Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[MacM]

So you say, but you have nothing to back that up besides a belief that relativity is false.

Again your only way of making such a statement is to disregard the facts.

FACT:

A stops and reads 36,000 seconds.
B stops simultaneously with A in "A's" FOR and reads 15,692 seconds.
B's monitor stops when B stops and reads 6,840 seconds as being "A's" dilated time per Relativity for B's view.

But the realitity is that "A" physically reads 36,000 seconds and although B would see A continue to run up and until it reads 36,000 seconds where it stopped, the fact that A did not stop at 6,840 seconds proves B's view is just that a "View", a "Perception", an "Illusion" of motion and delayed information and not a physical change in time.

It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of FACT that time dilation by relative motion is not real. Twins will not age differently because of it.

We all agree that you are right if time is not relative... do you actually have a point beyond that?

Yes. Time dilation is not real. For Reltivity to be real on this issue requires that "A" display two different accumulated times simultaneously to satisfy the predictions of Relativity. That is impossible.

Being impossible is entirely different from being "Counter Intiuitive".

Accepting the impossible ass a reality (when it is shown to not occur in reality) is just plain stupidity, not a display of intelligence or education.

One should not need more than that.

They are the same issue.

They most certainly are not.

 

[GMontag]

You seem to misunderstand my position. I fully agree with everything you just said.

You (and others) however, seem to miss the point that the fact that B doesn't see "A" stop has no bearing on the clocks real accumulated time.

The clock is still ticking, therefore it is still accumulating time. That is a real physical change.

Clocks stopped simultaneously in "A's" frame record the respective actual accumulated times and those recorded times do not reflect B's view. The fact that B sees "A" continueing to run does not translate into a physical time change for clock "A". B NEVER sees "A" continue to run and accumulate time beyond that which it had accumulated before it stopped.

Of course, the clock wasn't started again after it was stopped, so they can't see it run after it stopped. But both observers agree that A's clock stopped at 36,000 so what is the problem?

The test was to determine if time dilation is perception or reality. The test is to see clock readings per time dilation predictions of all observers. When B's clock stopped the test was over and his monitor of A's clock stopped and displays what the "A" clock should read per it being slower and his stopped clock with the accumulated time of 15,692 seconds.

The test isn't over until *both* clocks have stopped. At the moment B's clock stopped in B's reference frame, A's clock does display 6,840 ticks, but so what? Its irrelevant. A's clock continues to tick until it reaches 36,000 and then the test is over.

"B" says that "A" should read 6,840 seconds but "A" actually at that instant reads 36,000 seconds but B sees "A" continue to run but upto and only its true stopped time of 36,000 seconds and his view of 6,840 seconds is shown to not be physical reality.

No. At the instant that B's clock stops in B's reference frame, A's clock reads 6,840. At the instant that B's clock stops in A's reference frame, A's clock reads 36,000. The point you don't seem able to comprehend is that B's clock stops at different times in different reference frames.

It is the reality vs perception that is at issue and not simultaneity.

Simultaneity is most definately the cause of your misunderstanding. You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that just because "at the instant" B's clock stops in frame A, A read 36,000 doesn't mean that it "actually" reads 36,000 in all reference frames.

P.S. Why are you arbitrarily saying that A's frame is reality. Why isn't B's observation of A's clock stopping later than B's reality and A's observation of simutaneous stopping the illusion?

 

[GMontag]

Again your only way of making such a statement is to disregard the facts.

FACT:

A stops and reads 36,000 seconds.
B stops simultaneously with A in "A's" FOR and reads 125,692 seconds.
B's monitor stops when B stops and reads 6,840 seconds as being "A's" dilated time per Relativity for B's view.

But the realitity is that "A" physically reads 36,000 seconds and although B would see A continue to run up and until it reads 36,000 seconds where it stopped, the fact that A did not stop at 6,840 seconds proves B's view is just that a "View", a "Perception", an "Illusion" of motion and delayed information and not a physical change in time.

No. The reality is that A physically reads 6,840 when B stops in B's frame.

You dodged this question in my earlier post, so I put it to you again. Why would B think that A's clock should stop at 6,840? What possible reason could lead him to that conclusion when he already *knows* that it will stop when it reads 36,000, because that is when the timer was programmed to stop it?

It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of FACT that time dilation by relative motion is not real. Twins will not age differently because of it.

Experimental results show the opposite.

Yes. Time dilation is not real. For Reltivity to be real on this issue requires that "A" display two different accumulated times simultaneously to satisfy the predictions of Relativity. That is impossible.

No it doesn't. Both clocks show one and only one value for any given point in time in a given frame of reference. You are again showing your lack of understanding of simultaneity in relativity. An event in one reference frame *cannot* be said to be simultaneous with an event in another reference frame. Simultaneity only has meaning within a given reference frame. Clock A showing one time at time T in one reference frame and a different time at time T' in a different reference frame is *not* a contradiction. It is not impossible, and it does happen.

 

[MacM]

The clock is still ticking, therefore it is still accumulating time. That is a real physical change.

False. Clock "A" IS stopped. We have already agreed that All clocks stopped. B only sees "A" continue to run because the image of its condition has not yet reached "B". But it IS stopped and it reads 36,000 seconds. It is only by virtue of delay that B doesn't know it has stopped.

Your view is nothing more than saying a letter sent by US Mail that hasn't arrived yet, has not been written. That is ludricrus.

Of course, the clock wasn't started again after it was stopped, so they can't see it run after it stopped. But both observers agree that A's clock stopped at 36,000 so what is the problem?[/qluote]

The problem should be obvious. If Relativity were physical reality then clock "A" MUST, to satisfy clock "B's" view, stop at 6,840 seconds. It doesn't. B's relavistic view and predications are not upheld in physical reality.

The test isn't over until *both* clocks have stopped.

We have agreed that all clocks stopped simultaneously in "A's" FOR. They are stopped. Do you not understand the differance between being STOPPED and simply not seeing that it has stopped? Do you not see the differance between being stopped and displaying an accumulated time of 36,000 seconds vs watching a slow motion movie showing the clock running when in reality it is stopped while you watch the movie?

Your position is not unlike claiming that watching your VCR in slow motion means the football game actually took 7 hours. Ignoring of course the fact that even your slow motion video of the game shows the clock on the playing field, that it in reality took an hour.

At the moment B's clock stopped in B's reference frame, A's clock does display 6,840 ticks, but so what? Its irrelevant. A's clock continues to tick until it reaches 36,000 and then the test is over.

It isn't irrelevant if you recognize that by not being stopped at 6,840 seconds means that the relavistic prediction of time dilation for B's view has just been disproven.

The test was over when A stopped and B stopped (which if Relativity is valid was simultaneous). B's monitor of "A" also stopped when B stopped. It read 6,840 just as relativity says it should. But the reality is that B's monitor does not show "A's" actual accumulated time. "A" actually accumulated 36,000 seconds during the time B accumulated 15,692 seconds, not B's relavistically predicted 6,840 seconds. Relativity is not reality it is perception, an illusion.

No. At the instant that B's clock stops in B's reference frame, A's clock reads 6,840. At the instant that B's clock stops in A's reference frame, A's clock reads 36,000. The point you don't seem able to comprehend is that B's clock stops at different times in different reference frames.

False. Clocks stopped simultaneously. They only appear to not stop due to information delay.

If you are in New York and I am in Japan and we have synchronized clocks and I unplug my clock and I mail you a film of me unplugging my clock when the display shows 12:00PM, you surely would not say my clock hasn't stopped until you received and viewed the film.

That is what you are doing. Stopped means stopped. That has nothing to do with the observation of it being stopped or not.

Simultaneity is most definately the cause of your misunderstanding. You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that just because "at the instant" B's clock stops in frame A, A read 36,000 doesn't mean that it "actually" reads 36,000 in all reference frames.

It is not I that has a problem with simultaneity. I understand simultaneity but you do not understand that simultaneity does not alter reality. Reading 36,000 seconds is the only reality. All other views are just that views subjected to delays and does not alter the true display.

It is a perception, an illusion of motion caused by delay and not a true shift in time rate.

A true shift in time rate would require clock "A" to display both 36,000 seconds and 6,840 seconds at the same time, such that time dilation is preserved and proven for all observers. It doesn't and it isn't.

P.S. Why are you arbitrarily saying that A's frame is reality. Why isn't B's observation of A's clock stopping later than B's reality and A's observation of simutaneous stopping the illusion?

Because that is not what the clocks record. If time dilation were physical reality then when B stops at 15,692 seconds and B's monitor of "A's" clock also stops it shows time at A as BEING 6,840 seconds. It is not. It is 36,000 seconds at "A" as is recorded. B's observation is simply false as is evidenced by information continuing to flow to B showing that A actually ran to 36,000 seconds and stopped (which is known in this case to have been simultaneous with B stopping at 15,692 seconds in reality).

The fact that that information (the reality of clock A's performance) isn't received by B until 82,590 seconds have past does not alter the actual time accumulation. It only involves information delay about the reality. It doesn't alter that reality.

 

[GMontag]

snip MacM's confusion about time dilation versus information transmission delay

Mac, relativity's time dilation equation gives you what you see *after* light delay is accounted for. Transmission delay has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand. Now why don't you try again to address the problems with your previous post.

 

[MacM]

No. The reality is that A physically reads 6,840 when B stops in B's frame.

The only the reality here is that B is not seeing reality. He is seeing delayed information about A's ture display in its stopped condition. Such remote observation DOES NOT alter the reality of time flow. The actual time flow was 36,000 seconds B just hasn't gotten that information yet.

You dodged this question in my earlier post, so I put it to you again. Why would B think that A's clock should stop at 6,840? What possible reason could lead him to that conclusion when he already *knows* that it will stop when it reads 36,000, because that is when the timer was programmed to stop it?

I didn't dodge our question. The use of timers is simply to permit simultaneous comparison of clock performance. Your assumption that simultaneity somehow alters that reality is unjustified and is proven false.

Simultaneity shifts between frames merely shifts the time required to see the reality, it doesn't change the reality.

Experimental results show the opposite.

Here is where you have been dupted. There is no such experimental results.
Do a Google Search of A.J.Kelly and get back to me. He acquired the oiginal H&K Atomic Clock data along with a Memo sent by Hafele to the US Navy Reasearch Office with that data where he states that the data showed no relative velocity affect and that the failure to see time dilation was troubling between theory and results.

The data was then massaged (altered) radically to make the claim that it appeared to prove Relativity. Go ahead send a FOIA request yourself. read it for yourself. Time dilation has not been proven. Just the opposite the test was a complete failure. Nyet, zip, nada.

No it doesn't. Both clocks show one and only one value for any given point in time in a given frame of reference. You are again showing your lack of understanding of simultaneity in relativity. An event in one reference frame *cannot* be said to be simultaneous with an event in another reference frame.[/qluote]

Show me where I have made any such claim. Of course there are simultaneity shifts. But they are informational not physical.

Simultaneity only has meaning within a given reference frame. Clock A showing one time at time T in one reference frame and a different time at time T' in a different reference frame is *not* a contradiction. It is not impossible, and it does happen.

I agree if you look at the clock from a distance you will not see the CORRECT time. But that doesn't alter the correct time.

Think about this: From a distance you see a carpenter building a house. You see his hammer come down, later you hear the sound of the impact.

Are you going to claim that the information delay about that event means that the sound and impact didn't occur simultaneously in reality?. Do you think what ou saw was in real time to the actual event?

Of course not, so stop trying to apply that logic to clocks.

 

[MacM]

Mac, relativity's time dilation equation gives you what you see *after* light delay is accounted for. Transmission delay has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand. Now why don't you try again to address the problems with your previous post.

I have been through this arguement before.

1 - Your assumption that there will actually be such a delay is an unjustified assumption, unsupported by and physical data.

2 - Simultaneity shifts come in two forms.

a - Static due to distance of seperation.

b - Dynamic due to motion.

It is you that have been bambooseled. I understand the situation quite well.

Before you attack my view you must first show that for time to be physically altered that clock "A" can display multiple times simultaneously. Otherwise your view lacks physical reality and is relegated to being a perception.

 

[Silas]

MacM, the clocks did not stop simultaneously. You've continued to claim that B's view is a perception, not reality. You yourself are the champion of reciprocity, why is B's view more valid than A's view? Only because the way the thought experiment was set up so that A saw the clocks stop simultaneously. You could set the experiment up so that clock A stops at 15,692 and then B would see them stop simultaneously when B reached 36,000. Why then is that the illusion and not A's view the illusion?

Relativity denies the validity of phrases such as "Clock "A" IS stopped. We have already agreed that All clocks stopped." Nobody agreed that, because we relativists don't believe it.

Your view is that the time is running at the same rate for everybody, only their view of everybody else's time changes. Relativity denies this is the case, and the evidence is that clocks do run at different rates and that consequently the local time rates for differently moving objects were different.

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.

You make it sound that relativity predicts that B will see A stop at 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.

But time dilation does not expect that A's clock would stop when B's view of her own clock stopping.

As Persol pointed out, this experiment proves nothing, since you accept that the views of the clocks change according to frame. Your only problem is your insistence that because the clocks were programmed to stop when A reached 36000 seconds, that this represents "reality". It only represents reality for A.

You keep saying that the clocks stop simultaneously and that the problem for relativity is that this creates a paradox. Since relativity denies that the clocks stop simultaneously, that there is in fact no objective measurement of simultaneity, the paradox vanishes, only to be replaced by the (in your view unacceptable) view that time rate changes according to relative motion.

Of course, the problem here is that with these clocks we're talking about, travelling constantly away from each other at 0.95c, there is no twin paradox. The paradox occurs if we bring them back together. We have not dealt with the actual process of bringing the clocks back together. Years ago the BBC showed a programme in which Peter Ustinov demonstrated his view of his "twin" back on earth while he gallivanted around the universe at near-light speeds. I distinctly remember him watching the tv screen and seeing his twin "speeded up". I always understood from this that moving away you saw the "relatively stationary" item slowing down, but moving towards it, catching up with the light that emits from the source, you would see it speed up again. Only if this is the case is the paradox of each seeing the other run slowly avoided, since motion away slows each down and motion towards speeds it up. Nonetheless the travelling twin aged slower. I'm now in a position where I don't understand how the real twin paradox is avoided, and why some elements of the relativity equations seem to imply that there is an absolute velocity, or was the BBC programme totally misguided and misleading?

 

[GMontag]

OK Mac, lets apply your own logic to your arguments and see just how silly it gets.

FACT:

1. A stops at 36,000 ticks.
2. A sees B stop simultaneously with A, but it is in reality a time-delayed perception of when A was at 6,840 ticks.
3. B stops at 15,692 ticks and sees A at 6,840 ticks, exactly like he expects. He also sees A continue on to 36,000 ticks, also like he expects.

Conclusion: B's observations are reality, and A's perception of simultaneity is just an illusion.


Hmmm... funny how your *exact* arguments can be used to support the exact opposite conclusion.

 

[GMontag]

The only the reality here is that B is not seeing reality. He is seeing delayed information about A's ture display in its stopped condition. Such remote observation DOES NOT alter the reality of time flow. The actual time flow was 36,000 seconds B just hasn't gotten that information yet.

Mac, you aren't applying this argument consistantly. If A is seeing reality (i.e. simultaneous stopping of clocks), then B is seeing reality. The numbers came from the same equation. Alternatively, if B is not seeing reality, then A is not seeing reality either, and the clocks did not stop simultaneously, they just appeared to due to information delay effects.

I didn't dodge our question. The use of timers is simply to permit simultaneous comparison of clock performance. Your assumption that simultaneity somehow alters that reality is unjustified and is proven false.

You did dodge the question, and you just did it again. You programmed the timers so that they would stop simultaneously *to A*. However, you failed to mention why B would predict that they would stop simultaneously when relativity quite clearly predicts that they will not.

Simultaneity shifts between frames merely shifts the time required to see the reality, it doesn't change the reality.

Look Mac, you have to be consistant here. If you are talking about what relativity predicts, you have to use relativity's concept of simultaneity, in which events simultaneous in one frame *are* not simultaneous in another frame. Its not a perception or an illusion. It is reality. That is what relativity claim, and if you are trying to claim that relativity predicts something (as you were in your post) then you cannot ignore that claim. You may try to argue that relativity's predictions are not in accordance with reality, but you will have a mountain of evidence going against you.

Here is where you have been dupted. There is no such experimental results.
Do a Google Search of A.J.Kelly and get back to me. He acquired the oiginal H&K Atomic Clock data along with a Memo sent by Hafele to the US Navy Reasearch Office with that data where he states that the data showed no relative velocity affect and that the failure to see time dilation was troubling between theory and results.

The data was then massaged (altered) radically to make the claim that it appeared to prove Relativity. Go ahead send a FOIA request yourself. read it for yourself. Time dilation has not been proven. Just the opposite the test was a complete failure. Nyet, zip, nada.

And? That was *one* test. You think it was the only such test made on an atomic clock? Get real. And how are you discounting all the other evidence going for SR? Muon decay? Results from particle accelerators? Fission energies? All the mountains of evidence supporting GR and QED (both of which incorporate SR)? Let me guess, its all a hoax and there is a huge conspiracy in the scientific community to keep in under wraps. I sure hope you realize just how paranoid and delusional that sounds, Mac. Trying to argue that experimental evidence doesn't support SR is a wholy futile endeavor.

Show me where I have made any such claim. Of course there are simultaneity shifts. But they are informational not physical.

Right here:

For Reltivity to be real on this issue requires that "A" display two different accumulated times simultaneously to satisfy the predictions of Relativity.

In that quote you are referring to clock A showing 36,000 when B stops in frame A, and showing 6,840 when B stops in frame B. You are trying to claim that those events are simultaneous, when they are actually in separate reference frames and cannot be compared.

I agree if you look at the clock from a distance you will not see the CORRECT time. But that doesn't alter the correct time.

More inconsistancies. If looking from a distance means you don't see the correct time, then how can you claim that clocks A and B *actually* stopped simultaneously, when that is what A saw from a distance. If A sees that, and A's observations are incorrect due to the distance, A and B can't have stopped simultaneously.

Think about this: From a distance you see a carpenter building a house. You see his hammer come down, later you hear the sound of the impact.

Are you going to claim that the information delay about that event means that the sound and impact didn't occur simultaneously in reality?. Do you think what ou saw was in real time to the actual event?

Of course not, so stop trying to apply that logic to clocks.

I wasn't the one trying to apply that, you were. But you were applying it inconsistantly, which is why you were coming out horribly confused.

 

[MacM]

MacM, the clocks did not stop simultaneously.

Of course they did. You can't have it both ways. If Relativity is valid then the precalculated tick rates loaded into the timmers insure that the clocks all stop simultaneously (in A's FOR).

You've continued to claim that B's view is a perception, not reality. You yourself are the champion of reciprocity, why is B's view more valid than A's view?

Only because the way the thought experiment was set up so that A saw the clocks stop simultaneously. You could set the experiment up so that clock A stops at 15,692 and then B would see them stop simultaneously when B reached 36,000. Why then is that the illusion and not A's view the illusion?

It isn't. But reversing (applying reciprocity) the view merely reverses the result. That result would show that A's relavistic view is not supported instead of showing tha B's view is not supported. In that light they are indeed equal.

Both views that refer to relavistic information about the other clock are perception only. Both clocks local proper time in which they run are the reality and that reality is never affected by any observer.

Relativity denies the validity of phrases such as "Clock "A" IS stopped.

"We have already agreed that All clocks stopped."

Nobody agreed that, because we relativists don't believe it.

To not believe it you must reject your own theory.????? If Relativity is valid (as I assumed in the timing synchronization) then the clocks all stop simultaneously in A's FOR.

Your view is that the time is running at the same rate for everybody, only their view of everybody else's time changes. Relativity denies this is the case, and the evidence is that clocks do run at different rates and that consequently the local time rates for differently moving objects were different.

Show your evidence much less proof. In particular show the clock which simultaneously showed "A" and "B's" view of time flow.

You make it sound that relativity predicts that B will see A stop at 6,840 seconds.

I didn't make it sound like anything. I stipulated the claims of Relativity. that is that clock "A" would run at only 0.435 tick per tick of clock B and clock B accumulated 15,692 seconds which means clock A can only accumulate 6,840 seconds when all clocks physically stop.

All clocks shut down in a manner to preserve accumulted time per Relativity. Unfortunately your view (Relativity) is not supported by real clocks.

But time dilation does not expect that A's clock would stop when B's view of her own clock stopping.

If you stipulate that you are wanting to verify tick rates as predicted by Relativity and you design a protocal which preserves accumulated time per each observer, then Yes they do.

As Persol pointed out, this experiment proves nothing, since you accept that the views of the clocks change according to frame. Your only problem is your insistence that because the clocks were programmed to stop when A reached 36000 seconds, that this represents "reality". It only represents reality for A.

That reality is the only reality. B's view is never, and can never be, preserved. That is why there is no choice but to see B's view as an illusion of motion, a perception and not reality. When B claims "A" has accumulated 6,840 seconds and simultaneously in accordance with Relativity as established by the preset timers "A" actually has accumulated and displays 36,000 seconds, then Relativity is simply a false concept.

No options, no alternative realities possible.

You keep saying that the clocks stop simultaneously and that the problem for relativity is that this creates a paradox. Since relativity denies that the clocks stop simultaneously, that there is in fact no objective measurement of simultaneity, the paradox vanishes, only to be replaced by the (in your view unacceptable) view that time rate changes according to relative motion.

You again must reject your own theory to claim the clocks do not stop simultaneously in A's FOR. You are letting the circular logic invoked by Relativity scramble your mental processes.

Of course, the problem here is that with these clocks we're talking about, travelling constantly away from each other at 0.95c, there is no twin paradox. The paradox occurs if we bring them back together. We have not dealt with the actual process of bringing the clocks back together. Years ago the BBC showed a programme in which Peter Ustinov demonstrated his view of his "twin" back on earth while he gallivanted around the universe at near-light speeds. I distinctly remember him watching the tv screen and seeing his twin "speeded up". I always understood from this that moving away you saw the "relatively stationary" item slowing down, but moving towards it, catching up with the light that emits from the source, you would see it speed up again. Only if this is the case is the paradox of each seeing the other run slowly avoided, since motion away slows each down and motion towards speeds it up.

This view is the correct view. As clocks or twins are brought back together the information stream will indeed be accelerated, not retarted, and the two come back into synchronizaton. Net result "No differance in tick rates or ageing due to relative velocity".

Nonetheless the travelling twin aged slower. I'm now in a position where I don't understand how the real twin paradox is avoided, and why some elements of the relativity equations seem to imply that there is an absolute velocity, or was the BBC programme totally misguided and misleading?

The BBC programme was correct. That means I also am correct. You should try to attempt to understand what relativity says vs what others claim Relativity says. There is a differance. Also what is supported physically and what is not supported physically when tested properly.

Play two identical videos side by side on VCR's. Let "A" run at normal speed. Run "B" in "Slow Motion" for precisely half of the films footage, then run the remaining half at "Fast Forward".

The two films start simultaneously and end simultaneously and the perception that time either slowed or became accelerated in B's view can be seen to not be an actual change in A's event reality, but is only a perception of B which vanishes upon resynchronization in a common FOR.

During the viewing of the film clocks recorded in the film show conclusively that the true tick rate of the events did not change. That is if the event took 10 seconds, it still took 10 seconds and viewing it in slow motion did not alter the time the event actually took.

Another way of looking at this is to have the Sun be "A" and your arm be "B" with the sun's energy being time.

Now place a magnifying glass between A and B to distort reality (motion). This can be painful to B and appear to be quite real but the true reality is that A's energy did not change, it only became distorted (concentrated) as viewed from B's perspective.

That of course represents the accelerated view of time by B where the clocks are reapproaching resynchronization. The reverse is true if the shape of the glass is such as to disperse, rather than concentrate the suns true energy, in that case B would feel shaded and receive energy at a lesser rate per given area but the "Reality" is that the sun's energy rate did not change and the energy received by B did not change, it simply was applied to a larger area creating the illusion of decreased energy flow rate (time flow rate) due to the cooling, shading affect.

Such manipulations of reality between A and B at no time actually altered the energy flow rate of A, only B's interpretation of that energy flow rate changed. Although under different conditions the energy appeared to increase or decrease it was actually constantly the same energy flow rate.

From B's perspective the energy became dilated (defused - being received at a slower rate per area) or it became accelerated (concentrated increasing the rate per area) but the true energy flow rate never changed either from A or recieved by B.

 

[Persol]

Yes. Time dilation is not real. For Reltivity to be real on this issue requires that "A" display two different accumulated times simultaneously to satisfy the predictions of Relativity. That is impossible.

And here I had hope you were starting to understand....

Time dilation does not say that A should display two different times. It says that A and B do not experience time at the same rate.

 

[Persol]

NO, I would compute my relative velocity by the Doppler shift of the light comming
from my chosen point of reference, for instance the Quasar that initially had zero
relative velocity to me, or the light from the Quasar ejecta that was already blue-shifted in my initial inertial frame.

But then once again you need to deal with reference frames... not that this will change anything you experience inside the ship.

 

[MacM]

And here I had hope you were starting to understand....

Time dilation does not say that A should display two different times. It says that A and B do not experience time at the same rate.

Of course they would be shooting themselves in the foot to say that. They prefer to simply confuse people by making the same claims you now echo.

However, the test, for anyone actually wanting to know the truth, shows that is what must happen for relative velocity to dilate time as claimed.

Sorry you lose.

 

[2inquisitive]

But then once again you need to deal with reference frames... not that this will change anything you experience inside the ship.

Of course, Persol. That is what I have been showing all along. There is no
such thing as '.99c' unless you specify a reference frame. There is no 'absolute' velocity in which your mass increases. Does your mass magically
change because you specify one reference frame over another while staying
in an inertial frame of reference?

 

[Persol]

Of course they would be shooting themselves in the foot to say that. They prefer to simply confuse people by making the same claims you now echo.

So let me get this straight.... I admit relativity's math doesn't account for something that relativity doesn't say, and somehow that maks relativity wrong?

MacM, it's not confusing. You still haven't pointed out any problem beyond your philosophical/intuitive distate for the theory.

 

[Persol]

Of course, Persol. That is what I have been showing all along. There is no such thing as '.99c' unless you specify a reference frame.

Agreed.

There is no 'absolute' velocity in which your mass increases.

...because there is no 'absolute' velocity. Agreed.

Does your mass magically change because you specify one reference frame over another while staying in an inertial frame of reference?

Your momentum does change because you specify one reference frame over another. It's akin to saying I'm 2 feet above the ground, but 1000ft above the ground relative to the ocean. If this means your mass is changing is open for discussion.

 

[James R]

GMontag,

You are going over old ground with MacM. You're doing a great job, but I just thought I'd let you know I've already made all the same points earlier in the thread. I am no longer participating in this thread, since it is quite clear that MacM will never admit his many errors and inconsistencies. His arguments are circular or based on incorrect assumptions, both about "reality" and about the theory of relativity. He doesn't know what relativity predicts, can't begin to comprehend the relativity of simultaneity, and can't even be consistent with his own vaguely-Newtonian views.

 

[GMontag]

GMontag,

You are going over old ground with MacM. You're doing a great job, but I just thought I'd let you know I've already made all the same points earlier in the thread. I am no longer participating in this thread, since it is quite clear that MacM will never admit his many errors and inconsistencies. His arguments are circular or based on incorrect assumptions, both about "reality" and about the theory of relativity. He doesn't know what relativity predicts, can't begin to comprehend the relativity of simultaneity, and can't even be consistent with his own vaguely-Newtonian views.

As much as I suspect you are right, I don't like to give up hope so easily. Lets see what he says to my pointing out that he was applying his own arguments inconsistantly.

MacM: I am still waiting for your answer to my post. Are you simply going to ignore it, or are you thinking and formulating an answer?

 

[MacM]

So let me get this straight.... I admit relativity's math doesn't account for something that relativity doesn't say, and somehow that maks relativity wrong?

MacM, it's not confusing. You still haven't pointed out any problem beyond your philosophical/intuitive distate for the theory.

That is not the situation. Relativity only claims t2 = t1(1 - v²/c²)^1/2

You and others want to claim that t2 is physical reality that time has been changed. The test shows that time is not changed and that t2 is merely perception at best.

It doesn't make Relativity wrong. It makes you and others that want to claim time dilation is physical reality wrong. It can still be an illusion of motion. But it does reject the claim of time travel via relative velocity.