM]

Correct so let me become more specific here rather than go back as I was prepared to do this morning and expand on something I said in an earlier post.

I have not meant to claim that when an observer sees his clock stop that he doesn't continue to see the other clock continue to run. He does.

But what you seem to fail to understand is he cannot and does not see the clock continue to run beyond the point at which it was stopped.

When "A" stops B's clock, "A" does not see 4.359 hours, he sees a lesser number and sees the clock continue to run up and until it stops at 4.359 hours as it should. But the clock is stopped at 4.359 hours and NOTHING about Relativity allows the clock to appear to A or B to continue to run past the accumulated time of 4.359 hours. Physically stopped clocks do not continue to run and accumulate <a href="http://www.srch-results.com/lm/rtl.asp?k=time%20clocks" onmouseover="window.status='time. Clocks'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">time. Clocks</a> stopped where there is information delay only appear to continue to run from a display that is less than their actual recorded time, until they reach the displayed time at which they stopped.

B sees his clock stop at 4.359 hours but sees A's as well under the 1.9 hours that he expects it to read according to his clock having stopped at 4.359 hours. But B also sees A's clock continue to run well past the relavistic calculation of 1.9 hours required by Relativity, as does A.

Recorded clock times do NOT match calculated relavistic clock times each observer claims is real time dilation or change by Relativity. According to B's clock stopping at 4.359 hours and inaccordance with time dilation as viewed from B's perspective A's clock should stop at 1.9 hours. It doesn't.

A's clock stops and records 10 hours, not the 1.9 hours required by Relativity for time dilation from B's view to be physically real.

Can you comment on this issue?

And finally. It IS my view that when "A" stops at 10 hours and B stops at 4.359 hours they do IN FACT stop simultaneously in real time. I know you will argue that point and say "Prove it" but that frankly is not only nonsense which requires relativity to be wrong in first principles.

But more importantly is to understand that it is a moot issue and that the primary issue is the recorded accumulated times vs the relavistically predicted times, WHICH DO NOT MATCH.

The simultaneity issue comes down to this:

There is a tick rate time dilation from A's view of B's clock and B's view of A's clock predicted by Relativity. This rate shift in theory should produce an accumulated recorded time display which results in the actual time having passed and being displayed tick per tick of 1 tick for A resulting in only 0.4359 ticks at B, such that when "A" reaches 10 hours "B" will simultaneously have accumulated, display and have recorded 4.359 hours. Both clocks stopping at those times by their display, by principles of reciprocity means they MUST have stopped simultaneously.

To claim otherwise is to claim display of time is not concurrent with accumulation of time. There is nothing to suggest much less support such a concept.

Arguing simultaneity, length contraction and other relavistic principle somehow veto such basic principles frankly is a lot of hand waving and diversion from trying to come to any conclusion as to how Relativity purportedly functions.

I for one am not that easily distracted and have followed the true function of Relativity to its conclusion. It has been my effort to help others see the forest for the trees. As yet that seems to have been in vain but that doesn't detract from the facts of the case or mean I lack understanding.

It is infact just the contrary.

 

[Pete]

That sir is an unsupportable request. It is not unlike saying 10 * 10 = 100 and you saying prove it. It is a shallow retreat into irrelevant quagmire of proofs of mathematical principle which is beyond the scope I, and I susspect even you, are prepare to argue, especially in a forum such as this.

Mac, if this statement:

IF you have a reversable sequence, symmetrical or not, Reciprocity produces the same result.

Is simply a definition of reciprocity, then fine, I accept that definition - and conclude that reciprocity produces false results, because I have clearly shown that reversed situations do not produce the same (but opposite) results.


So, what I am asking you to prove is that reciprocity is compatible with either Reality or Relativity.

If you can't, then why (given the counterevidence) should I accept it? Why should you accept it?

 

[MacM]

Then you contradict yourself.
You stated above that "perspective alters the conclusion of what is simultaneous".

Does B have a different perspective to A, or not?
Does this alter B's conclusion of what is simultaneous, or not?

I clarified what I meant to say.

 

[MacM]

Mac, if this statement:


Is simply a definition of reciprocity, then fine, I accept that definition - and conclude that reciprocity produces false results, because I have clearly shown that reversed situations do not produce the same (but opposite) results.


So, what I am asking you to prove is that reciprocity is compatible with either Reality or Relativity.

If you can't, then why (given the counterevidence) should I accept it? Why should you accept it?

I'll be working on it this evening. In the mean time how about addressing my post immediately above.?

 

[Persol]

Pete, too much endurance. You'll be battling an infinite number of the same exact problem, phrased slightly differently. He's been here almost 2 years and is still stuck on the same problem he came here with.

 

[MacM]

Pete, too much endurance. You'll be battling an infinite number of the same exact problem, phrased slightly differently. He's been here almost 2 years and is still stuck on the same problem he came here with.

Correction. I am not stuck. However, you seem to be inthat you have no viable explanation for the situation presented and have withdrawn to making unrelated commentary.

 

[Persol]

unrelated, perhaps you should look that word up.

 

[MacM]

From B's perspective Clock A *can* accumulate more ticks after clock B is stopped.

Absolutely. I said so, but it does not see 1.9 hours when it stops at 4.359 hours. That reading is delayed being percieved also it continues to see A tick but it should see "A" stop at 1.9 hours. It doesn't and indeed "A" records 10 hours.

What happened to B's view of "A"? It was not reality. The reality was 10 hours. 1.9 hours is a phoney time unsupported in reality.

 

[MacM]

Pete,

Reciprocity of Light Signals Done Properly to Scale. "t" are in seconds. Fig 1 is shown for A at rest and B in motion at 0.5c. Fig 2 is B at rest and A in motion at 0.5c.

Seperation between A and B is 1 light second. Light signals are sent between them at t0. In each case the light signal reaches the rest clock at t1 and the moving clock at t2. The functions are completely reversable.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3367&stc=1

For an enlarged and more clear view, move your coursor from the right of your screen onto the diagram, then click on the orange square when it appears.

 

[Pete]

Since you want to insist on a relative speed of 0.9c, but I want to reuse the investment I put in to your three-clock scenario early in the thread, I propose a compromise.

We use the three-clock scenario, we talk about clocks A and C (which have a relative velocity of 0.9c), and we talk in seconds, rather than hours.

Here's the [post=674117]SR analysis of the three clocks scenario[/post] to refresh your memory.

Correct so let me become more specific here rather than go back as I was prepared to do this morning and expand on something I said in an earlier post.

I have not meant to claim that when an observer sees his clock stop that he doesn't continue to see the other clock continue to run. He does.

But what you seem to fail to understand is he cannot and does not see the clock continue to run beyond the point at which it was stopped.

Well what he sees or doesn't see is irrelevant, but to address your point...
Of course the clock does not continue to run beyond the point at which it was stopped. I don't know what you think I'm thinking, but nothing I've said implies such a thing.

Please consider these questions. The first four are trivial, since they are defined by the problem.
The last two are for you.

Q - In A's frame, when was clock A stopped?
A - 36000 seconds, by its programmed timer.

Q - In C's frame, when was clock C stopped?
A - 15692 seconds, by its programmed timer.

Q - In A's frame, did clock A and clock C stop simultaneously?
A - Yes, that's what the programmed timers are for.

Q - What does that imply about when clock C stopped in A's frame?
A - In A's frame, Clock C stopped after 36000 seconds.

Q - In C's frame, did clock A and clock C stop simultaneously?

Q - What does that imply about when clock A stopped in C's frame?

When "A" stops C's clock, "A" does ot see 4.359 hours he sees a lesser number and sees the clock continue to run up and until it stops at 4.359 hours as it should. But the clock is stopped at 4.359 hours and NOTHING about Relativity allows the clock to appear to A or B to continue to run past the accumulated time of 4.359 hours.

C sees his clock stop at 4.359 hours but sees A's as well under the 1.9 hours that he expects it to read according to his clock having stopped at 4.359 hours. But C also sees A's clock continue to run well past the relavistic calculation of 1.9 hours required by Relativity, as does A.

Recorded clock times do NOT match calculated relavistic clock times each observer claims is real time dilation or change by Relativity. According to C's clock stopping at 4.359 hours and inaccordance with time dilation as viewed from C's perspective A's clock should stop at 1.9 hours. It doesn't.

A's clock stops and records 10 hours, not the 1.9 hours required by Relativity for time dilation from C's view to be physically real.

Can you comment on this issue?

You're getting yourself confused with light-travel delays affecting perception.
Forget about when each clock actually sees the other stop, just worry about when they conclude that the other stopped after allowing for light travel time. You can use a local monitor of the other's clock to achieve this, if you want.
Remember that perspective (reference frame) alters the conclusion (not perception) of what is simultaneous.

The requirement of Relativity is that C concludes (not perceives) that clock A stops some time after clock C stops; after 82590 seconds, to be precise.


Read that again, and make sure you understand what I'm saying.
Here it is in a nutshell:

Clock C stops when it reads 15692 ticks, in all frames.
In C's frame, this happens after 15692 seconds.
In A's frame, this happens after 36000 seconds.

Clock A stops when it reads 36000 ticks, in all frames.
In A's frame, this happens after 36000 seconds.
In C's frame, this happens after 82590 seconds.



Read it carefully. No clock keeps ticking after it stops, so please stop suggesting that I say it does.

 

[Pete]

Pete,

Reciprocity of Light Signals Done Properly to Scale. "t" are in seconds. Fig 1 is shown for A at rest and B in motion at 0.5c. Fig 2 is B at rest and A in motion at 0.5c.

Seperation between A and B is 1 light second. Light signals are sent between them at t0. In each case the light signal reaches the rest clock at t1 and the moving clock at t2. The functions are completely reversable.

You made a mistake that I almost made, and is exactly the reason that I had to add the D and E objects to the scenario to keep track.

Here's the problem:
In A's frame, A and B emit their signals at the same time.
But what about in B's frame?

We know that both signals reach E at the same time.
This shows that in B's frame, the signals are not emitted simultaneously, but that B emits its signal before A does.

 

[Pete]

And finally. It IS my view that when "A" stops at 10 hours and B stops at 4.359 hours they do IN FACT stop simultaneously in real time. I know you will argue that point and say "Prove it" but that frankly is not only nonsense which requires relativity to be wrong in first principles.

So you simply can not accept the possibility that simultaneously for A does not mean simultaneously for B, and this is why you reject SR?


Let's be perfectly clear on this - this is important!

You are absolutely sure that if two events are determined to be simultaneous in one frame of reference, then they must also be simultaneous in all frames of reference.

Agree?

It is a requirement of Special Relativity that the simultaneity of two events is frame dependent - that events which are determined to be simultaneous in one frame might not be simultaneous in another. (This follows directly from the assumption of frame invariance of light-speed.)

Agree?

If you agree with both those statements, then I absolutely agree that the only conclusion you can draw is that the Theory of Relativity is nonsense. This is a logical conclusion. It means you've gone one better than the student's in James's thread who believe in contradictory ideas. I applaud your fortitude in standing up for your belief in the absoluteness of Time, and for recognising that your belief means that relativity can't be true.




However!

Although you are absolutely sure that if two events are determined to be simultaneous in one frame of reference, then they must also be simultaneous in all frames of reference, you haven't actually proven it.

If someone accepts (counter your own judgement) the possibility that two simultaneous events might not be simultaneous in a different frame, then the Theory of Relativity poses no physical impossibilities (eg no clock needs to read two different times at once).



Therefore!

When you argue Relativity with someone who knows anything about it, it is not necessary to discuss any scenarios. It is enough for you to say "I am absolutely sure that simultaneity is not frame dependant, therefore I can not accept Relativity." That's all. That's your point of departure from "relativists". Any discussion beyond that is pointless, because you are working from different assumptions.


So I think that's it for this thread, I think.

If you don't want to budge on being sure that if two events are determined to be simultaneous in one frame of reference, then they must also be simultaneous in all frames of reference, then it's pointless to proceed.

 

[MacM]

Pete,

1 - Lets select your easiest and best configuration.

2 - I only used 3 Clocks in the initial presentation since it includes Velocity Addition. However, It actually adds nothing to my point and further complicates the analysis. Unless you prefer working in that realm I am content to stick with 2 clocks.

3 - I only choose 0.9c in that it provided a greater differential to emphasize the affect. I am also content to work with 0.5c in that it can be graphed more easily.

4 - It will likely be early next week before I can get back to this I have had to reformat my <a href="http://www.srch-results.com/lm/rtl.asp?k=hard%20drive" onmouseover="window.status='hard drive'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">hard drive</a> due to an increasing number of operational problems with the computer. I am responding this morning from the office.

5 - Thanks for you continued participation. I think if we maintain civility we can make progress here.