Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[Quantum Quack]

maybe it would be an appropriate question to ask MacM at this time:

MacM, if dilation existed how would it be proven in a practical manner?

 

[GMontag]

MacM, I see you are still blatently ignoring the posts where I point that you are applying *your own arguments* inconsistantly. What's the matter? Can't think of a response? Don't want to admit that your arguments are fatally flawed? Come on. Have a little more integrity than that.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Your error lies here:



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.

Well I only differ in this respect. I do indeed understand what you claim but it is not an acceptable view to hold. In your view the concept of frames completely isolates everything and allows dual realities.

I do not accept that as even slightly realistic. But I agree you nor any Relativist is going to give up on your mathematical; concept of reality.

I do resent your habit of refering to different views as being dishonest and lying. That is bullshit. That is arrogant, not I.

 

[MacM]

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

This pisses me off. I at no time have claimed nor do I think of myself as brilliant. I do think you are stupid however.

 

[MacM]

maybe it would be an appropriate question to ask MacM at this time:

MacM, if dilation existed how would it be proven in a practical manner?

Well the H&K tests would have shown actual results. It didn't. It is obvious to those of us that aren't blinded by FIAT that it can't due to reciprocity.

But clearly they do not want to think in terms of reality but only mathematics since it has been a useful concept. What amazes me is the resistance to simply acknowledging that most of it is merely observational not not some useable tantalizing dual reality.

It should be noted that I give specific step by step linked physical arguements. They have consistantly been met with simple FIAT declarations as being there counter proof.

They will claim I have been proven wrong. The fact remains I have not. They have only "Declared" me wrong by verbal bullshit. They have presented, and they have, no viable arguement or proof of time dilation.

Where I have given specific arguements against it, the only thing they can do is quote Relativity as its own proof. It is a sad state of affairs for science.

I have been subjected to a broad range of personal abuse for adhereing to a physical reality. I have been called stupid, ignorant, arrogant, etc. Yet they simply make personal attacks and argue Relativity is valid by quoting Relativity.

That is the height of stupidity, ignorance and arrogance. To simply claim you are right because you say you are right and to be unable to present even one physical cause in support of your claim and then to assert those that don't accept your multiple realities concept are incompetent is shear assininity.

 

[MacM]

MacM, I see you are still blatently ignoring the posts where I point that you are applying *your own arguments* inconsistantly. What's the matter? Can't think of a response? Don't want to admit that your arguments are fatally flawed? Come on. Have a little more integrity than that.

That sir is bullshit. Show where you claim I have been inconsistant.

 

[Silas]

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.

(my emphasis.) The test does nothing of the kind, but you stick to it. It is your cleaving to absolute time which is the occurence here of faith, and the submission to a fiat. Relativity derives from the immutability of the speed of light in a vacuum. Our perceptions are entirely due to light and other electromagnetic radiation, beyond which there is not necessarily a "reality". If there is an absolute reality outside relative frames of reference it is not examinable by scientific enquiry. This means that clock rates differ and time rates differ and there is nothing we can do about that. But there is no paradox as long as your openminded enough to understand that our perception of reality as human beings is limited to only a tiny portion of the capabillities of our Universe.

And that's it from me on this discussion. It has been very educational!

 

[Persol]

Well I only differ in this respect. I do indeed understand what you claim but it is not an acceptable view to hold. In your view the concept of frames completely isolates everything and allows dual realities.

I do not accept that as even slightly realistic. But I agree you nor any Relativist is going to give up on your mathematical; concept of reality.

That sir is bullshit. At least now you are admitting that you just don't like the concept. Stop pretending like you have some proof that it is inconsistant.... especially when so many experiments done have supported it.

Seeing how just about everyone has said this to you, this is the end.

 

[MacM]

(my emphasis.) The test does nothing of the kind

Actually it does but you (meaning Relativists) cling to your unsupported mathematical view and cite the mathematics as your own proof. That doesn't cut it in the real world.

, but you stick to it. It is your cleaving to absolute time which is the occurence here of faith, and the submission to a fiat.

Now that is a twist. To believe that the results of a physical clock is a FIAT but to believe a mathematical prediction is not.

Relativity derives from the immutability of the speed of light in a vacuum. Our perceptions are entirely due to light and other electromagnetic radiation, beyond which there is not necessarily a "reality".

A couple of oints here.

1 - You have not thought beyond the test result which seem to indicate light speed is finite and invariable. There is a concept of the basis for production of light which show that this observation does not mean what you think it means.

2 - Even if EM and light are finite and invariable there is nothing to link that to the conclusion the the balance of the universe must function within the limits of such propagation of a particlular physical phenomena.

While it is not v = c in a vacuum Cerenkov Radiation shows that the terminal veloctiy of a photon can be exceeded. The differance would be that in the case of v = c in a vacuum, Lorentz Contraction would cause such objects to cease to exist in our dimension and we would not see them.

If there is an absolute reality outside relative frames of reference it is not examinable by scientific enquiry. This means that clock rates differ and time rates differ and there is nothing we can do about that. But there is no paradox as long as your openminded enough to understand that our perception of reality as human beings is limited to only a tiny portion of the capabillities of our Universe.

Nor is there a paradox to understand that what we "Perceive" may not be "Reality".

And that's it from me on this discussion. It has been very educational!

Your posts have been generally acceptable, even if I disagree with some of your conclusions. Thanks.

 

[MacM]

That sir is bullshit. At least now you are admitting that you just don't like the concept. Stop pretending like you have some proof that it is inconsistant.... especially when so many experiments done have supported it.

Again with the claim that experiments have proven this impossibility. NONE have.

There have been absolutely no counter evidence against the time dilation test other than mere verbage citing the conclusion of Relativity. Citing a theory does not prove a theory.

Now perhaps you would like to try and present a physical proof of time dilation.

Seeing how just about everyone has said this to you, this is the end.

I agree both side are entrenched. I however, favor being intrenched in what one can physically see and measure. You jprefer to be entrenched in the lala land of mathematics and psuedoscience.

 

[Billy T]

".....Now perhaps you would like to try and present a physical proof of time dilation......"

MacM:
Your faith in your view is so strong that you will not accept physical proofs as "Proof." Instead when presented with one, as I did about a month ago, you first try to offer explanations other than time dilation. You successively gave three ad hoc explanations as to how cosmic ray muons can reach the earth surface, but I eventually got you to withdraw them, one-by-one. (I even defended you from personal attacks by citing this as evidence that you could be persuaded by respectful logic and facts that you had previously accepted).

When your inventive mind can no longer think of a new explanation, you fall back into an unassailable position: "We don't understand all of physics." I had to admit that this is true, but then realized you would ignore the many things that time dilation can explain, preferring a vast array of unique special case explanations or disputing the empirical results as flawed in some way.

Normally people prefer one explanation for many observations to many ad hoc ones for each different experiment of natural observation, like the surface muons, and do not chose to claim ignorance when one good explanation is available for them all, but you are free to do as you like.

In view of this, it is not fair for you to now pretend that people can not show any physical proof. The problem is that you will not accept any of these proofs.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Could it be said that absolute time is frame dependent?

 

[MacM]

".....Now perhaps you would like to try and present a physical proof of time dilation......"

MacM:
Your faith in your view is so strong that you will not accept physical proofs as "Proof." Instead when presented with one, as I did about a month ago, you first try to offer explanations other than time dilation. You successively gave three ad hoc explanations as to how cosmic ray muons can reach the earth surface, but I eventually got you to withdraw them, one-by-one. (I even defended you from personal attacks by citing this as evidence that you could be persuaded by respectful logic and facts that you had previously accepted).

When your inventive mind can no longer think of a new explanation, you fall back into an unassailable position: "We don't understand all of physics." I had to admit that this is true, but then realized you would ignore the many things that time dilation can explain, preferring a vast array of unique special case explanations or disputing the empirical results as flawed in some way.

Normally people prefer one explanation for many observations to many ad hoc ones for each different experiment of natural observation, like the surface muons, and do not chose to claim ignorance when one good explanation is available for them all, but you are free to do as you like.

In view of this, it is not fair for you to now pretend that people can not show any physical proof. The problem is that you will not accept any of these proofs.

Billy T, Good to see you back in the discussion. Lets put the cards on the table. I can concieve of no physical explanation which can show time dilation as a real property. It simply violates physical law and is impossible as I have tried to show.

There are things which seem to mimick that property. Muon decay is one of those. What I tried to do is show that there may be alternative explanations (infact there must be alternative explanations since time manipulation is prohibited).

Of course you and others say show proof. That could be just as difficult as is my demand to show proof of time dilation. The only differance in the two positions is mine is based in sound physical principles and Relativity is not.

Relativity jumps on the affects seen in particle accelerators and claims it as proof. It is not. A very rational alternative is that the relative function is limited to applications where the driving energy and particle undergo a relative velocity. That is perfectly acceptable and understandable in physical terms. But to take that and surmise that nothing can exceed the speed of light because it would require infinite energy is an unustified extrapolation.

So I see areas where Relativity is quite valid but I also see areas where it is totally unproven or that there are better explanations.

As you said, I do acknowledge when my own views do not fit and I am flexable. But there has been NO conviencing evidence that time dilation is even possible, much less common or mandatory.

 

[MacM]

James R,

Since I had to reformat my hard drive, I have lost some information but it has been long enough now that I do not believe I will be getting a response back to my question about the 4th paragraph of the prior response I had gotten from UG.

But I will simply state in general what was said. He bascally concluded by saying that SRT was real.

Since that conflicted with some of what he had already said which I agreed with I sent him my reciprocity question and timing scenario with the intenant results and ask for him to clarify.

Seems he can't or won't. Hmmm.


Also it seems that these experts are not accustomed to answering Pete's question. I submitted it to three "Ask A Physicist" groups and NONE have responded.

Good show Pete.

 

[Paul T]

Since that conflicted with some of what he had already said which I agreed with I sent him my reciprocity question and timing scenario with the intenant results and ask for him to clarify.

Seems he can't or won't. Hmmm.

I can imagine why don't they reply you.

 

[MacM]

I can imagine why don't they reply you.

I anticipated that answer but it frankly is BS, since they usually do respond when an error or misunderstanding has been made. That suggests that they don't have a good answer.

They do seem less prone to go out on a limb and make absolutest statements without anything more than "Because I say so" response given here.

 

[MacM]

Readers might do well to see how many times the term "thinks" is used in explaining time dilation.

Not once do you see the term "is".

This is a far more viable presentation than those that insist on the reality of time dilation. "Thinks" is just that, an illusion or perception.

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/time.html

You also might do well to look into the following experiments:

************************************************
Experimental refutation of Relativistic Time Dilation

An experiment is described showing that a 36 GHz microwave signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic Doppler formula. From the observed absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is speculated that either the time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave background radiation. This second possible conclusion agrees with some theories for a computational background to the universe.

Maciej Komosinski and Szymon Ulatowski

http://www.timesup.org/laboratory/DataEcologies/abstracts.html

******************************************************

 

[GMontag]

That sir is bullshit. Show where you claim I have been inconsistant.

Right here:

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.

And here:

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?

And finally, here:

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.

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.

Although I can see why you didn't see it. I mean I only said it three times.

Let me ask you it directly then.

Why are you claiming that the numbers the time dilation equation gives you for B's view are due to delayed information, but claiming that the numbers the very same equation gives you for A's view are actual reality (and the clocks stopping actually are simultaneous)?

 

[MacM]

Right here:

And here:

And finally, here:

Although I can see why you didn't see it. I mean I only said it three times.

Let me ask you it directly then.

Why are you claiming that the numbers the time dilation equation gives you for B's view are due to delayed information, but claiming that the numbers the very same equation gives you for A's view are actual reality (and the clocks stopping actually are simultaneous)?

You really missed the boat on this one. I find it absolutely hilarious that to first assume Relativity valid shows that it is impossible. This technique was concieved because others here wanted to use all sorts of arguements against either stipulating simultaneity or achieving it through acceptable means in theory.

So using Relativity to establish simultaneity then produces the result which is impossible hence proving Relativity false.

Neat huh?

 

[MacM]

Readers:

You may have noticed that I get called a lot of things around here.

But I just want you to understand that I do not stand alone. In fact it seems I may be in the majority even among the scientific community.

The following is very "Loooooooong" but a must read for anyone wanting to know the true status of Relativity. It is the communications between numerous physicists involved in search for how to best demolish Relativity.


http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/quest.htm

****** Extracts which I particularily Liked ************
If you want to bring down special (or general) relativity you should not
look for internal contradictions. You must search for external
contradictions, incompatibilities with phisical reality and with logics. I
know that they have already taken this into account and have in some way
made us believe that the theory cannot be logically understood. But that,
if we want to use a good english term, is bull shit.



I find that almost no physicist believes in "special relativity" anymore. For example, in my poll of 100 senior physicists not one believed in "special relativity". Generally it is only uneducated nonphysicists who still believe.

If you are sincerely against "special relativity", I strongly recommend that you cease writing pro-relativity papers and that you write pro-absolute space-time papers and simply ignore "special relativity" altogether!...

Weiherdammstrasse 24
78176 Blumberg - Germany
Tel.: 07702-658



You imply that a correct 'explanation' is in almost all relativity textbooks. I have, so far, collected 54 different so-called 'explanations' (up to Summer 1999), published in mainstream physics journals (all suitably peer reviewed!) and textbooks, and each implies that most of the others are wrong!!! These so-called explanations are broken down as follows: 8 say it is inexplicable, and causes a huge problem for Relativity (among these is Essen the inventor of the cesium clock); 4 say the differential aging is all caused solely during the acceleration & deceleration phases (this includes Langevin, Bondi, Rindler and a standard 1990's textbook); 9 say the acceleration has nothing whatever to do with the explanation; 3 say that General Relativity has nothing to do with the explanation; 4 say that General Relativity gives the sole explanation; 2 say jumping from one Inertial Frame to another explains the paradox. Other more exotic and bizarre explanations make up the rest. So, it as all very simple, and the correct explanation is to be seen in every standard text? Like hell it is!

***************************************************

Here is another test of interest.


http://www.marmet.ca/louis/induction_faraday/mueller/muller.htm