Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[tsmid]

Have a look at my webpage Time Dilation and Twin Paradox Debunked which shows through a simple thought experiment as well as general arguments that the twin paradox can not be resolved, i.e. time dilation does not exist.

 

[Silas]

I managed about 6 pages of this thread, so I'm jumping 41 pages to discover that MacM still fails to understand the fundamental difference between his view and that of Pete and JamesR and PaulT etc. There is no point in starting all the calculations again, since you in fact all agree on the results.

When A reaches 36000, A sees that all the clocks stop.
B has reached 35824 (or whatever)
C has reached 15964 (or whatever).

But when B's clock stops, he looks at his TV monitor on which A's clock is shown and it indicates that A's clock has only reached 6894 (o/w).

Let us say that you stopped all the clocks with particle entanglement resolution, originating from clock A reaching 36000 seconds. The clocks would have to stop simultaneously. But when B looks at the TV monitor on which he can see A's time, he says, "But A has only reached 6894, so it hasn't resolved its particle - so why did my clock stop?" This is the apparent paradox which caused Einstein to deny that quantum uncertainty and particle entanglement could really imply ftl information transfer, otherwise you would end up with precisely the paradox that there is such a thing as absolute simultaneity, and also that there is no such a thing as absolute simultaneity.

Relativity - time dilatation, length contraction and simultaneity relativity - can be derived from first principles without using any mathematics simply by consideration of the nature of light. Relativity derives solely from the invariance of the speed of light.

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.

But you seem to be stating that relativity might be wrong because we work from the wrong assumptions. But relativity is not based on assumptions, it's based on the observed fact that the velocity of light is invariant with respect to the motion of the person measuring it. From this absolutely verifiable fact (the first experience of which was the Michelson-Morley experiment) all else follows - including the relativity of simultaneity.

However, the only other solution (which I'm not sure would be accepted by either side, although it may be the answer to the whole thing) is that the laws of physics are not invariant between reference frames.

No doubt somewhere in those 41 pages this has already been posted, but it's worth another look. <a href="http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html#XII">Experimental Basis for Special Relativity - Time Dilatation, Clock Paradox</a> and check out D: Experiments with Macroscopic Clocks".

 

[Pete]

But you seem to be stating that relativity might be wrong because we work from the wrong assumptions.

Hi Silas!
In this thread, I am being purely theoretical - clinically examining the logical conclusions of assumptions, without thought for experimental physics (which I know next to nothing about, anyway).

I think I said something like that about 400 posts into the thread, but (unsurprisingly), it got lost in the noise.

 

[Pete]

Have a look at my webpage Time Dilation and Twin Paradox Debunked which shows through a simple thought experiment as well as general arguments that the twin paradox can not be resolved, i.e. time dilation does not exist.

New thread please, tsmid.

 

[MacM]

I managed about 6 pages of this thread, so I'm jumping 41 pages to discover that MacM still fails to understand the fundamental difference between his view and that of Pete and JamesR and PaulT etc. There is no point in starting all the calculations again, since you in fact all agree on the results.

When A reaches 36000, A sees that all the clocks stop.
B has reached 35824 (or whatever)
C has reached 15964 (or whatever).

But when B's clock stops, he looks at his TV monitor on which A's clock is shown and it indicates that A's clock has only reached 6894 (o/w).

Let us say that you stopped all the clocks with particle entanglement resolution, originating from clock A reaching 36000 seconds. The clocks would have to stop simultaneously. But when B looks at the TV monitor on which he can see A's time, he says, "But A has only reached 6894, so it hasn't resolved its particle - so why did my clock stop?" This is the apparent paradox which caused Einstein to deny that quantum uncertainty and particle entanglement could really imply ftl information transfer, otherwise you would end up with precisely the paradox that there is such a thing as absolute simultaneity, and also that there is no such a thing as absolute simultaneity.

Relativity - time dilatation, length contraction and simultaneity relativity - can be derived from first principles without using any mathematics simply by consideration of the nature of light. Relativity derives solely from the invariance of the speed of light.

But you seem to be stating that relativity might be wrong because we work from the wrong assumptions. But relativity is not based on assumptions, it's based on the observed fact that the velocity of light is invariant with respect to the motion of the person measuring it. From this absolutely verifiable fact (the first experience of which was the Michelson-Morley experiment) all else follows - including the relativity of simultaneity.

However, the only other solution (which I'm not sure would be accepted by either side, although it may be the answer to the whole thing) is that the laws of physics are not invariant between reference frames.

No doubt somewhere in those 41 pages this has already been posted, but it's worth another look. <a href="http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html#XII">Experimental Basis for Special Relativity - Time Dilatation, Clock Paradox</a> and check out D: Experiments with Macroscopic Clocks".

I don't agree with some of your numbers but that isn't worth argueing about. The issue is is Relativity physical reality or perception. My position is clearly that it is perception in that physical clocks do not record the times expected by a relavistic observer. Indeed they cannot since multiple observers would require physical clocks to disply a multiple different accumulated times, which is impossible.

You however, seem to say your faith is based on observed experiments and data. Let me remind you that there are alternative explanations for such data, further there is even more evidence that our current conclusions as to the meaning of such data is simply flat wrong.

As in the example above. It is claimed that it takes infinite energy to accelerate to v = c. According to the mathematics it will take 3.2 times the energy to accelerate to 0.95c than the normal amount of energy at subluminal velocities. That is at typical day to day speeds.

However, this conclusion is clearly false. We have numerous masses such as ejected Quasar material which is moving toward us at 0.95c and we find no change in our ability to accelerate when it happens to be directed toward such masses.

The experimental data, i.e. - particle accelerators yield the illusion of mass change as a result of energy transfer efficiency decrease in the process and not as a consequense of relative motion to any other mass. (at least that is my view).

The fact that light appears invariant and has a finite velocity and that EM waves obey this velocity limit actually proves nothing with respect to anyother masses motion in the universe.

It should be no surprise that EM wave propagation being limited to v = c, that magnetic drives in particle accelerators lose efficiency as the relative velocity between the field and the particle approaches the speed limit of the driving force and that the particle becomes more difficult to acclerate. But that has nothing to do with particle mass.

The blinders that most have adjusted to is truely amazing.

 

[Silas]

You however, seem to say your faith is based on observed experiments and data. Let me remind you that there are alternative explanations for such data, further there is even more evidence that our current conclusions as to the meaning of such data is simply flat wrong.

A reasonable cause for acceptance of a theory, no matter how outlandish, is provided by experimental backup. Einstein proposed a totally outlandish theory (please do not quote these words out of context), and then experimental results showed that in fact all the outlandish predicitons of Relativity in fact came true. It is a failure to implement Occam's Razor to have a theory, see experimental confirmation, and then think that the experimental results were due to some alternative theory. The experimental results don't merely show that something different and non-intuitive is happening, they coincide with the predictions of Relativity. This is why Relativity is a Strongly Accepted theory; though not as Strong as the Quantum Standard Model which is even more outlandish and yet provides even more accurate predictions of experimental results.

Secondly, when one's reasonable conclusions are based upon the confirmed results of experiments it is at least slightly bad manners to refer to those conclusions as "faith" - particularly on this board!

As in the example above. It is claimed that it takes infinite energy to accelerate to v = c. According to the mathematics it will take 3.2 times the energy to accelerate to 0.95c than the normal amount of energy at subluminal velocities. That is at typical day to day speeds.

However, this conclusion is clearly false. We have numerous masses such as ejected Quasar material which is moving toward us at 0.95c and we find no change in our ability to accelerate when it happens to be directed toward such masses.

Ejected Quasar material moving towards us at 2c would have been a conclusive denial of the theory. Just because it takes 3.2 times as much energy as you would expect at normal speeds, doesn't mean that an exploding quasar (whatever that is) is not capable of producing that amount of energy. Theory states that it takes 3.2 times the normal amount of energy required, not that it takes 3.2 times the amount of energy available.

 

[Pete]

We have numerous masses such as ejected Quasar material which is moving toward us at 0.95c and we find no change in our ability to accelerate when it happens to be directed toward such masses.

Nor should we. I'm surprisd that you think that Relativity implies we should.

 

[MacM]

A reasonable cause for acceptance of a theory, no matter how outlandish, is provided by experimental backup. Einstein proposed a totally outlandish theory (please do not quote these words out of context), and then experimental results showed that in fact all the outlandish predicitons of Relativity in fact came true. It is a failure to implement Occam's Razor to have a theory, see experimental confirmation, and then think that the experimental results were due to some alternative theory. The experimental results don't merely show that something different and non-intuitive is happening, they coincide with the predictions of Relativity. This is why Relativity is a Strongly Accepted theory; though not as Strong as the Quantum Standard Model which is even more outlandish and yet provides even more accurate predictions of experimental results.

Secondly, when one's reasonable conclusions are based upon the confirmed results of experiments it is at least slightly bad manners to refer to those conclusions as "faith" - particularly on this board!

Ejected Quasar material moving towards us at 2c would have been a conclusive denial of the theory. Just because it takes 3.2 times as much energy as you would expect at normal speeds, doesn't mean that an exploding quasar (whatever that is) is not capable of producing that amount of energy. Theory states that it takes 3.2 times the normal amount of energy required, not that it takes 3.2 times the amount of energy available.

I happen to agree with your post upto one and only one point you have ommitted.

Acceptance of a theory, however bizzar or counter intuitive, is fine but ignoring the requirements of reciprocity is not.

That is while certainly a Quasar has tremenodous power and the gain in energy requirement of 3.2/1 is nothing for it, the fact is you have ignored the fact that relative velocity is relative velocity and for you to accelerate you car in the direction of such relavistic mass also requires that you apply 3.2 time the normal power to accelerate your car.

Since we see no evidence of such external enfluences due to relative velocity to other masses in the universe one must conclude that the data we have observed is due to some other cause than relative velocity to other masses.

The most logical conclusion is that particles "appear" more massive and require greater energy to accelerate because of the relative velocity between themselves and the magnetic driving force and not due to relative velocity of other masses in the surrounding universe.

You simply cannot ignore the lack of evidence of any kind of change in our ability to accelerate in any direction when there are numerous masses that are moving relavistically relative to us.

Further to assume mass is relavistically linked to an observers view once again makes every mass possess multiple masses simultaneously. That is if you are moving 0.1c and I am moving 0.3c relative to a bowling ball the bowling ball must have two different masses at the same time to satisfy your view of reality.

In my view that does not happen but you still have the requirement for increased energy to accelerate the mass.

 

[Pete]

ignoring the requirements of reciprocity is not.

It is if the concept of "reciprocity" is flawed.

It does seem to be flawed, you know... you can't prove it theoretically, you can't show experimental support, and we have a clear theoretical counterexample. Why do you cling to it so?

 

[AndersHermansson]

You simply cannot ignore the lack of evidence of any kind of change in our ability to accelerate in any direction when there are numerous masses that are moving relavistically relative to us.

That statement proves you don't understand relativity.

 

[MacM]

That statement proves you don't understand relativity.

Well talk is cheap. You have three choices:

1 - Somehow claim that such Quasar mass doesn't obey Relativity and our motion relative to it therefore is exempt. Which it would not be.

2 - You, I or the Quasar mass are the same thing according to Relativity and motion relative to you, I or the Quasar mass obey Relativity. Which there is no evidence of.

3 - Evidence of Relativity is being mis-interpreted and it is not relative velocity between masses which causes increased energy requirement but relative velocity between the mass being accelerated and the driving force that causes the affect due to a decrease in energy transfer efficiency.

#3 is the only rational choice since there is no evidence that it takes 3.2 times the energy to accelerate in the direction of such Quasar mass in relative motion to us at 0.95c.

 

[AndersHermansson]

You stated that if an object is moving fast relative to us, then there is "change in our ability to accelerate". There's no such implication in relativity, hence you don't understand it. It's really quite simple, there's no need to make a 40+ page thread about it.

Well talk is cheap. You have three choices:

1 - Somehow claim that such Quasar mass doesn't obey Relativity and our motion relative to it therefore is exempt. Which it would not be.

2 - You, I or the Quasar mass are the same thing according to Relativity and motion relative to you, I or the Quasar mass obey Relativity. Which there is no evidence of.

3 - Evidence of Relativity is being mis-interpreted and it is not relative velocity between masses which causes increased energy requirement but relative velocity between the mass being accelerated and the driving force that causes the affect due to a decrease in energy transfer efficiency.

#3 is the only rational choice since there is no evidence that it takes 3.2 times the energy to accelerate in the direction of such Quasar mass in relative motion to us at 0.95c.

 

[MacM]

You stated that if an object is moving fast relative to us, then there is "change in our ability to accelerate". There's no such implication in relativity, hence you don't understand it. It's really quite simple, there's no need to make a 40+ page thread about it.

Well, sorry to see you take this stand since you are simply flat wrong.

It would be interesting to see you justify your position.

CASE:

1 - Relativity claims it takes an increasing amount of energy to accelerate a mass at relavistic velocities compared to some other referance mass.

2 - What is the ratio of energy required to accelerate a particle when its relative velocity is 0.95c to a refereance mass compared the energy required when it is at rest relative to the same mass? _____________ (Your answer better be 3.2 times the amount of energy.)

3 - I am in space and you have a relative velocity to me of 0.95c, is your requirement for energy 3.2 times what it was when we started and we were at relative rest to each other? Yes or No?

4 - I happen to be encompassed and at rest relative to and in Quasar ejecta material. Are you now claiming that this 0.95c relative velocity doesn't count? I would like to see you justify that thinking.

Talk is cheap. You need to give specific arguements as to why you believe you can differentiate Quasar material from anyother referance we might choose arbitrarily where the 3.2 energy ratio would be applied.

Requiring 3.2 times the energy makes it most observable. Your car requiring 120 Hp to accelerate 0 - 60 Mph normally should now require 384 Hp to accelerate 0 - 60 Mph when it is in the direction of Quasar ejecta which has a 0.95c relative velocity to you car.

Please do more than spout words show meaningful proof that this is not the case as mandated by Relativity.

 

[Paul T]

Talk is cheap. You need to give specific arguements as to why you believe you can differentiate Quasar material from anyother referance we might choose arbitrarily where the 3.2 energy ratio would be applied.

Requiring 3.2 times the energy makes it most observable. Your car requiring 120 Hp to accelerate 0 - 60 Mph normally should now require 384 Hp to accelerate 0 - 60 Mph when it is in the direction of Quasar ejecta which has a 0.95c relative velocity to you car.

Your above statement indicates that you don't even understand the first postulate of SR (All laws of physics have the same mathematical form in all inertial reference frames). Why do you expect a car need more power to accelerate simply because there is quasar ejecta coming to us at velocity 0.95c? Is that quasar ejecta movement affecting us in anyway?

Of course there is no easy way for you to grasp the issue since you had them all mixed up. Before you learn enough to describe the problem correctly using the correct concept I don't see there is any point to argue with you on this matter.

 

[Persol]

Of course there is no easy way for you to grasp the issue since you had them all mixed up. Before you learn enough to describe the problem correctly using the correct concept I don't see there is any point to argue with you on this matter.

See, but someone will explain this to MacM, and then in a few months he'll claim he knew the answer all along and was only testing us.

 

[Pete]

My position is clearly that it is perception in that physical clocks do not record the times expected by a relavistic observer.

Your position is that events which are simultaneous in one frame are simultaneous in all frames. You have not been able to produce sound reasons for this position - you appear to be relying solely on your intuition.


If you do not assume that unsupported position, then relativity produces logical, consistent results.

 

[Pete]

Mac,
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]

Mac,
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.

I do wish you and others here would take the wax out of yours ears. I have not claimed events simultaneous in one frame are simultaneous in any other frame. You are argueing your own version(s) of what I have said and are ignoring what I have said.

Perhaps if you should stick to the issue we could see some progress.

 

[Persol]

I do wish you and others here would take the wax out of yours ears. I have not claimed events simultaneous in one frame are simultaneous in any other frame. You are argueing your own version(s) of what I have said and are ignoring what I have said.

Perhaps if you should stick to the issue we could see some progress.

And what exactly IS the issue? You seem to change it every time someone points out your error.

 

[MacM]

And what exactly IS the issue? You seem to change it every time someone points out your error.

It was not an error of mine being pointed out. It ws a false statement about what I believe. Making false statements are not pointing out errors. My only changes are clarifications to eliminate the changing of the case in question by those seeking to justify their own beliefs.