Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[GMontag]

Sounds like good advice to me, seeing as no internal contradictions have ever been found in the theory of relativity.

Agreed.

That's funny. Your whole argument for that past couple pages has been to assume relativity valid and then show that it contradicts itself. Now you're saying that whole line of argument is wrong?

 

[MacM]

Just because I only have 29 posts doesn't mean I haven't been lurking here for several years. Your statement about the precalculated timers is fine. The problem occurs when you contradict your statement with a later argument about B's view being due to observational delays.

Glad to respond. No offsense meant in my prior post but it appeared you were taking a position regarding the use of precalculated timers to do the test. That in fact was first done back on 2/21/03 in my first UniKEF thread (Not UniKEF analysis - James R's thread).

Yes, and to program the timers, you used the time dilation equations to give you what would "actually" happen according to relativity. Then you turned around and tried to claim that the same equation gives you what you would see before taking into account observational delays. That is either a unintentional fallacy, or dishonesty, take your pick.

It is neither. What B's monitor "C" of "A's" clock shows, is what Relativity predicts "A" should read when "B" stops. "A" does not read what Relativity predicts when "B" stops. You complain that I mix assumptions of reality with illusion.

I actually show the reality per Relativity and prove that it is ALL illusion since "A" does not read 6,840 ticks when "A" and "B" stops. If time dilation were valid when "B" stops "A" will read 6,840 ticks. It actually reads 36,000 ticks.

I think I am losing you on this but I don't know of a better way to present it.

You don't have to have all the facts to see that two facts contradict each other.

That is the very point of the test.

Here, you directly claim that B's observations are due to delayed information. You also directly claim that A's observations are actual reality, even though you calculated those observations from the very same equation. It is a blatant logical fallacy, and your refusal to admit or discuss it shows the intellectual dishonesty I was referring to in my previous post.

I refer you to my above explanation and reiterate. My personal view is that it is ALL illusion. Certainly as James R., has pointed out time delay by ct is only part of it but ct is what I call "Static Delay" or "Static Simultaneity Shift". Relative motion I assert causes a "Dynamic Delay" or "Dynamic Simultaneity Shift", it collectively is what is generally referred to as time dilation.

The test achieves its purpose and that is showing that by making the assumption of Relativity being valid, one gets an impossible conflict of clock readings. Which proves that our first assumption was in error and that time dilation is not physical reality but merely an illusion.

Hope this clarifies.

To clear this up, answer true or false to the following statements:

1. Assuming relativity, the time dilation equation gives you what actually happens, not what you would observe before taking observational delays into account.

I don't want to agree or disagree to something here without being sure we are speaking the same language. I am not sure what you mean by the later half of the above sentance.

I agree that assuming Relativity valid we would see what "A", "B" show. We do not see what "C" shows and that complicates answering this since I would have to say NO as I understand your question.

2. Assuming relativity, A's observations (calculated from the time dilation equations) in your test (i.e. simultaneous stopping of the clocks), are what actually happens.

Yes.

3. Assuming relativity, B's observations (calculated from the time dilation equations) in your test (i.e. non-simultaneous stopping of the clocks), are what actually happens.

False. Here is where we have a major differance. In B's frame he "Sees" "A" continue to run but the reality is "A" is physically stopped because "B" and "C" are stopped and "A was the controlling clock.

So B's frame is presenting an illusion of motion and does not represent an actual running clock, is not unlike watching the rest of a football game which has been run in slow motion. The ball game is actually over but you still see the players moving. It is history unfolding, not a clock physically running.

Please note that answering anything other than true for all or false for all is a contradiction.

I agree but I suspect we disagree on where and why there is a contradiction.

 

[MacM]

That's funny. Your whole argument for that past couple pages has been to assume relativity valid and then show that it contradicts itself. Now you're saying that whole line of argument is wrong?

You would have to read the material that was taken from. It is out of context here. They were discussing the mathematical consistancy and suggested that they would need to look externally. I agree the mathematics are consistant. They just don't describe reality.

I believe my test shows that.

 

[GMontag]

It is neither. What B's monitor "C" of "A's" clock shows, is what Relativity predicts "A" should read when "B" stops. "A" does not read what Relativity predicts when "B" stops. You complain that I mix assumptions of reality with illusion.

I actually show the reality per Relativity and prove that it is ALL illusion since "A" does not read 6,840 ticks when "A" and "B" stops. If time dilation were valid when "B" stops "A" will read 6,840 ticks. It actually reads 36,000 ticks.

This portion is irrelevant to my complaint, but you are not presenting what relativity actually predicts. (Assuming relativity,) A *does* read 6,840 when B stops in B's frame. It reads 36,000 when B stops in A's frame. The points in time when B stops in A's frame and when B stops in B's frame are *not* simultaneous. Points in time in different reference frames can *never* be simultaneous. Simultaneity is *only* defined within a specific reference frame.

The test achieves its purpose and that is showing that by making the assumption of Relativity being valid, one gets an impossible conflict of clock readings. Which proves that our first assumption was in error and that time dilation is not physical reality but merely an illusion.

There is no conflict of clock readings. As I have stated before, each clock has a single specific reading for each point in time in each frame of reference. The "conflict" only comes about because you insist on claiming two points in time in different reference frames are simultaneous when they cannot be simply due to the fact that they are in different reference frames.

I don't want to agree or disagree to something here without being sure we are speaking the same language. I am not sure what you mean by the later half of the above sentance.

Observational delays = delays due to the fact that light takes time to get from A to B.

I agree that assuming Relativity valid we would see what "A", "B" show. We do not see what "C" shows and that complicates answering this since I would have to say NO as I understand your question.

Clock C is an unnecessary complication. Clock C is just what B sees of A's clock. Assuming relativity is valid, B sees (after taking into account observational delays) exactly what relativity predicts him to see (B stops at 15,692, A stops at 36,000, B and A stop non-simultaneously).

Yes.



False. Here is where we have a major differance. In B's frame he "Sees" "A" continue to run but the reality is "A" is physically stopped because "B" and "C" are stopped and "A was the controlling clock.

So B's frame is presenting an illusion of motion and does not represent an actual running clock, is not unlike watching the rest of a football game which has been run in slow motion. The ball game is actually over but you still see the players moving. It is history unfolding, not a clock physically running.

Look Mac, you can't claim that A's view is reality while B's view is an illusion due to delay. The numbers come from the same equation. Either they are both reality or they are both illusion. Why doesn't A's view have this mythical delay?

 

[GMontag]

You would have to read the material that was taken from. It is out of context here. They were discussing the mathematical consistancy and suggested that they would need to look externally. I agree the mathematics are consistant. They just don't describe reality.

I believe my test shows that.

Sheesh Mac, you are changing your position every other post now. Your argument was that relativity's predictions for what A sees conflict with relativity's predictions for what B claims. You *are* claiming a mathematical inconsistancy.

 

[MacM]

Sheesh Mac, you are changing your position every other post now. Your argument was that relativity's predictions for what A sees conflict with relativity's predictions for what B claims. You *are* claiming a mathematical inconsistancy.

I think we have a different definiton of mathematical consistancy. I see it as being mathematically a closed loop which is hard to break because of circular reasoning but that the reasoning doesn't represent reality.

 

[MacM]

Look Mac, you can't claim that A's view is reality while B's view is an illusion due to delay. The numbers come from the same equation. Either they are both reality or they are both illusion. Why doesn't A's view have this mythical delay?

It does. Why do you think it was difficult to come up with this scenario to synchronize the functions.

Perhaps you will be able to see the falicy of your view if we consider this.

Would you agree that there is a simultaneity of views in that both views "A" and "B" occur in common time frames within the 10 hours allocated by the test, when each performs the same test from their POV?

This may be accomlished by simply adding three more clocks labled A', B' and C' but where C' is A's relavistic view of B.

Now at the exact same instant "Simultaneously" C and C' both claim the other A and B' clock reads 6,840 ticks as a stopped reading.

The reality is that A and A' represent the same clock. B and B' represent the same clock. C and C' represent the same clock in their simultaneous views of who is in motion in the same test.

The reality is there is only one 10 hour test and only three physical clocks. The only clocks that are in agreement are the ones that wrongly predicted the stopped reading of the other clock.

(A,A') and (B,B') both are required to display three different readings within the same 10 hours test which ends "Simultaneously". Both must display 36,000 ticks, 15,692 ticks and 6,840 ticks as stopped times.

Does that clarify the problem? It should. In this view clock (C,C') can be eliminated and the problem is still apparent.

Perhaps you might address Einstien's written explanation that time dilation is Mutatis Mutandi in 1922? Since everybodyelse has ignored that issue.

Or that to consider both clocks as having ran slow by an equal amount requires that any systemic measureable time dilation to be gaged against a background of universal time if it is to have any meaning what-so-ever.

 

[James R]

Perhaps you might address Einstien's written explanation that time dilation is Mutatis Mutandi in 1922? Since everybodyelse has ignored that issue.

What issue?

Your sentence doesn't make sense. Mutatis mutandi translates roughly as "adapt as required", or "make the necessary changes". You can't say time dilation is make the necessary changes. It doesn't make sense.

What are you talking about? Let's see the entire Einstein quote, without the MacM selective editing. I bet Einstein made sense.

 

[MacM]

What issue?

Your sentence doesn't make sense. Mutatis mutandi translates roughly as "adapt as required", or "make the necessary changes". You can't say time dilation is make the necessary changes. It doesn't make sense.

What are you talking about? Let's see the entire Einstein quote, without the MacM selective editing. I bet Einstein made sense.

I haven't seen the full text. It is not MY editing damn it. It was a quote as written. It may or may not be fully represented but I will see if I can find out. But your repeated assertion that MacM is distorting or taking things out of context is BS.

 

[MacM]

James R,

The following information has been found on the issue at:

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

******************** EXTRACT ************************
Einstein goes on to discuss time and he concludes that a travelling clock is perceived to run slow viz: t = gamma t¹. Strangely, he does not, at this juncture, refer to the reverse situation, even though he had earlier done so on the same page in the English edition (previous page 903 in the original German) when he discussed dimensions. Why is this fact never mentioned? What was left unsaid was that, to an observer travelling with the moving clock, the 'stationary¹ clock would also appear to run slow. Instead, he had laid the foundations for the subsequent twin controversy. Nobody ever mentions that Einstein later actually wrote that the time slowing was vice versa (he did not this in the 1905 paper, even though he applied the reverse situation to 'distance'). In his 1922 book ³The Meaning of Relativity² he specifically says it; 'mutatis mutandi' is the expression he used, and you being Italian will understand that! This was written after he had launched General Relativity. It is interesting that very few texts refer to Einstein¹s 1905 statement, and none to his 1922 statement, when discussing the twin paradox.
*****************************************************

Einstein A. The Meaning of Relativity (Chapman & Hall Methuen, London) 1922

I have found this book still available on the web; however it was not in english. Perhaps it might be found in a library. I'll be looking.

 

[Paul T]

I haven't seen the full text. It is not MY editing damn it. It was a quote as written. It may or may not be fully represented but I will see if I can find out. But your repeated assertion that MacM is distorting or taking things out of context is BS.

Quoting other people's statement doesn't make you immune from being a bullshit spreader. Whether the statement was written by you or by somebody else, if it is BS...it is BS, no difference at all.

 

[GMontag]

It does. Why do you think it was difficult to come up with this scenario to synchronize the functions.

Perhaps you will be able to see the falicy of your view if we consider this.

Would you agree that there is a simultaneity of views in that both views "A" and "B" occur in common time frames within the 10 hours allocated by the test, when each performs the same test from their POV?

I have no idea what you mean by "simultaneity of views". Reference frames extend infinitely into the past and future. I will agree that the test takes 10 hours in both frames. But are they the "same" 10 hours? No. They are in different reference frames and cannot be compared in that way.

This may be accomlished by simply adding three more clocks labled A', B' and C' but where C' is A's relavistic view of B.

Now at the exact same instant "Simultaneously" C and C' both claim the other A and B' clock reads 6,840 ticks as a stopped reading.

Here is where you make a mistake Mac. It is not the same instant. You are trying to apply the concept of simultaneity in a situation where it simply isn't defined. Two points in time in different reference frames *cannot* be simultaneous.

Besides, your numbers are off anyway. Neither observer predicts that any clock will stop at 6,840.

The reality is that A and A' represent the same clock. B and B' represent the same clock. C and C' represent the same clock in their simultaneous views of who is in motion in the same test.

Again, the views cannot be simultaneous because they are in different reference frames.

The reality is there is only one 10 hour test and only three physical clocks. The only clocks that are in agreement are the ones that wrongly predicted the stopped reading of the other clock.

Both observers agree on the stopped reading of the clocks. The only thing they disagree on is whether or not the stopping was simultaneous. This is okay, though because simultaneity is frame dependant.

(A,A') and (B,B') both are required to display three different readings within the same 10 hours test which ends "Simultaneously". Both must display 36,000 ticks, 15,692 ticks and 6,840 ticks as stopped times.

Clock A is required to show all of those times in the test, but is only required to stop at 36,000. Clock B only shows the 15,692 and 6,840 times, and is only required to stop at 15,692.

Does that clarify the problem? It should. In this view clock (C,C') can be eliminated and the problem is still apparent.

There is no problem. As I have said before, both observers agree on the time both clocks stopped. That is all they are required to agree on.

Perhaps you might address Einstien's written explanation that time dilation is Mutatis Mutandi in 1922? Since everybodyelse has ignored that issue.

How can I address an issue I don't see with a quote a I haven't read?

Or that to consider both clocks as having ran slow by an equal amount requires that any systemic measureable time dilation to be gaged against a background of universal time if it is to have any meaning what-so-ever.

It doesn't require that at all. Each observer will see the other clock as running slow by an equal amount. The observers only have to agree on the current time of the clocks after the two clocks have been brought to the same reference frame.

 

[James R]

MacM,

What are you trying to show with your quote from Einstein? It seems to be irrelevant to any issues being discussed in this thread.

If you're trying to claim that Einstein didn't realise that time dilation was symmetrical between observers at constant velocities, you'll need to do a lot better than you have done so far. The fact is, he was well aware of the implications of his theory. That shouldn't surprise anybody.

 

[MacM]

Quoting other people's statement doesn't make you immune from being a bullshit spreader. Whether the statement was written by you or by somebody else, if it is BS...it is BS, no difference at all.

So suppose you buy Einsteins book, read it, and then come back and tell us if it is bullshit or not. What a fucking idiot. :bugeye:

 

[MacM]

I have no idea what you mean by "simultaneity of views". Reference frames extend infinitely into the past and future. I will agree that the test takes 10 hours in both frames. But are they the "same" 10 hours? No. They are in different reference frames and cannot be compared in that way.

Here is where you make a mistake Mac. It is not the same instant. You are trying to apply the concept of simultaneity in a situation where it simply isn't defined. Two points in time in different reference frames *cannot* be simultaneous.

Besides, your numbers are off anyway. Neither observer predicts that any clock will stop at 6,840.

I am not responding to most of your post since it clearly is a waste of time. You have become so blinded by your faith in relativity that you put a blank wall between reality and any discussion.

However, I did want to highlite this. If time dilation is a real affect and clock B runs for 15,692 seconds and stops simultaneously with clock A in B's frame of referance, with relative veloicity of 0.9c, are you suggesting that clock A would read anything but 6,840 seconds?

Again, the views cannot be simultaneous because they are in different reference frames.

This is pathetic. Are you saying that you are unable to calculate relavistic affects and to use those calculations to insure simultaneity? You have to be joking.

Both observers agree on the stopped reading of the clocks. The only thing they disagree on is whether or not the stopping was simultaneous. This is okay, though because simultaneity is frame dependant.

Good since the stopped reading of the clocks show no time dilation affect possible.

Clock A is required to show all of those times in the test, but is only required to stop at 36,000. Clock B only shows the 15,692 and 6,840 times, and is only required to stop at 15,692.

6,840 is not a B clock time. It is B's view of the amount of accumulated time for A if B and A are stopped. Follow the yellow brick road.

There is no problem. As I have said before, both observers agree on the time both clocks stopped. That is all they are required to agree on.

They don't but no need to argue. You will refuse to see the light.

How can I address an issue I don't see with a quote a I haven't read?

Since it is quoted from a book Einstein wrote which is currently available you might start by assuming it is a true statement and respond to it. You seem to have no trouble quoting and responding to other things Einstien wrote.

If Einstein changed his mind about a fixed universe with the Hubble expansion discovery what makes you think he may not have also realized the falicy about time dialtion and changed his mind?

 

[MacM]

MacM,

What are you trying to show with your quote from Einstein? It seems to be irrelevant to any issues being discussed in this thread.

Interesting. Einstein writes something you like you quote it and advocate it to the hilt. But he writes something you don't like (on the same subject) and you balk. You say it doesn't makes sense and ask why it is being mentioned that it is irrelevant. :bugeye:

 

[James R]

GMontag:

My sympathies. I've gone through the same thing earlier in this thread with MacM. When backed into a corner, he typically either ignores issues and refuses to respond, or changes the subject.


MacM:

I didn't say I didn't like Einstein's quote. Wow, that Mutatis mutandi thing is really catchy and might make a great lyric if it was put to a rap beat.

What I said, for the second time, is that it doesn't seem to be relevant to any argument you're making.

Poor confused MacM.

 

[GMontag]

I am not responding to most of your post since it clearly is a waste of time. You have become so blinded by your faith in relativity that you put a blank wall between reality and any discussion.

Translation: I can find fault in your arguments, but want to hold on to my false conception of the world anyway.

However, I did want to highlite this. If time dilation is a real affect and clock B runs for 15,692 seconds and stops simultaneously with clock A in B's frame of referance, with relative veloicity of 0.9c, are you suggesting that clock A would read anything but 6,840 seconds?

No. If A's clock and B's clock stop simultaneously in B's frame when B's clock reads 15,692, then A's clock will have stopped at 6,840. But the stopping *isn't* simultaneous in B's frame in your scenario, so its irrelevant.

This is pathetic. Are you saying that you are unable to calculate relavistic affects and to use those calculations to insure simultaneity? You have to be joking.

Simultaneity between what? Between frames? That doesn't even mean anything. Between the clocks stopping? You can make it simultaneous in one frame at a time, but not in both.

Good since the stopped reading of the clocks show no time dilation affect possible.

No it doesn't. Both A and B see that A stopped at 36,000 ticks and B stopped at 15,692 ticks. Both see the other clock as running slow. Where is conflict?

6,840 is not a B clock time. It is B's view of the amount of accumulated time for A if B and A are stopped. Follow the yellow brick road.

B sees A stop at 36,000.

They don't but no need to argue. You will refuse to see the light.

Mac, perhaps you should actually *learn* what relativity predicts before you try to refute it.

Since it is quoted from a book Einstein wrote which is currently available you might start by assuming it is a true statement and respond to it. You seem to have no trouble quoting and responding to other things Einstien wrote.

I have never posted on this forum any quotes that were not direct quotes from earlier posts in the thread. Nor have I responded to any supposed quoted from Einstein. As for assuming it's true, you don't exactly have a history of posting true things, Mac. Besides, you haven't posted the quotation in question anyway, just an indirect reference to it.

If Einstein changed his mind about a fixed universe with the Hubble expansion discovery what makes you think he may not have also realized the falicy about time dialtion and changed his mind?

What makes me think it is the fact that there is no fallacy about time dilation. Besides, I don't care what you say Einstein said anyway. I can do the math myself and work out exactly what relativity predicts. Hell I can derive it all from first principles (the two postulates) if I wanted to.


Mac, you still have not provided a single reason that B would predict that the clocks would stop simultaneously. You have also not said why, if A's view has this delay you claim, that it is still actual reality when you claim that the same delay makes B's view an illusion.

 

[GMontag]

GMontag:

My sympathies. I've gone through the same thing earlier in this thread with MacM. When backed into a corner, he typically either ignores issues and refuses to respond, or changes the subject.

No need for sympathy for me. At this point, the only reason I'm continuing is to better my understanding of relativity through finding the holes in his arguments.

 

[MacM]

GMontag:

My sympathies. I've gone through the same thing earlier in this thread with MacM. When backed into a corner, he typically either ignores issues and refuses to respond, or changes the subject.


MacM:

I didn't say I didn't like Einstein's quote. Wow, that Mutatis mutandi thing is really catchy and might make a great lyric if it was put to a rap beat.

What I said, for the second time, is that it doesn't seem to be relevant to any argument you're making.

Poor confused MacM.

To say Einsteins statement about time dilation is not relevant to a discussion on time dilation seems to put you in lala land.

Just as he had flawed in regard to a static universe and altered his view there. He is withdrawing his 1905 presentation of time dilation and the twin paradox. And that isn't relevant.? That is funny I am still laughing. It no longer matters what Einstein has said his theory goes on.

Perhaps you might explain why in 1905 he very specifically addressed the reciprocity issue regarding length change but failed to do the same for time leaving the twin paradox alive and well for 17 years before making the above correction.?

Perhaps you can explain why that change of heart by Einstein has been and currently is being totally ignored.