Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[Yuriy]

So, it is time to stop this mess...Let me do it. I promise, if MacM will not avoid reply or somebody will reconstruct his arguments, you will see evident mathematical and simplest physical mistakes this guy does…

1. Whole this threat is based on the wrong calculation. In so called "MacM's 3Clock case" the right numbers are the following:
Per A:
B = Tb = Ta * [1-Vb^2]^1/2 = 9.949874______at Tb = 10__and Vb=0.1_
C = Tc = Ta * [1-Vc^2]^1/2 = 4.358899______at Tc = 10__and Vc=0.9_

Per B:
1)
A = Ta = 9.949874* [1-Vb^2]^1/2 = 9.899999___at Ta = 10_ and Vb=0.1_
C = Ta = 9.949874* [1-Vcb^2]^1/2 = 3.959004___at Ta = 10_ and Vc=0.9_
and
2)
A = Ta = 10 * [1-Vb^2]^1/2 = 9.949874____at Tb = 10__ and Vb=0.1_
C = Ta = 10 * [1-Vcb^2]^1/2 = 3.978949___at Tb = 10___ and Vc=0.9_

Per C:
1)
A = Ta = 4.358899 * [1-Vc^2]^1/2 = 1.900000___at Ta = 10_ and Vb=0.1_
C = Ta = 4.358899 * [1-Vcb^2]^1/2 = 1.734384___at Ta = 10_ and Vc=0.9_
and
2)
A = Ta = 10 * [1-Vc^2]^1/2 = 4.358899_____at Tc = 10____ and Vb=0.1_
B = Ta = 10 * [1-Vcb^2]^1/2 = 3.978949____at Tc = 10____ and Vc=0.9_
_

because B and C see velocity
Vcb = (0.1+0.9)/(1+01*09) = 1/1.09 = 0.917431
for each other.

For "Per B" and "Per C" answers are given in two cases:
1) If all observers (by some unknown reason) read all clocks at same moment when their clocks are showing the time, which observer A calculates they should have when he has 10 hrs past the moment of clocks synchronization.
2) If each observer read clocks when his own clock shows 10 hrs past moment of synchronization.
Now, what wrong comes out those numbers, which can be used as proof SRT is wrong or describes reality in wrong way?

 

[James R]

Yuriy,

I suggest you go back and read the whole thread before you wade in with new numbers.

MacM has already been conclusively proven wrong, over and over again.

 

[MacM]

So, it is time to stop this mess...Let me do it. I promise, if MacM will not avoid reply or somebody will reconstruct his arguments, you will see evident mathematical and simplest physical mistakes this guy does…

1. Whole this threat is based on the wrong calculation. In so called "MacM's 3Clock case" the right numbers are the following:
Per A:
B = Tb = Ta * [1-Vb^2]^1/2 = 9.949874______at Tb = 10__and Vb=0.1_
C = Tc = Ta * [1-Vc^2]^1/2 = 4.358899______at Tc = 10__and Vc=0.9_

Per B:
1)
A = Ta = 9.949874* [1-Vb^2]^1/2 = 9.899999___at Ta = 10_ and Vb=0.1_
C = Ta = 9.949874* [1-Vcb^2]^1/2 = 3.959004___at Ta = 10_ and Vc=0.9_
and
2)
A = Ta = 10 * [1-Vb^2]^1/2 = 9.949874____at Tb = 10__ and Vb=0.1_
C = Ta = 10 * [1-Vcb^2]^1/2 = 3.978949___at Tb = 10___ and Vc=0.9_

Per C:
1)
A = Ta = 4.358899 * [1-Vc^2]^1/2 = 1.900000___at Ta = 10_ and Vb=0.1_
C = Ta = 4.358899 * [1-Vcb^2]^1/2 = 1.734384___at Ta = 10_ and Vc=0.9_
and
2)
A = Ta = 10 * [1-Vc^2]^1/2 = 4.358899_____at Tc = 10____ and Vb=0.1_
B = Ta = 10 * [1-Vcb^2]^1/2 = 3.978949____at Tc = 10____ and Vc=0.9_
_

because B and C see velocity
Vcb = (0.1+0.9)/(1+01*09) = 1/1.09 = 0.917431
for each other.

For "Per B" and "Per C" answers are given in two cases:
1) If all observers (by some unknown reason) read all clocks at same moment when their clocks are showing the time, which observer A calculates they should have when he has 10 hrs past the moment of clocks synchronization.
2) If each observer read clocks when his own clock shows 10 hrs past moment of synchronization.
Now, what wrong comes out those numbers, which can be used as proof SRT is wrong or describes reality in wrong way?

As usual Yuriy your diatribes are babble and hard to read. Your BS does nothing but spout the company line and fails to address basic issues in conflict.

I'm way ahead of you here. To simply bring you up to date;

CASE:

1 - Assume Relativity valid.

2 - Take three clocks "A", "B" and "C", calibrated and functioning perfectly.

3 - Forget all the babble about you cannot synchronize remote clocks without light signals crap etc., we don't even need to send them into relative motion. Hmmmm.

4 - Place timers on the clocks which are in agreement with calculations predicted by Relativity.

5 - The test will be for 10 hours "A" time.

6 - The assumed relative velocity of the clocks will be 0.9 c.

7 - Gamma for 0.9 c = 2.294

8 - Which means timer "B" will be set to 15,692 seconds and timer "A" is set to 36,000 seconds.

9 - Clock "C" is assumed aboard the theoretical spaceship with clock "B" and it represents "B's" view of clock "A".

10 - Since "B" shuts down after 15,692 seconds and views "A" as running slow, the math specifies that "B" predicts "A" should have stopped at 6,840 seconds when his clock stopped at 15,692 seconds.

11 - Run the test.

12 - When "A" runs out clocks are compared.

13:

"A" reads 36,000 seconds.

"B" reads 15,692 seconds

"C" (B's) prediction of "A's clock reading" reads 6,840 seconds.

Hmmm "We have a problem Houston" "B's" view of "A" according to relativity predictions failed to be upheld. "A" actually reads 36,000 seconds, not 6,840 seconds.

When "B" stopped he saw "A's" clock continue to run past 6,840 seconds. It should have stopped

An alternate method to using preset timers based on the assumption of the validity of Relativity is to simply calibrate clock tick rates to the relative tick rates predicted by Relativty.

The results are the same after 10 hours (or any specified test time). The clocks to not agree with all relavistic observers views.

CONCLUSION: Relativity at best is Perception and not physical reality.

 

[James R]

Yuriy,

To bring you up to date, I note here that the "problem" MacM has raised here has been addressed multiple times in the course of this thread. MacM doesn't understand the explanations given to him, or refuses to accept them.

I am not longer contributing to this thread, since I know that nothing I say on the subject will change MacM's mind. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

 

[MacM]

Yuriy,

To bring you up to date, I note here that the "problem" MacM has raised here has been addressed multiple times in the course of this thread. MacM doesn't understand the explanations given to him, or refuses to accept them.

I am not longer contributing to this thread, since I know that nothing I say on the subject will change MacM's mind. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

My mind hasn't changed since nothing contributed changed the situation. If one simply accepts the FIAT then sure the problem vanishes. But reality requires more than fiat declarations.

 

[Yuriy]

These are direct answers on all your last clauses. I have put in square brakets all words you have (us usual for you) missed, but which are essential to understand what we are talking about.

1 – [Principle of] Relativity [of Motions] is assumed valid.
2 – [Three identical ideal clocks "A", "B" and "C” are taken]
3 – [Those three clock are synchronized at moment t = 0].
4 – [The ideal identical timers are attached to each of clocks "A", "B" and "C"]
{your statement “which are in agreement with calculations predicted by Relativity” I simply do not understand. What it should mean?}.
5 - The test will be for 10 hours "A" time. [I guess one can assume that here you tried to say that all readings will be taken at moment when clocks “A” will show 10hrs after the synchronization. Let it be so.]
6 - The assumed relative [to clocks “A”] velocity of the clocks [“B”] will be 0.9 c.
7 - Gamma for 0.9 c = 2.294 [Indeed]
8 - Which means timer "B" will be set to 15,692 seconds and timer "A" is set to 36,000 seconds.[Indeed]
9 - Clock "C" is assumed aboard the theoretical spaceship with clock "B" [I was considering your first “3Clocks Case”. This is another problem, but it is OK, let’s consider this one] and it represents "B's" view of clock "A". [I have no clue what you are trying to say in the highlighted words, but I guess it is not important for further calculations]
10 - Since "B" shuts down after 15,692 seconds and views "A" as running slow [why slow? Exactly with speed v = 0.9c in opposite direction – exactly that the Principle of relativity of Motions requires], the math specifies that "B" predicts "A" should have stopped at 6,840 seconds when his clock stopped at 15,692 seconds. [It is correct]
11 - Run the test.[We already doing that]
12 - When "A" runs out clocks are compared.[What you mean here?]
13:
[When]
"A" reads 36,000 seconds.[Then]
"B" reads 15,692 seconds
"C" [why you are mentioning here “C”, at all?] (B's) prediction of "A's clock reading" reads 6,840 seconds.[Correct conclusion here is the following: “Clocks “A” should read 6,840 seconds”]
Hmmm "We have a problem Houston" "B's" view of "A" according to relativity predictions failed to be upheld. "A" actually reads 36,000 seconds, not 6,840 seconds. [Fact is that reading of clocks “A” do not coincides with prediction of observer “B”.]

What amazed you so much? You do not now that SRT states that time is running differently in the different inertial reference frames? That clocks in different inertial reference frames are showing different readings between any two events occurring in the different places? That Minkowski intervals, not the time’s intervals are Lorentz invariants?

Try to calculate Minkowski interval for those two events – 1) synchronization of clocks and 2) reaching 10hrs after that on clock “A” – and you will see that this Minkowski interval is the same for both (and any other) inertial observers “A” and “B” is the same.

Where from you came to your fanny “CONCLUSION: Relativity at best is Perception and not physical reality. “

 

[Yuriy]

James R,
1.I read all thread to find out what level of participants we have on this Forum.
2.I know this guy, MacM. You should not take "a philological" discussions with him - it is endless. You can not stop him to post more and more the same anti-scientific messages.
3.But we have to neutralize his wrong influence on the young people by the direct and mathematically clear pictures of his arrogance.
My first step is to show that he misplaced fact of invariance of Minkowski interval by wrong assumption that time interval should be invariant at Lorentz transformations. Let everybody knew that, for start.

 

[MacM]

These are direct answers on all your last clauses. I have put in square brakets all words you have (us usual for you) missed, but which are essential to understand what we are talking about.

1 – [Principle of] Relativity [of Motions] is assumed valid.

2 – [Three identical ideal clocks "A", "B" and "C” are taken]

3 – [Those three clock are synchronized at moment t = 0].

4 – [The ideal identical timers are attached to each of clocks "A", "B" and "C"]
{your statement “which are in agreement with calculations predicted by Relativity” I simply do not understand. What it should mean?}.

Not a surprise. You think your view is the only correct view even about Relativity. Well mister you think you can tangle with me; others here will straighten your ass out. Several I have seen are a hell of a lot sharper than you ever were and your smart ass attitude will get you buried. Have fun here. I will.

5 - The test will be for 10 hours "A" time. [I guess one can assume that here you tried to say that all readings will be taken at moment when clocks “A” will show 10hrs after the synchronization. Let it be so.]

6 - The assumed relative [to clocks “A”] velocity of the clocks [“B”] will be 0.9 c.

7 - Gamma for 0.9 c = 2.294 [Indeed]

Oh you mean I didn't screw up your precious math?

8 - Which means timer "B" will be set to 15,692 seconds and timer "A" is set to 36,000 seconds.[Indeed]

9 - Clock "C" is assumed aboard the theoretical spaceship with clock "B" [I was considering your first “3Clocks Case”. This is another problem, but it is OK, let’s consider this one] and it represents "B's" view of clock "A". [I have no clue what you are trying to say in the highlighted words, but I guess it is not important for further calculations]

It means Relativity predicts that "B" will also see "A" running slower than itself while "A" sees "B" running slower than itself.

10 - Since "B" shuts down after 15,692 seconds and views "A" as running slow [why slow? Exactly with speed v = 0.9c in opposite direction – exactly that the Principle of relativity of Motions requires], the math specifies that "B" predicts "A" should have stopped at 6,840 seconds when his clock stopped at 15,692 seconds. [It is correct]

11 - Run the test.[We already doing that]

No we were establising the relationship of the clocks per predictions of Relativity.

12 - When "A" runs out clocks are compared.[What you mean here?]

It would help Yuriy if you understood english. Not only for reading but your writing.

It means that the readings upon the completeion of the 10 hours test from "A's" perspective, the clocks do not support all observers predicted views according to Relativity.

13:

[When]
"A" reads 36,000 seconds.[Then]
"B" reads 15,692 seconds
"C" [why you are mentioning here “C”, at all?] (B's) prediction of "A's clock reading" reads 6,840 seconds.[Correct conclusion here is the following: “Clocks “A” should read 6,840 seconds”]

LIke I said it would help if you understood english. that is what I said "A" should read (according to "B" 6,840 seconds. It doesn't, it reads 36,000 seconds.

Hmmm "We have a problem Houston" "B's" view of "A" according to relativity predictions failed to be upheld. "A" actually reads 36,000 seconds, not 6,840 seconds. [Fact is that reading of clocks “A” do not coincides with prediction of observer “B”.]

What amazed you so much? You do not now that SRT states that time is running differently in the different inertial reference frames? That clocks in different inertial reference frames are showing different readings between any two events occurring in the different places? That Minkowski intervals, not the time’s intervals are Lorentz invariants?

What amazes me is that you and so many others think Relativity is physical reality since that would require multiple displays of accumulated time simultaneously and is physically impossible.

My assertion is that Relativty is an illusion of motion and no observers view alters the physical reality of the clocks.

Try to calculate Minkowski interval for those two events – 1) synchronization of clocks and 2) reaching 10hrs after that on clock “A” – and you will see that this Minkowski interval is the same for both (and any other) inertial observers “A” and “B” is the same.

Where from you came to your fanny “CONCLUSION: Relativity at best is Perception and not physical reality. “

No need to calculate anything unless you can show how clock "A" can read both 36,000 seconds and 6,840 seconds at the same time. Short of that I am right and you are wrong. End of arguement.

 

[MacM]

James R,
1.I read all thread to find out what level of participants we have on this Forum.
2.I know this guy, MacM. You should not take "a philological" discussions with him - it is endless. You can not stop him to post more and more the same anti-scientific messages.
3.But we have to neutralize his wrong influence on the young people by the direct and mathematically clear pictures of his arrogance.
My first step is to show that he misplaced fact of invariance of Minkowski interval by wrong assumption that time interval should be invariant at Lorentz transformations. Let everybody knew that, for start.

BTW: You still pissed Yuriy after a couple of physicists agreed with me on a couple of your know-it-all points before?

You will do well to even properly answer my questions without generating FIAT declarations. They don't count for much here. This isn't Bible School where we all sit up and listen to the preacher. Put your Bible down and get ready to talk physics.

 

[geistkiesel]

BTW: You still pissed Yuriy after a couple of physicists agreed with me on a couple of your know-it-all points before?

You will do well to even properly answer my questions without generating FIAT declarations. They don't count for much here. This isn't Bible School where we all sit up and listen to the preacher. Put your Bible down and get ready to talk physics.

Having gotten hardly any repliies, even James R, my question to you, am asking a brief review, is there something askew with the concept of the post? I am always gun shy and am waiting for the ambush from those determined to protect SR at all costs. I have given a shortened version of the post for your comment on any aspect.

Hey MacM " I've got skin like iron and breath like kerosene. I wear my gun outside my pants for all the world to see". Ref. "Pancho and Lefty" Wllie Nelson, et al.
MacM : I posted a discussion on the equivalence of inerrtial frames and made the point that for the earth as a reference frame some of thephysical characterists of that frame are:

• Mass 6.10^27 and
• overwhelming volume and surface aea and
• that for "all" practical interests and purposses the Ve, earth frame of reference, is measurably indistinguisable to the motion of a straight line
• the Ve turning . rate all significant motions being acconted, for being < 10^-8 degrees /sec
  
• Further, that there ae no frames Vn at least thiose bound to Ve with verloity < 11.2, the escape velocity that are not subject to inheriting all of the Ve attributes and,
• that there have been no observed relative motion Ve - Vn > 0 where the Vn have been observed not to have accelerated with respect to Ve.
  
• Ve has never accelerated and prodiced any motion even quaintly resembling anything other than Ve = 0.
  
• Virtually all points within the volume element iof Ve are predictable and can easily be located for all past, present and futire, positions, within some limitations (the farther the projection into future or past allows random errors into the soup.).
  
• Measuring the speed of light with respect to Ve = 208 km/sec and then making the same measurement with a 3600km/hr reference frame induces an "insignifivcant" error Vc wrt ve - 208. The proportional difference of Ve and Vc is 208/3x 10^5 = 6.94 x 10^-4
• Adding our 3600 km/hr frame velocty, i.e 1 km/sec (arriving at 209 km/sec) we see a difference in the two results of 3 x 10 ^-6. I am asking where do they get the eqivalence of inertial frames, beside the answer that without this there is no SR and AE goes back tio the patent pffice for a life of good honest work?

geistkiesel
10-19-2004

 

[Yuriy]

To all young members.
1. MacM wrote: Timers… are in agreement with calculations predicted by Relativity. I asked him: I simply do not understand. What it should mean? What I got in response? Read, please:
“Not a surprise. You think your view is the only correct view even about Relativity. Well mister you think you can tangle with me; others here will straighten your ass out. Several I have seen are a hell of a lot sharper than you ever were and your smart ass attitude will get you buried. Have fun here. I will.”
2. He wrote: Clocks "C" is assumed aboard the theoretical spaceship with clock "B" and it represents "B's" view of clock "A". I asked him: I have no clue what you are trying to say in the highlighted words, but I guess it is not important for further calculations. What I got in response? Read, please: It means Relativity predicts that "B" will also see "A" running slower than itself while "A" sees "B" running slower than itself. Only ill mind will see in sentence that I’ve asked about the offered answer, even if each expression is absolute true.
3. Another example of diagnosis. He wrote: When "A" runs out clocks are compared. I asked him: What you mean here? What I got in response? Read, please: It means that the readings upon the completion of the 10 hours test from "A's" perspective, the clocks do not support all observers predicted views according to Relativity.
4. Need more examples? Please, see it. He wrote: "C" (B's) prediction of "A's clock reading" reads 6,840 seconds.I asked him: Why you are mentioning here “C”, at all? What I got in response? Read, please: that is what I said "A" should read (according to "B" 6,840 seconds. It doesn't, it reads 36,000 seconds.
5. He wrote: Hmmm "We have a problem Houston" "B's" view of "A" according to relativity predictions failed to be upheld. "A" actually reads 36,000 seconds, not 6,840 seconds.I asked him: What amazed you so much? You do not now that SRT states that time is running differently in the different inertial reference frames? That clocks in different inertial reference frames are showing different readings between any two events occurring in the different places? That Minkowski intervals, not the time’s intervals are Lorentz invariants?
He even did not notice crucial for all his thread circumstance that the time’s intervals are not Lorentz invariants! Entire SRT started from this crucial point. If one inertial observer sees two events as happened simultaneously, another one definitely will see the same events as not simultaneous ones. Einstein gave us clearest and evident proof of this feature of Nature. And after 100 years of permanent explanation of this basic fact in each course of the basics of SRT in high schools all around World there comes Mister MacM and very politely explains to us: Hmmm, look, two different inertial observers make controversial predictions about time period between two events! Ergo – SRT is wrong. Start believing in UNIKEF!
6. Conclusion, one can make, is only the one: it is diagnosis and name of illness is Anti-Science.

 

[GMontag]

As usual Yuriy your diatribes are babble and hard to read. Your BS does nothing but spout the company line and fails to address basic issues in conflict.

I'm way ahead of you here. To simply bring you up to date;

CASE:

1 - Assume Relativity valid.

2 - Take three clocks "A", "B" and "C", calibrated and functioning perfectly.

3 - Forget all the babble about you cannot synchronize remote clocks without light signals crap etc., we don't even need to send them into relative motion. Hmmmm.

4 - Place timers on the clocks which are in agreement with calculations predicted by Relativity.

5 - The test will be for 10 hours "A" time.

6 - The assumed relative velocity of the clocks will be 0.9 c.

7 - Gamma for 0.9 c = 2.294

8 - Which means timer "B" will be set to 15,692 seconds and timer "A" is set to 36,000 seconds.

9 - Clock "C" is assumed aboard the theoretical spaceship with clock "B" and it represents "B's" view of clock "A".

10 - Since "B" shuts down after 15,692 seconds and views "A" as running slow, the math specifies that "B" predicts "A" should have stopped at 6,840 seconds when his clock stopped at 15,692 seconds.

11 - Run the test.

12 - When "A" runs out clocks are compared.

13:

"A" reads 36,000 seconds.

"B" reads 15,692 seconds

"C" (B's) prediction of "A's clock reading" reads 6,840 seconds.

Hmmm "We have a problem Houston" "B's" view of "A" according to relativity predictions failed to be upheld. "A" actually reads 36,000 seconds, not 6,840 seconds.

When "B" stopped he saw "A's" clock continue to run past 6,840 seconds. It should have stopped

An alternate method to using preset timers based on the assumption of the validity of Relativity is to simply calibrate clock tick rates to the relative tick rates predicted by Relativty.

The results are the same after 10 hours (or any specified test time). The clocks to not agree with all relavistic observers views.

CONCLUSION: Relativity at best is Perception and not physical reality.

Mac, all you've shown is that simultaneity is not invariant across refrence frames. According to A, when A's clock stopped (at 36,000 ticks), B's clock read 15,692 ticks. According to B, when B's clock stopped, A's clock read 6,840 ticks. According to A, both clocks stopped simutaneously. According to B, they didn't. This is exactly what relativity predicts.

Your faulty conclusion comes from an invalid, unspoken, assumption that simultaneity *is* invariant.

P.S. Why would B predict that A's clock would stop at 6,840 when he knew ahead of time that it would stop at 36,000, since that is what you set it to stop at? There is nothing requiring that A's clock stop when B's clock does in B's reference frame.

 

[Paul T]

You will do well to even properly answer my questions without generating FIAT declarations. They don't count for much here. This isn't Bible School where we all sit up and listen to the preacher. Put your Bible down and get ready to talk physics.

Talk physics with MacM? Hua...ha ha ha ha ha, are you kidding? I don't know you are talking physics all this days....

 

[MacM]

To all young members.
1. MacM wrote: Timers… are in agreement with calculations predicted by Relativity. I asked him: I simply do not understand. What it should mean? What I got in response? Read, please:
“Not a surprise. You think your view is the only correct view even about Relativity. Well mister you think you can tangle with me; others here will straighten your ass out. Several I have seen are a hell of a lot sharper than you ever were and your smart ass attitude will get you buried. Have fun here. I will.”
2. He wrote: Clocks "C" is assumed aboard the theoretical spaceship with clock "B" and it represents "B's" view of clock "A". I asked him: I have no clue what you are trying to say in the highlighted words, but I guess it is not important for further calculations. What I got in response? Read, please: It means Relativity predicts that "B" will also see "A" running slower than itself while "A" sees "B" running slower than itself. Only ill mind will see in sentence that I’ve asked about the offered answer, even if each expression is absolute true.
3. Another example of diagnosis. He wrote: When "A" runs out clocks are compared. I asked him: What you mean here? What I got in response? Read, please: It means that the readings upon the completion of the 10 hours test from "A's" perspective, the clocks do not support all observers predicted views according to Relativity.
4. Need more examples? Please, see it. He wrote: "C" (B's) prediction of "A's clock reading" reads 6,840 seconds.I asked him: Why you are mentioning here “C”, at all? What I got in response? Read, please: that is what I said "A" should read (according to "B" 6,840 seconds. It doesn't, it reads 36,000 seconds.
5. He wrote: Hmmm "We have a problem Houston" "B's" view of "A" according to relativity predictions failed to be upheld. "A" actually reads 36,000 seconds, not 6,840 seconds.I asked him: What amazed you so much? You do not now that SRT states that time is running differently in the different inertial reference frames? That clocks in different inertial reference frames are showing different readings between any two events occurring in the different places? That Minkowski intervals, not the time’s intervals are Lorentz invariants?
He even did not notice crucial for all his thread circumstance that the time’s intervals are not Lorentz invariants! Entire SRT started from this crucial point. If one inertial observer sees two events as happened simultaneously, another one definitely will see the same events as not simultaneous ones. Einstein gave us clearest and evident proof of this feature of Nature. And after 100 years of permanent explanation of this basic fact in each course of the basics of SRT in high schools all around World there comes Mister MacM and very politely explains to us: Hmmm, look, two different inertial observers make controversial predictions about time period between two events! Ergo – SRT is wrong. Start believing in UNIKEF!
6. Conclusion, one can make, is only the one: it is diagnosis and name of illness is Anti-Science.

Somehow Yuriy you once again seemed to miss the important issue. Every response I made was valid and you have said nothing to contridict that. The primary comment I made you choose to ignore. There is no need to calculate anyother issues such as time intervals of Minkowski unless you can show that both observers views are physical reality; I win and you lose.

I have never said the illusions of motion do not occur. I have said they are illusions and not physically real.

Physical clocks do not record some of the predicted times of observers in Relativity.

HINT: They are not physically real, they are only "Perception".

One day you may learn Mr Yuriy that quoting Relativity does not prove Relativity and that to discuss issues realisitically you must be able to think for yourself.

Before this goes further let me make it clear. I have no intention of reading long FIAT declarations made by you or anyone that do not address the issue and only recite the text book answers.

It is the text book answers that are being challenged so quoting them as your proof is absolutely meaningless. If you do not contribute useful dialog you will be ignored.

BTW: You raised the issue of UniKEF. Not I. On this site there is a gentlemens agreement that UniKEF is generally not discussed except in the area established by James R, for that express purpose.

You should note that it is the highest read thread on this forum, further that my MSN site is, and has been for well over a year #1 rated physics forum out of 240 forums. Further that where the intent of members here was to dismantle UniKEF in that thread the ultimate result was to show my claim was valid.

Perhaps you should first go to UniKEF Gravity and read the testing data and learn the process before commenting negatively. To comment without any knowledge or understanding what-so-ever qualifies your contribution as worthless from the outset.

What is "q" in UniKEF? What is it's function and where is it used? If you don't know then shut the hell up until you learn the subject matter.

FYI: http://www.unikef-gravity.com/

Any further discussion you might wish to make regarding UniKEF should be posted in that thread here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31781&page=1

Not only has that thread become the highest read thread but this thread is rapidly becoming one the highest posted and highly read threads as well.

Why you ask? Because everybody is learning. Because we discuss issues and don't merely recite authority to the exclusion of alternative explanations.

Get with the process or get ignored. We all know how to read the good book but it is the good book that is being challenged. You need more that your rote memory here Yuriy. You need to be able to justifiy your position not quote the works of others before you.

Showing me wrong by any means other than call to authority or reciting the theory of Relativity will be acknowledged otherwise you fail in your enterprise to support Relativity or deminish my views.

My Pledge:

If you treat me with respect I will treat you and your posts with respect. If however you continue your historical practice of personal attacks supported only by calls to authority I will respond in kind. Got it?

 

[MacM]

Having gotten hardly any repliies, even James R, my question to you, am asking a brief review, is there something askew with the concept of the post? I am always gun shy and am waiting for the ambush from those determined to protect SR at all costs. I have given a shortened version of the post for your comment on any aspect.

Hey MacM " I've got skin like iron and breath like kerosene. I wear my gun outside my pants for all the world to see". Ref. "Pancho and Lefty" Wllie Nelson, et al.
MacM : I posted a discussion on the equivalence of inerrtial frames and made the point that for the earth as a reference frame some of thephysical characterists of that frame are:

• Mass 6.10^27 and
• overwhelming volume and surface aea and
• that for "all" practical interests and purposses the Ve, earth frame of reference, is measurably indistinguisable to the motion of a straight line
• the Ve turning . rate all significant motions being acconted, for being < 10^-8 degrees /sec
  
• Further, that there ae no frames Vn at least thiose bound to Ve with verloity < 11.2, the escape velocity that are not subject to inheriting all of the Ve attributes and,
• that there have been no observed relative motion Ve - Vn > 0 where the Vn have been observed not to have accelerated with respect to Ve.
  
• Ve has never accelerated and prodiced any motion even quaintly resembling anything other than Ve = 0.
  
• Virtually all points within the volume element iof Ve are predictable and can easily be located for all past, present and futire, positions, within some limitations (the farther the projection into future or past allows random errors into the soup.).
  
• Measuring the speed of light with respect to Ve = 208 km/sec and then making the same measurement with a 3600km/hr reference frame induces an "insignifivcant" error Vc wrt ve - 208. The proportional difference of Ve and Vc is 208/3x 10^5 = 6.94 x 10^-4
• Adding our 3600 km/hr frame velocty, i.e 1 km/sec (arriving at 209 km/sec) we see a difference in the two results of 3 x 10 ^-6. I am asking where do they get the eqivalence of inertial frames, beside the answer that without this there is no SR and AE goes back tio the patent pffice for a life of good honest work?

geistkiesel
10-19-2004

Hi, I have watched your posts with interest. I have been in general agreement with most of what you say but not all (and I'm sure you may have a simular view of my posts) but I have deliberately refrained from commenting in that I did not want to contaminate the dialog.

Anything I say will be challenged, usually indirectly. That is by bringing in irrelavant issues claiming they make a differance but upon detailed inspection they may merely alter the incorrect resolution and not solve the problem or by making FIAT declarations citing text book descriptions which is an attempt to use authority as your proof.

It is funny to see these guys quote the text book and not realise that quoting a theory does not in any manner prove a theory.

Heads up on Yuriy. He is a Russian Physicist that believes he and he alone understands the universe. I have seen him argue intensly with other physicists and I am about to explode waiting to see him and James R., tangle.

He has a bad habit (even worse than you Persol) in that he doesn't only attack novices but other physicists with personal attacks about their incompetance.

In that respect he is funny but you have to learn to speed read for he loves to write diatribes and to preach.

 

[AndersHermansson]

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

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

Your explanation of what relativity claims is vague, but I can understand that you misinterpret relativity using that for conclusions. It's more accurate to say that if B is accelerating away from A, it would seem from A's reference frame that B would have to spend an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light. It doesn't mean that A will have trouble accelerating himself because B has accelerated and is now moving at nearly the speed of light as seen from A.

 

[Silas]

Well if we're back on this:

12 - When "A" runs out clocks are compared.

13:

"A" reads 36,000 seconds.

"B" reads 15,692 seconds

"C" (B's) prediction of "A's clock reading" reads 6,840 seconds.

Hmmm "We have a problem Houston" "B's" view of "A" according to relativity predictions failed to be upheld. "A" actually reads 36,000 seconds, not 6,840 seconds.

When "B" stopped he saw "A's" clock continue to run past 6,840 seconds. It should have stopped

This is why nobody understands you, MacM. Nobody can see why you can't seem to see what is going on. A only reads 36,000 seconds in A's frame. As relativity predicts. B sees 6,840 because that's what A looks like in B's frame. As relativity predicts. B doesn't see A stop at the same time as B.

A and B are watching each other on TV. As far as A is concerned B is running slowly. As far as B is concerned A is running slowly. Nobody noticed it but when A's clock got to 15,692 she looked at B and it had got to 6,840. Nothing stopped then, of course.

A is programmed to stop at 36,000 seconds. B is programmed to stop at 15,692 seconds. What this means is that A will see both clocks stop at the same time. It does not mean that both clocks stop at the same time.

When B's watching A's clock, how can A stop? A didn't stop when it got to 6,840 seconds! Therefore B doesn't see it stop, even though A sees it stop (A's looking at a time of 36,000 seconds, of course).

Say B has two clocks. One is programmed to stop at 15,692 so that A sees it stop coincident with her own clock stopping at 36,000. The other one is programmed to run on and on. The monitor of B sees A's clock continue past 6,840 when one of her clocks stops at 15,692. She's very patient and carries on watching until she sees A's clock finally reach 36,000 seconds and stop. She stops the other clock on the B ship, and it's reading whatever that 82 thousand second figure was.

Now you'll say something about perception versus reality, which I really don't think anybody would argue with. It just sounds like you think that B will see A stop when A reaches 6840, which is nonsense of course. B does not see A stop when her clock stops. Only A sees B stop when her clock stops.

 

[MacM]

Well if we're back on this:This is why nobody understands you, MacM. Nobody can see why you can't seem to see what is going on. A only reads 36,000 seconds in A's frame. As relativity predicts. B sees 6,840 because that's what A looks like in B's frame. As relativity predicts. B doesn't see A stop at the same time as B.

See here is where I get perplexed. I am not disagreeing with what you said. Indeed "A" records only "A's" proper time. It never records "B's" view of "A's" time. And yes "B" sees "A" continue to run. But that is the very point of this discussion.

It is not "If "B" sees "A's" clock as reading different due to his relative motion but if his view is reality or perception. My position is simply that the reality is that "A's" time is NOT affected as is physically recorded and proveable. It is only "B's" "VIEW" of "A's" time. That view is a perception, an illusion, not a physical change in time.

By physically stopping clocks simultaneously, using precalculated relavistic values for a specific view, it becomes clear that other views are not upheld in physical reality.

If "B" cannot, and does not, alter time perse then the twin paradox does not happen as a consequence of constant relative velocity in space. It is only an illusion produced by motion during periods of such motion and as clocks are brought back together they begin to resynchronize and upon comparision there will be no permanently recorded differential.

This truth becomes evident when analyzing tick rates of clocks and their recorded times vs the predicted times by Relativity.

A and B are watching each other on TV. As far as A is concerned B is running slowly. As far as B is concerned A is running slowly. Nobody noticed it but when A's clock got to 15,692 she looked at B and it had got to 6,840. Nothing stopped then, of course.

Correct.

A is programmed to stop at 36,000 seconds. B is programmed to stop at 15,692 seconds. What this means is that A will see both clocks stop at the same time. It does not mean that both clocks stop at the same time.

Here is where you let the circular logic confuse you. Of course they stop at the same time. A stopped clock physically does not continue to run. It is only an observers view that the clock didn't stop, not that the clock didn't stop.

This is most obvious since stopped clocks record the accumulated time at the time they stopped and viewing those acccumulated times and comparing that to the times per time dilation shows they all stopped simultaneously in reality.

No clock that is perceived to contiue to run, runs accumulated times any greater that their actual accumulated time when they stopped. BN's view is nothing more that watching a movie of real time at "A"via a slow motion setting on the VCR. That slow motion observation didn't actually alter A's time flow.

When B's watching A's clock, how can A stop? A didn't stop when it got to 6,840 seconds! Therefore B doesn't see it stop, even though A sees it stop (A's looking at a time of 36,000 seconds, of course).

I agree fully. "B's" view of "A" running is of "A" running to have observation catch up with its reality which is the time recorded when it stopped. B's view of "A"running is nothing more than delayed information. Not new ultimate numbers of physical time.

Say B has two clocks. One is programmed to stop at 15,692 so that A sees it stop coincident with her own clock stopping at 36,000. The other one is programmed to run on and on. The monitor of B sees A's clock continue past 6,840 when one of her clocks stops at 15,692. She's very patient and carries on watching until she sees A's clock finally reach 36,000 seconds and stop. She stops the other clock on the B ship, and it's reading whatever that 82 thousand second figure was.

82,590 seconds I believe. This is correct. But thet in no manner implies or even allows alteration of time in any real physical sense. At 82,590 seconds "B"will see "A" stop at it's true time of 36,000 seconds, not the jpredicted time dilated number of "B's" view of "A" of 6,840 seconds. So "B's" view of time as when clocks physically stopped is in error.

If "B's" view were reality (time was actually dilated per "B's view of "A") then when clocks were brought back together "A" would read 6,840 seconds, It doesn't, it read 36,000 weconds. B's view is perception not physical reality.

Now you'll say something about perception versus reality, which I really don't think anybody would argue with. It just sounds like you think that B will see A stop when A reaches 6840, which is nonsense of course. B does not see A stop when her clock stops. Only A sees B stop when her clock stops.

You sound like you and I are in agreement!! The arguement is and has been because it was being claimed that time dilation is physically real and the the observers view some how altered time. that clearly is not what the stopped clocks show or what can be accepted from common sense.

For time dilation to be physically real would require "A" to display both 36,000 seconds and 6,840 seconds accumulated time simultaneously after the test.

Now THAT is nonsense, not my view.

What I am saying is that this test proves my view. If the Relavistic view and arguement that time was physically changed then when "B" stops at 15,692 seconds, then "B's view of "A" is that time had slowed and "A" would physically only record 6,840 seconds. Since that doesn't happen B's view is mere illusion and has no affect on time.

Of corurse you now must go back and realize that A's view of B is also illusion and the reality is that clocks A and B physically remain synchronized such that when A reads 36,000, B also reads 36,000 simultaneously. It is only A's delayed view of B that makes A THINK B only reads 15,692.

So the test is a fraud in that the reality is the timers cause the clocks to stop in a sequence to simulate time dilation claims but they do not stop simultaneously.

Only if Relativity were physical reality would they stop simultaneously. But since that has been shown to be impossible the test does not cause the clocks to stop imultaneously, IT ONLY CAUSES THEM TO APPEAR TO STOP SIMULTANEOUSLY.

 

[2inquisitive]

Your explanation of what relativity claims is vague, but I can understand that you misinterpret relativity using that for conclusions. It's more accurate to say that if B is accelerating away from A, it would seem from A's reference frame that B would have to spend an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light. It doesn't mean that A will have trouble accelerating himself because B has accelerated and is now moving at nearly the speed of light as seen from A.

I agree with your interpretation, AndersHermansson. But seems that a lot of
SR physicists don't. I guess that is one of the points raised in this thread.
A cut & paste fron NASA's 'Ask a High Energy Physicist' website:
"The power requirements of course become humongous because of the amount of fuel necessary to approach the speed of light arbitrarily close. One can compute at which point the mass of the fuel required to keep the ship accelerating becomes so high that its self gravity would cause it to collapse as a black hole. Of course the observer (assumed human) would have been crushed long before due to the intense gravitational field of his own ship"
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970516e.html


Most physicists here assume the novice simply doesn't understand Special
Relativity. I can counter that one of the reasons is the physicists themselves
interpret it differently according to the specific problem given and their own
personal viewpoint.

 

[MacM]

Your explanation of what relativity claims is vague, but I can understand that you misinterpret relativity using that for conclusions. It's more accurate to say that if B is accelerating away from A, it would seem from A's reference frame that B would have to spend an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light. It doesn't mean that A will have trouble accelerating himself because B has accelerated and is now moving at nearly the speed of light as seen from A.

You are only partially correct. That is because you apparently do not understand my view. I do not claim that it would cause "A" to undergo increased energy demand. I claim just the opposite. I claim the very idea that relative velcoity increases the energy required to accelerate is a mis-interpretation of particle accelerator data.

In the case of a particle accelerator the cause for decreasing acceleration with constant energy input may well be the result of relative velocity between the stationary magnet propelling it and the particle. That v = c limit has nothing to do with mass or energy to accelerate to any velocity including to and beyond v = c except where the propelling energy has a finite v = c limit of its own.

It is grossly apparent that if I provide a pushing force which has a velocity limit, I will not be able to reach or exceed that limit. That limit has to do with the velocity limit of propagation of EM waves (and light) and nothing to do with a universal speed limit.

It is an energy transfer decrease not a mass or energy required increase perse. Therefore the arbitray limiting of a rocket, which is self propelled to v = c relative to you or any other observer in unjustified.