Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[MacM]

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.

Damn it James R., that is just flat false. You have presented nothing which
shows either the test is described or interpreted incorrectly. Yours is nothing more than an entrenched position unwilling to admit the obvious with a lot of hand waving and self promotion.

CHALLENGE: Lets take this one step at a time. Each step will be resolved before addressing anyother issues. OK?

STEP #1:

Case:

Three clocks A, B and C. All identical and calibrated together.

"A" is to be the at rest test control clock
"B" is to be a clock moving in space at 0.9c relative to clock "A".
"C" is to be a clock re-calibrated to run at a time dilated rate equivelent to the rate that "B" predicts Relativity will show for clock "A" due to the relative velocity between "A" and "B" and is also aboard the spaceship with "B".

The test will be for 10 hours "A,s" FOR.

Tick rate timers are precalibrated based on a precise acceleration schedule of "B" and "C" relative to "A" such that at the moment "B" and "C" have achieved 0.9 c relative velocity all three clocks are set to zero and start timing.

A second set of tick rate timers have been precalibrated based on assuming Relativity is valid, so as to shut down every clock physically, simultaneously, and in reality, in "A's" FOR at the end of the 10 hour test.

Any comments or changes you see needed in the test description?

 

[MacM]

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.

Correct.

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.

False. When "A" is at 6,840 ticks "B" is only at 2,975 ticks.

3. B stops at 15,692 ticks and sees A at 6,840 ticks, exactly like he expects.

Correct.

He also sees A continue on to 36,000 ticks, also like he expects.

False. "A", "B" and "B's Monitor" of "A" all stop simultaneously. B's expectation (according to Relativity) is that if the test is stopped and his time is 15,692 ticks then "A's" "Stopped" accumulated time will be 6,840 ticks. Otherwise you do not have any time shift or rate change. But "A's" accumulated stopped time is not 6,840 ticks. So Relativy predictions are not shown to be valid.

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

False. Simultaneity is based on the assumption that Relativity is valid and therefore if Reltivity is valid then "A's" view of simultaneous stopping of all three clocks is reality. B's view is perception.

You can of course reverse the clock at rest and reverse the situation.

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

False. Hmmm. Funny how people are so easily mislead and get lost when trying to follow Relativity.

 

[James R]

Whatever.

 

[MacM]

Whatever.

If this is your response to the step by step analysis of the test, we cannot proceed. You must either agree or disagree and state why.

 

[James R]

I've already said I'm not proceeding, MacM. I already explained why, too. There's no way we can make further progress. Since I pulled out of this thread, you've simply rehashed several of the same arguments with other people. You've managed to conveniently forget all the previous explanations given to you, and you're still making dishonest claims even after having been corrected. As I said, there's nothing to be gained from continuing to participate in this discussion with you.

 

[GMontag]

False. When "A" is at 6,840 ticks "B" is only at 2,975 ticks.

No Mac. It may appear that B is only at 2,975 ticks, but that is just an illusion due to time delayed information, you said so yourself.

False. "A", "B" and "B's Monitor" of "A" all stop simultaneously. B's expectation (according to Relativity) is that if the test is stopped and his time is 15,692 ticks then "A's" "Stopped" accumulated time will be 6,840 ticks. Otherwise you do not have any time shift or rate change. But "A's" accumulated stopped time is not 6,840 ticks. So Relativy predictions are not shown to be valid.

No Mac, the clocks don't stop simultaneously. They just appear to stop simultaneously to A because of time delayed informaiton, you said so yourself.

False. Simultaneity is based on the assumption that Relativity is valid and therefore if Reltivity is valid then "A's" view of simultaneous stopping of all three clocks is reality. B's view is perception.

Mac, if you want to talk about relativity, you need to actually know what relativity predicts. Relativity gives no reason to prefer A's view over B's. They are *both* reality. Or if you wish to look at it in another way, neither are reality and there is no underlying reality, just perception. Its metaphysical semantics.

You can of course reverse the clock at rest and reverse the situation.

Clock at rest?!?! Which one is that? How do you know? So not only do you not understand the relativity of simultaneity, but you can't even grasp the concept of relativity of motion either? And yet you try to claim that you know what relativity predicts? Simply amazing.

 

[GMontag]

False. "A", "B" and "B's Monitor" of "A" all stop simultaneously. B's expectation (according to Relativity) is that if the test is stopped and his time is 15,692 ticks then "A's" "Stopped" accumulated time will be 6,840 ticks. Otherwise you do not have any time shift or rate change. But "A's" accumulated stopped time is not 6,840 ticks. So Relativy predictions are not shown to be valid.

Mac, how many times to people have to tell you, relativity predicts that B *doesn't* expect the clocks to stop simultaneously. B *doesn't* predict that A's clock should read 6,840 ticks when its done. Stop claiming relativity makes predictions that it simply does not.

 

[MacM]

I've already said I'm not proceeding, MacM. I already explained why, too. There's no way we can make further progress. Since I pulled out of this thread, you've simply rehashed several of the same arguments with other people. You've managed to conveniently forget all the previous explanations given to you, and you're still making dishonest claims even after having been corrected. As I said, there's nothing to be gained from continuing to participate in this discussion with you.

There is a good reason for that. The points I have made are rock solid. The simple truth is you are deadlocked into an unresolvable corner and there IS no acceptable explanation other than pure faith and FIAT to continue to claim that Relativity is physical reality is valid.

CLOSING ARGUEMENT:

1 - It is clear that the test establishes the simultaneous starting and stopping of all clocks in "A's" frame of reference by assuming Relativity is valid and using calibrated timers to control the test.

It is agreed that this simultaneity is limited to "A's" frame of reference.

2 - It is clear that at the very instant that "A" stops its physical accumulation of time is 36,000 seconds.

3 - It is clear that at the moment "B" stops, which is simultaneous with "A" stopping, that its clock will read 15,692 seconds.

4 - Based on Relativity being valid, it is clear that at the instant that "B" reaches 15,692 seconds and stops that "B" holds that "A" has only accumulated 6,840 seconds and its monitor "C" of his relavistic view will stop and display 6,840 seconds.

5 - It is clear that no amount of mumbo jumbo about different frames of reference, etc, makes it possible that "A" simultaneously has two distinctly different accumulations and dislpays of time. i.e. - 36,000 seconds and 6,840 seconds as demonstrated by "A's" own stopped display and "B's relavistic monitor "C's" stopped display of conditions required by Relativity.

6 - It is clear that at the very instant that "C" according to Relativity states that "A" reads, is stopped and displays 6,840 seconds that "A" in reality is stopped and displays 36,000 seconds.

7 - It is clear that "B's" relavistic view (observation) of "A" in no manner actually altered time flow of "A" and that Relativity is mere perception and not physical reality.

8 - If something is impossible in any frame, then it is impossible in all frames, since Relativity mandates reciprocity between observers.

9 - Anyother persons believe you can give viable challenge to this test? If not I rest my case.

 

[Persol]

This is just getting more and more sad.

 

[Silas]

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).

If you accept there is such a thing as A's frame of reference, you accept that there is no real simultaneity for all frames.

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.

No, you are claiming that there is a definite time in which the clocks stopped, outside A's FOR and then claiming a paradox. It is that which denies relativity, not our statements of the absence of real simultaneity.

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

I already posted a link to the experimental evidence for Relativity. BTW I heard this morning that yet another experiment had shown the validity of (General) Relativity. The scientist said, "If it had disproved Einstein, that would have been great! But no, he was right again!" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3762852.stm

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.

Again in real relativity there is no such thing as "when all clocks physically stop". In asny case you already said that the clocks only stop together in A's FOR, but when you talk about when A reached 6840 seconds that is only in B's FOR.

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

Yes it is, time and time again in real experiments done with real atomic 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.

No, they don't. Your protocol only preserves A's view, not B's.

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.

This is where you abandon all sense and understanding of Relativity. A's reality is not 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.

There is no such thing as "simultaneously in accordance with Relativity", that is why Relativity is not a false concept. Your concept of Relativity is false, but there's nothing I can do about that.

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.

Since I did not state that, I am not rejecting my own theory and there is nothing wrong with my mental processes. Your paradox only arises if the clocks genuinely stopped simultaneously, but Relativity specifically denies this. A's view is that they stopped simultaneously (after all that was how the experiment was set up) but the clocks did not actually stop simultaneously because there is no absolute simultaneity.

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".

Not quite, the clock that travelled faster with respect to the universe advances slower (and the travelling twin ages less, far less, than the stay-at-home twin) as has been conclusively shown experimentally. I just don't know how this relates to two bodies in motion with the results of SR. But to bring the clocks back together will involve acceleration and change of momentum, which is not covered in SR, only GR.

 

[MacM]

This is just getting more and more sad.

No viable challenge here.

 

[Janus58]

There is a good reason for that. The points I have made are rock solid. The simple truth is you are deadlocked into an unresolvable corner and there IS no acceptable explanation other than pure faith and FIAT to continue to claim that Relativity is physical reality is valid.

CLOSING ARGUEMENT:

1 - It is clear that the test establishes the simultaneous starting and stopping of all clocks in "A's" frame of reference by assuming Relativity is valid and using calibrated timers to control the test.

It is agreed that this simultaneity is limited to "A's" frame of reference.

2 - It is clear that at the very instant that "A" stops its physical accumulation of time is 36,000 seconds.

3 - It is clear that at the moment "B" stops, which is simultaneous with "A" stopping, that its clock will read 15,692 seconds.

4 - Based on Relativity being valid, it is clear that at the instant that "B" reaches 15,692 seconds and stops that "B" holds that "A" has only accumulated 6,840 seconds and its monitor "C" of his relavistic view will stop and display 6,840 seconds.

5 - It is clear that no amount of mumbo jumbo about different frames of reference, etc, makes it possible that "A" simultaneously has two distinctly different accumulations and dislpays of time. i.e. - 36,000 seconds and 6,840 seconds as demonstrated by "A's" own stopped display and "B's relavistic monitor "C's" stopped display of conditions required by Relativity.

All monitor "C" is is a clock that is designed to run at 0.4359... times the tick rate of clock "B" and stop when it reads 6,840 secs. While this coresponds with the time that Clock A reads according to clock B, there is no physical causation between it and the reading on clock A. They are two separate clocks. IOW, while according to B, clock C and A show the Same time (up until the time C stops), this does not mean that according to Clock A, clocks A and C show the same time (At any time) in fact, according to Clock A, Clock C runs at a tick rate of 0.19, and thus reads 6860 secs when Clocks A, B and C stop.
Just because according to B, clock C stops at the same instant as itself, does not mean that according B, Clock A stops at the same instant.

6 - It is clear that at the very instant that "C" according to Relativity states that "A" reads, is stopped and displays 6,840 seconds that "A" in reality is stopped and displays 36,000 seconds.

This is a meaningless statement. You are trying to apply the Term "At the very Instant" to two separate frames at once, and this is exactly what the Relativity of Simultaneity says that you cannot do.


According to B, when C stops at 6,840 seconds at that "very instant" clock C in reality reads 6,840 seconds and will continue to run until it reads 36000 sec.

According to A, at the very instant that it reads 36,000 seconds and stops, clock C in reality reads 6,840 secs and stops.

These "very Instant"s are not the same This is the concept that you are failing to grasp.

7 - It is clear that "B's" relavistic view (observation) of "A" in no manner actually altered time flow of "A" and that Relativity is mere perception and not physical reality.

8 - If something is impossible in any frame, then it is impossible in all frames, since Relativity mandates reciprocity between observers.

You've presented no impossibilties. At no time are any of the Clocks required to show two separate times at the "same instant", according to anyone by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[MacM]

If you accept there is such a thing as A's frame of reference, you accept that there is no real simultaneity for all frames.

True. but what you seem to fail to realize is that considering other frmes is not necessary to make the determination regarding relativty.

No, you are claiming that there is a definite time in which the clocks stopped, outside A's FOR and then claiming a paradox. It is that which denies relativity, not our statements of the absence of real simultaneity.I already posted a link to the experimental evidence for Relativity. BTW I heard this morning that yet another experiment had shown the validity of (General) Relativity. The scientist said, "If it had disproved Einstein, that would have been great! But no, he was right again!" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3762852.stmAgain in real relativity there is no such thing as "when all clocks physically stop". In asny case you already said that the clocks only stop together in A's FOR, but when you talk about when A reached 6840 seconds that is only in B's FOR.Yes it is, time and time again in real experiments done with real atomic clocks

Here shows your problem. You are so convienced that Relativity is real and has been proven that you seem to decline to consider much less absorb the truth of the test presented.

You more than once show reliance on the H&K Atomic Clock Tests.

You should do yourself a favor and review the following:

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm


************** Extract from following LInk ********************

"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time
gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything .... the
difference between theory and experiment is disturbing."

- Hafele, Secret United States Naval Observatory internal report, 1971.

Obtained by A G Kelly two decades later under the Freedom of Information
Act.

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/16133.htm
*******************************************************

Note L. Essen's comments, he was the designer of the clocks. And many others.

No, they don't. Your protocol only preserves A's view, not B's.

False. B's relavistic view of "A" is preserved and it does not support your claim. To suggest that to calibrate a clock to run slow in accordance with calculations of Relativity, is any different than having the clock run slow due to Relativity is simply stubborness to acknowledge the results.

This is where you abandon all sense and understanding of Relativity. A's reality is not the only reality.

To the contrary it is where you leave common sense behind in favor of FIAT.

There is no such thing as "simultaneously in accordance with Relativity",

Of course there is. I would like to see you try to support this arguement with something more than words. Graph it. Tell me and others here that to calculate a relavistic function and use a timer or precalibrate to that rate to simulate that calculated value does not indeed function simultaneously with that function. You are being blatantly silly.

that is why Relativity is not a false concept. Your concept of Relativity is false, but there's nothing I can do about that.

Ditto.

Since I did not state that, I am not rejecting my own theory and there is nothing wrong with my mental processes. Your paradox only arises if the clocks genuinely stopped simultaneously, but Relativity specifically denies this. A's view is that they stopped simultaneously (after all that was how the experiment was set up) but the clocks did not actually stop simultaneously because there is no absolute simultaneity.

Agreed. But what you fail to undersatnd is that the evaluation in "A's" frame alone shows an impossibility. An impossibility is not the same thing as being counter intuitive. You cannot ignore the impossiblity. I guess you do but then that is where you fool yourself.

Not quite, the clock that travelled faster with respect to the universe advances slower (and the travelling twin ages less, far less, than the stay-at-home twin) as has been conclusively shown experimentally.

False. No such proof has ever been generated. Hafele himself in his internal report to the US Navy admitted the test was actually a failure. See above.

I just don't know how this relates to two bodies in motion with the results of SR. But to bring the clocks back together will involve acceleration and change of momentum, which is not covered in SR, only GR.

This issue has nothing to do with GR. It addresses only constant relative motion.

You have been a good reader but you are letting yourself get horn swaggaled.

Physical clocks have ONE and Only ONE reality. That reality is its local proper time which remains unchanged even by Relativity. The claims of Relativity therefore are relegated to perception only and no real affect on other clocks or time perse.

Sorry you are simply wrong.

 

[MacM]

All monitor "C" is is a clock that is designed to run at 0.4359... times the tick rate of clock "B" and stop when it reads 6,840 secs.

Only partially true. Clock "C" stops when "B" stops which happens to be 6,840 seconds. Which also happens to be the relavistic calculation for "B's" view of "A". Which is the very point of the test.

There is no physical way of merging the stopped time of clock "A" with that of clock "C". Put into more direct meaning "B's" view of "A" is physically impossible.

While this coresponds with the time that Clock A reads according to clock B, there is no physical causation between it and the reading on clock A. They are two separate clocks. IOW, while according to B, clock C and A show the Same time (up until the time C stops), this does not mean that according to Clock A, clocks A and C show the same time (At any time) in fact, according to Clock A, Clock C runs at a tick rate of 0.19, and thus reads 6860 secs when Clocks A, B and C stop.

Again only partially correct. The correct number is 6,840. Also nothing you have said alters the physical conclusion that B's relavistic view is physically impossible to exist in clock "A". Due to the technique used all three clocks do stop simultaneously in "A's FOR, otherwise you are mandating that Relativty and time dilation predict false relationships.

Just because according to B, clock C stops at the same instant as itself, does not mean that according B, Clock A stops at the same instant.

It has already been agreed that "B" sees "A" continue to run up and until it reaches it's true accumulated time of 326,000 seconds. So what is your point? Clock "C" displays B's view of what clock "A" should read when it stopped, if indeed "A" were running slower than B and it were not just an illusion of motion and delayed information.

The fact that "A" does not stop in B's view and continues to run beyond the 6,840 second time specified per Relativity proves my point not yours.

This is a meaningless statement. You are trying to apply the Term "At the very Instant" to two separate frames at once, and this is exactly what the Relativity of Simultaneity says that you cannot do.

Not at all. The test is in one frame of referance. All clocks stop the same instant in real time according to "A's" FOR.

The fact that it is seen continueing to run in B's FOR is meaningless since it is only catching up to the reality of clock A's accumulated time. "A" is not still running, it is only B's delayed view of a remote clock that is running.

According to B, when C stops at 6,840 seconds at that "very instant" clock C in reality reads 6,840 seconds and will continue to run until it reads 36000 sec.

WHAT??? You garbled something here. B and C both stop at the same time. C does not continue to run. B does not see C continue to run. They are in the same FOR. C is only calibrated to simulate clock A from B's FOR but it exists in B's FOR. Accordingly when B shuts down at 15,692 seconds C shows that "A" should have accumulated 6,840 seconds. But the reality is A acculumated 36,000 seconds.

According to A, at the very instant that it reads 36,000 seconds and stops, clock C in reality reads 6,840 secs and stops.

Correct. And B is stopped at 15,692 seconds.

These "very Instant"s are not the same This is the concept that you are failing to grasp.

Wrong. You arbitrarliy keep repeating the same balloney. "Timing cannot be achieved, Relativity prohibits it". Bull. If you calculate the relavistic time delay and calibrate tick rates or preset timers to those figure you have physical simultaneous actions. To deny that is to deny Relativity.

You've presented no impossibilties. At no time are any of the Clocks required to show two separate times at the "same instant", according to anyone by any stretch of the imagination.

Wrong. I have indeed proven two impossibilities. One that Relativity can't be physically real and the second that a Relativists can ever admit to that fact.

 

[James R]

MacM,

I thought you just presented your "Closing argument". I bet you continue, though.

Here then, is my closing response.

CLOSING ARGUEMENT:

1 - It is clear that the test establishes the simultaneous starting and stopping of all clocks in "A's" frame of reference by assuming Relativity is valid and using calibrated timers to control the test.

It is agreed that this simultaneity is limited to "A's" frame of reference.

Agreed.

2 - It is clear that at the very instant that "A" stops its physical accumulation of time is 36,000 seconds.

The term "physical accumulation of time" is meaningless in the sense you use it.

What is agreed is that when A stops it reads 36,000s, according to all observers. By introducing MacM terms like "physical accumulation of time", you try to sneak in something which isn't agreed to - namely, your unproven universal time idea.

3 - It is clear that at the moment "B" stops, which is simultaneous with "A" stopping, that its clock will read 15,692 seconds.

You again try to avoid some issues here by simply ignoring them. The word "simultaneous" is meaningless unless a reference frame is specified.

In point 1, you agreed specifically that A and B only stop simultaneously in A's frame. But in point 3, you try to sneak in that the stopping times are also simultaneous in B's frame, without saying so explicitly. That is dishonest.

What is agreed is that when B stops, B reads 15,692 seconds, according to all observers.

4 - Based on Relativity being valid, it is clear that at the instant that "B" reaches 15,692 seconds and stops that "B" holds that "A" has only accumulated 6,840 seconds and its monitor "C" of his relavistic view will stop and display 6,840 seconds.

That is partially correct. When B stops, its monitor of A's clock reads 6840 seconds. All observers agree on that. But in B's frame, A is still running when B stops, since they do not stop simultaneously in this frame.

5 - It is clear that no amount of mumbo jumbo about different frames of reference, etc, makes it possible that "A" simultaneously has two distinctly different accumulations and dislpays of time. i.e. - 36,000 seconds and 6,840 seconds as demonstrated by "A's" own stopped display and "B's relavistic monitor "C's" stopped display of conditions required by Relativity.

Nothing stops A's local time and B's monitor having two different displays, particularly if B's monitor is stopped and clock A continues to run, which is exactly what happens in B's frame.

OF course, no clock ever has two different displays simultaneously, according to any observer.

6 - It is clear that at the very instant that "C" according to Relativity states that "A" reads, is stopped and displays 6,840 seconds that "A" in reality is stopped and displays 36,000 seconds.

C doesn't record if A is stopped or not. C is set to stop not when A stops, but when B stops. Thus, C stops at 6840 seconds, and A continues to run, in the B frame, until it reads 36000 seconds.

7 - It is clear that "B's" relavistic view (observation) of "A" in no manner actually altered time flow of "A" and that Relativity is mere perception and not physical reality.

Since you have made some errors, this is not established. YOu must use relativity correctly if you want to say what it predicts.

8 - If something is impossible in any frame, then it is impossible in all frames, since Relativity mandates reciprocity between observers.

This is so vague as to be useless. And I've never seen the MacM concept of "reciprocity" mentioned in a text on relativity.

MacM's concept of relativity is certainly wrong, but relativity itself is correct.

9 - Anyother persons believe you can give viable challenge to this test? If not I rest my case.

Your memory is fading.

 

[Persol]

Here shows your problem. You are so convienced that Relativity is real and has been proven that you seem to decline to consider much less absorb the truth of the test presented.

Lol, yeah... the truth that you don't understand what the theory says and can't even get the frames of reference to be consistent.

You more than once show reliance on the H&K Atomic Clock Tests.

Idiot. The experiment he linked to was not the atomic clock test.

To the contrary it is where you leave common sense behind in favor of FIAT.

Lol, still your word of the week?

Of course there is. I would like to see you try to support this arguement with something more than words. Graph it. Tell me and others here that to calculate a relavistic function and use a timer or precalibrate to that rate to simulate that calculated value does not indeed function simultaneously with that function. You are being blatantly silly.

how stupid are you? What the hell were all those time-space graphs for. You obviously didn't look at them.

False. No such proof has ever been generated. Hafele himself in his internal report to the US Navy admitted the test was actually a failure. See above.

For the hundreth time, that is not the only evidence for time dilation. He just linked to another one which you compltely ignored.

Physical clocks have ONE and Only ONE reality. That reality is its local proper time which remains unchanged even by Relativity. The claims of Relativity therefore are relegated to perception only and no real affect on other clocks or time perse.

No shit Sherlock. The 'local proper time' is completely unchanged. It just doesn't line up with other frames of reference.

Sorry you are simply wrong.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

I thought you just presented your "Closing argument". I bet you continue, though.

Here then, is my closing response.

Thanks for responding. My closing statement remains the same. I did not intend to infor I would not counter false statments by those that might respond. But the test will not be altered it is final.

Agreed.

Good.

The term "physical accumulation of time" is meaningless in the sense you use it.

I fail to see your logic. I have been tyring to show the differance between "Actual" accumulated time and the "Perception" of time rate affects. It is necessary to note which form I am referring to.

What is agreed is that when A stops it reads 36,000s, according to all observers. By introducing MacM terms like "physical accumulation of time", you try to sneak in something which isn't agreed to - namely, your unproven universal time idea.

My statment has the same meaning and it is not my view that there is a universal time but a specific time (local proper time) that remains unaltered by relative velocity.

You again try to avoid some issues here by simply ignoring them. The word "simultaneous" is meaningless unless a reference frame is specified.

Based on the description and the initial statment it is assumed everybody understands #1 and that simultaneous in this text means in A's FOR.

In point 1, you agreed specifically that A and B only stop simultaneously in A's frame. But in point 3, you try to sneak in that the stopping times are also simultaneous in B's frame, without saying so explicitly. That is dishonest.

No, you are trying to sneak in a false innuendo. Everything is still referance to A's FOR.

What is agreed is that when B stops, B reads 15,692 seconds, according to all observers.

Good.

That is partially correct. When B stops, its monitor of A's clock reads 6840 seconds. All observers agree on that. But in B's frame, A is still running when B stops, since they do not stop simultaneously in this frame.

That has already been agreed. But the clock B sees running is nothing more than the delayed view of A while it was running. But it is no longer running it stopped when B stopped. You have already agreed on that issue. Therefore what B sees is only a perception of A running, not A running.

Nothing stops A's local time and B's monitor having two different displays, particularly if B's monitor is stopped and clock A continues to run, which is exactly what happens in B's frame.

Now that is the point, since B's monitor of the time that "A" should record, clock "C" also stopped when B stopped to record what B claims A should read in its stopped condition if t2/t1 is a valid physical relationship. But "C " and "A" do not stop at the same accumulated time. Even though you have already agreed all three stopped when "A" stopped.

OF course, no clock ever has two different displays simultaneously, according to any observer.

Agreed.

C doesn't record if A is stopped or not. C is set to stop not when A stops, but when B stops. Thus, C stops at 6840 seconds, and A continues to run, in the B frame, until it reads 36000 seconds.

False. "A" was the controlling clock all three stopped at the same time physically and A's stopped time is 36,000 seconds. B's view of A running is just to catch up to the delayed view of A before it had stopped. But it is actually stopped while B see it continue to catch up.

If B's view (clock "C") were valid it would represent the stopped clock at "A". It doesn't.

Since you have made some errors, this is not established. YOu must use relativity correctly if you want to say what it predicts.

I haven't made the errors you claimed I made.

This is so vague as to be useless. And I've never seen the MacM concept of "reciprocity" mentioned in a text on relativity.

Perhaps not but it is an inherent quality of "Relative" motion where there is no absolutes. It is inherent that B's velocity to "A" is the same as "A's" velocity to B and hence recipocal affects by both observers - "Reciprocity".

MacM's concept of relativity is certainly wrong, but relativity itself is correct.

In the final analysis then we certainly disagree. You simply fail to carry matters to their conclusion.

Go ahead and use B's FOR. The exact opposite occurs. All three stop simultaneously in B's FOR. B will stop at 36,000 ticks, "A" will stop at 15,692 ticks and "A's" monitor of "B" (clock "C") stops at 6,840 ticks but B appears to keep running until it actual stopped time is displayed.

You gain nothing by switching frames. In fact you would seem to create an even further impossibility since "A" would now also have to display 15,692 and "B" would have to display 36,000.

Keep in mind this can be done by using parallel clocks tests started and stopped using the same technique at the same time, such that all 6 clocks would indeed stop at the same time in both frames. (When I say stopped I mean the actual stopped condition and I am not considering the delayed view of clock displays that "APPEAR" to still be running.

 

[MacM]

Lol, yeah... the truth that you don't understand what the theory says and can't even get the frames of reference to be consistent.

False - Rejected.

Idiot. The experiment he linked to was not the atomic clock test.

Perhaps you should read more carefully. He speficially mention "atomic clock tests" I was not refering to any other link.

Lol, still your word of the week?

Make that word of the future. It is most appropriate when it comes to trying to discuss Relativity.

[qiuote]how stupid are you? What the hell were all those time-space graphs for. You obviously didn't look at them.[/quote]

I most certainly did and they did not include reciprocity. (Word #2) also appropriate for any discussion involving Relativity.

For the hundreth time, that is not the only evidence for time dilation.

For the hunderth time it doesn't matter how many tests and data "You Think" supports Relativity. Time dilation as a physical reality is impossible. You won't accept that of course but that is what this test shows. The consequence then is that you data simply has alternative explanations.

He just linked to another one which you compltely ignored.

I did indeed. No need to look at some data to see if the impossible was achieved. It never has been and never will be.

No shit Sherlock. The 'local proper time' is completely unchanged. It just doesn't line up with other frames of reference.

The only thing that doesn't line up is the relavistic view predicted.

Sorry you are simply wrong.

DITTO IN SPADES.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Your error lies here:

But the clock B sees running is nothing more than the delayed view of A while it was running. But it is no longer running it stopped when B stopped. You have already agreed on that issue. Therefore what B sees is only a perception of A running, not A running.

As usual, you try to fudge the main issue of the thread. Glossing over it won't make it go away, MacM. At some stage, you'll need to face it.

I have agreed very specifically that:

* Clock A and Clock B stop simultaneously in A's reference frame.
* Clock B stops before clock A in B's reference frame.

I know you will never be able to understand how these statements do not conflict with one another, and it is pointless rehashing the arguments again, so I won't bother.

I would like to see some honesty from you, though. I would like you to at least acknowledge what the relativistic argument is, seeing as it has been explained over and over to you in careful detail.

Instead, you just lie about what relativity says and what those who support relativity say.

You have also been told over and over again, and many examples have been given, of how the relativity of simultaneity is not due to signalling delays. Again, you ignore that, and blatantly lie about what relativity says.

This is why I cannot respect you any more.

We could agree to disagree. We could agree that the MacM world and the real world don't behave in the same way, and are fundamentally incompatible. I would have no problem at all with that.

We are certainly in agreement that I think relativity is right and you think it is wrong. We could leave it at that.

But you take the extra step of presenting a false picture of relativity and claiming it is real. Thus, you claim not only that relativity is wrong, but that the people who have had training in relativity and who actually understand the theory, don't really know what the theory says. You have the supreme arrogance to say that the relativists don't understand the theory of relativity, while you, o great and wise MacM, not only understand it better than them, but can also shoot holes in it.

This would be fine if you had even a small shred of evidence or rational argument for your statements about relativity. But all you have is MacM fairy stories and outright lies. You can't claim you don't know they are lies, since you've been told and shown.

So, in summary, you are just another dishonest crank.

Sorry.

 

[Paul T]

But you take the extra step of presenting a false picture of relativity and claiming it is real. Thus, you claim not only that relativity is wrong, but that the people who have had training in relativity and who actually understand the theory, don't really know what the theory says. You have the supreme arrogance to say that the relativists don't understand the theory of relativity, while you, o great and wise MacM, not only understand it better than them, but can also shoot holes in it.

When I was a teenager, I liked to think that I was superior and could create new theory. I did actually, but most of them are just bullshit. Thinking oneself as superior in that way when young is not a special case. I think most people do that. But....people learn, people change and people realize his or her follishness when he or she knows a little more. So did I, so did most other.

MacM, however, is a special case. I have no idea if he was this "brilliant" when he was young, but we know for sure that he is now behaving like most of the young teenagers who know a little but thought that the whole world (physics, in some case) is in their hands. Unfortunately though, MacM is not a young teenager. This is sad....not a happy ending story.

But, MacM DEBUNK relativity! This is happy ending...hahahaha