Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[James R]

MacM:

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

What statement about time dilation? Post the quote, if it exists. Make sure you post the entire paragraph it comes from, not just five words. I don't want MacM's imagination about what Einstein said. I want what Einstein said.

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.

Where did he do that? I think you're lying again. Post the proof.

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.?

Right now, you have given no reason for me to believe that what you say is true, so there's really nothing to explain, yet.

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

Maybe because you're imagining it.

 

[MacM]

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

Translation: You have created a Firewall between you and any discussion of Relativity involving logic or rational thought and insist that "Simultaneity" precludes it. That is simply false. Either predictions of Relativity can be calculated and used to insure simulteneity or Relativity is false.

But due to your attitude it would indeed be a waste of time for any further appeal to logic or rational thought. So simply put, I am giving up on you.

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.

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.

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?

B sees A stop at 36,000.

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

Your declarations are simply false.

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.[/qkuote]

Like I said you can ignore the information and hide behind ignorance but you can't alter history. Einstein retracted his claim of the twin paradox in 1922, 17 years after he first published SRT.

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.

Einstein did math showing the universe to be static. So what. Mathematics does not create reality. It is the other way around. Mathematics can be sued to describe reality. But using common sense to distinguish the differance it of utmost importance. You lack this quality.

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.

Not that this will help you in any way but that all the followers of this thread will have the opportunity to decide for themselves I now post the case in a completely compiled format for their consideration:

CASE:

1 - Six identical clocks are used (A1, A2, A3), (B1, B2, B3)

2 - Set A1, A2 and B3 are called set "X" are used to test the predictions of Relativity from A1's perspective being at rest. Set B1, B2 and A3 are called set "Y" and are used to test the predictions of Relativity from the B2 clock perspective as being at rest.

3 - The test is setup in a manner to insure simultaneous starting and stopping of all clocks. Since we are testing the fundamental mathematics of Relativity a series of timers are preset using mathematical calculations of Relativity for what is predicted.

4 - The A3 and B3 clocks are called monitor clocks and are calibrated to run at a time dilation rate computed by Relativity. For example clock A3 is B1's view of the accumulated time predicted by Relativity for clock A1 at rest when B1 stops. A3 also stops when B1 stops and it records the A1 stop time required to prove Relativity from B1's view. The B1 control timer is set to stop B1 at the computed end of the 10 hour test according to clock A1. Clock B3 is done the same but is applied to the A2 view of B2.

5 - To eliminate GR from consideration of the test it is done in deep space. Clock set "X" are in one space craft. Clock set "Y" are in the other.

6 - One or the other, or both, sets of clocks are accelerated on a schedule such that the preset timers start all clocks simultaneously after a time calculated to be in a constant inertial condition at 0.9 c.

7 -Start/Stop "Simultaneity" is guaranteed by assuming the validity of Relativity. If that doesn't work then what can we say?.

8 - During the 10 hour test from the A1 clock's view the following times will be recorded. Note: ALL clocks stop simultaneously or Relativity is invalid:

A1 = 36,000 seconds
B1 = 15,692 seconds/A3 = 6,840 seconds

9 - During the 10 hour test from the B2 clock's view the following times will be recorded:

A2 = 15,692 seconds/B3 = 6,840 seconds
B2 = 36,000 seconds

10 - It should be noted that even though All clocks stop simultaneoulsy in Set "X's" view, when B1 stops it sees A1 continue to run until it reaches its actual stop time of 36,000 seconds. Likewise in set "Y" when A2 stops it sees B2 continue to run until it reaches 36,000 seconds even though it is actually stopped.

This condition is no different than watching a football game on one TV, recording it in real time but playing it back instantly on another TV in slow motion. When the game is actually over, the slow motion VCR still shows the game going on but it is only history catching up. the game is actually physically over. Indeed if one looks at the countdown clock on the playing field in the slow motion playback, you can see that the game is actually requiring the correct amount of time and hasn't changed just because you are watching in slow motion. In the end if the actual game took one hour of play, then even the slow motion view of it will show by the recorded clocks, that it still ended in actually 1 hour. That is your perception of time running slow did not alter the event, nor alter actual time flow.

11 - Recall that A1 and A2 and A3 represent one physical clock during the test. B1, B2 and B3 represent one physical clock. Collectively they represent the requirement of a clock to represent the various observers view in Relativity.

12 - You now have a situation where each clock in the test must display three distinctly different times simultaneously as a function of when they stopped according to the observers view, even though they all stopped simultaneously in physical reality..

A1 = 36,000 seconds
A2 = 15,692 seconds
A3 = 6,840 seconds

B1 = 15,692 seconds
B2 = 36,000 seconds
B3 = 6,840 seconds.

Since it is physically impossible for a clock to display multiple times upon stopping, Relativity is shown to be a falicy.

Since each clock is required to slow equally by Relativity, due to reciprocity, there can be no systemic measureable time differential between observers.

The only context where this function could be gaged would be in a universe having absolute time as a reference.

Simultaneity must also undergo the same observer reciprocity due to relative motion.

At best, time dilation therefore is relagated to being an "illusion of motion" with no actual affect on time or aging.

The entire test starts and stops in the same 10 hours. Clocks start and stop simultaneously in the test or Relativity can be declared false by first principle.


Have a nice day.


Dan K. McCoin

 

[James R]

MacM:

Your new summary is hopeless muddled. Perhaps you should redraft it from scratch. You might think about addressing the following issues.

CASE:

1 - Six identical clocks are used (A1, A2, A3), (B1, B2, B3)

2 - Set A1, A2 and B3 are called set "X" are used to test the predictions of Relativity from A1's perspective being at rest. Set B1, B2 and A3 are called set "Y" and are used to test the predictions of Relativity from the B2 clock perspective as being at rest.

Fine so far.

3 - The test is setup in a manner to insure simultaneous starting and stopping of all clocks.

Without specifying a reference frame, this is meaningless.

You can choose to simultaneously start or stop all clocks in one or the other frame, but not both if the frames are moving relative to one another.

Since we are testing the fundamental mathematics of Relativity a series of timers are preset using mathematical calculations of Relativity for what is predicted.

No idea what this means.

4 - The A3 and B3 clocks are called monitor clocks and are calibrated to run at a time dilation rate computed by Relativity. For example clock A3 is B1's view of the accumulated time predicted by Relativity for clock A1 at rest when B1 stops.

This is unclear. A3 is B1's view of the accumulated time of which clock? And when you say "view" do you mean to include signalling delays, or not?

A3 also stops when B1 stops and it records the A1 stop time required to prove Relativity from B1's view.

In which frame does A3 stop when B1 stops? You haven't specified the frame.

The B1 control timer is set to stop B1 at the computed end of the 10 hour test according to clock A1.

What computation? By who? Of what?

Clock B3 is done the same but is applied to the A2 view of B2.

Same again.

5 - To eliminate GR from consideration of the test it is done in deep space. Clock set "X" are in one space craft. Clock set "Y" are in the other.

Ok.

6 - One or the other, or both, sets of clocks are accelerated on a schedule such that the preset timers start all clocks simultaneously after a time calculated to be in a constant inertial condition at 0.9 c.

You haven't specified in which frame you want to start all clocks simultaneously.

7 -Start/Stop "Simultaneity" is guaranteed by assuming the validity of Relativity. If that doesn't work then what can we say?.

How will it work, specifically? This is nothing but a FIAT declaration by you? Explain, if you can.

8 - During the 10 hour test from the A1 clock's view the following times will be recorded. Note: ALL clocks stop simultaneously or Relativity is invalid:

You're assuming in your "Note" what you are setting out to show in the first place.

Circular reasoning, MacM. You can't prove relativity is false by assuming relativity is false. Try again.

A1 = 36,000 seconds
B1 = 15,692 seconds/A3 = 6,840 seconds

In which frame, at what time?

9 - During the 10 hour test from the B2 clock's view the following times will be recorded:

A2 = 15,692 seconds/B3 = 6,840 seconds
B2 = 36,000 seconds

In which frame, at what time?

10 - It should be noted that even though All clocks stop simultaneoulsy in Set "X's" view, when B1 stops it sees A1 continue to run until it reaches its actual stop time of 36,000 seconds. Likewise in set "Y" when A2 stops it sees B2 continue to run until it reaches 36,000 seconds even though it is actually stopped.

How can a clock continue to run after it has stopped? Please explain.

You said all clocks stop simultaneously, but now you claim some clocks continue to run. Which is it? Stop the flip-flop.

11 - Recall that A1 and A2 and A3 represent one physical clock during the test.

Recall? You never mentioned that before.

B1, B2 and B3 represent one physical clock. Collectively they represent the requirement of a clock to represent the various observers view in Relativity.

How? Please explain.

12 - You now have a situation where each clock in the test must display three distinctly different times simultaneously as a function of when they stopped according to the observers view, even though they all stopped simultaneously in physical reality..

You haven't shown that.

Since it is physically impossible for a clock to display multiple times upon stopping, Relativity is shown to be a falicy.

It would be if you'd shown that. But you haven't.

Since each clock is required to slow equally by Relativity, due to reciprocity, there can be no systemic measureable time differential between observers.

"Reciprocity" is a MacM concept. It is not part of relativity. MacM's model of relativity may well be wrong, but actual relativity is correct.

The only context where this function could be gaged would be in a universe having absolute time as a reference.

No idea what this means.

Simultaneity must also undergo the same observer reciprocity due to relative motion.

Or this.

At best, time dilation therefore is relagated to being an "illusion of motion" with no actual affect on time or aging.

No, you're wrong.

Have a nice day.

Thankyou.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

What statement about time dilation? Post the quote, if it exists. Make sure you post the entire paragraph it comes from, not just five words. I don't want MacM's imagination about what Einstein said. I want what Einstein said.

Where did he do that? I think you're lying again. Post the proof.

Right now, you have given no reason for me to believe that what you say is true, so there's really nothing to explain, yet.

Maybe because you're imagining it.

Perhaps it is time to stop trying to Texas Two Step the issue and read the book before declaring your position. I will indeed be seeking the book. I posted the information so that you too can acquire the book. It might just be worth your time to look into it rather than becomeing entrenched and demanding other do our educational work for you.

 

[James R]

MacM:

You want me to go looking for a book just to see where you were mistaken about a five word quote by Einstein?

I have better things to do.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

You want me to go looking for a book just to see where you were mistaken about a five word quote by Einstein?

I have better things to do.

Fortunately I don't so you will be required to address the issue.

 

[MacM]

Your new summary is hopeless muddled. Perhaps you should redraft it from scratch. You might think about addressing the following issues.

Thanks. I'll be looking at reformatting where I can to better organize. However a complex issue requires a complex solution. Especially when there are those that wiggle, twist and turn at every opportunity to avoid addressing the facts. The wiggle room is narrowing don't you think?

Without specifying a reference frame, this is meaningless.

All clocks is understood to mean all frames since the frames addressed in the test have already been specified and they are testing all frames.

You can choose to simultaneously start or stop all clocks in one or the other frame, but not both if the frames are moving relative to one another.

HeHe. So now both frames can exist simultaneoulsy within the same 10 hour test and produce relavistic affects but it can't be tested? But clocks cannot be used to test both frames at the same time? HeHe. Hardly a conviencing barrier to the test. :bugeye:

Since we are testing the fundamental mathematics of Relativity a series of timers are preset using mathematical calculations of Relativity for what is predicted.

No idea what this means.

You got to be kidding. I first introduced the use of precalculated timers per Relativity predictions 20 months ago and it has been debated many times.

If you really don't get it let me know and I'll restate the technique and the consequences but basically what it means is if you reject simultaneity of the process you must also reject Relativity is valid.

4 - The A3 and B3 clocks are called monitor clocks and are calibrated to run at a time dilation rate computed by Relativity. For example clock A3 is B1's view of the accumulated time predicted by Relativity for clock A1 at rest when B1 stops.

This is unclear. A3 is B1's view of the accumulated time of which clock?

Try reading the part in red. Did that help?

And when you say "view" do you mean to include signalling delays, or not?

Per Relativity at 0.9c clock tick rate is altered such that if B ticks 15,692 times, A will only tick 6,840 times. If both clocks are stopped simultaneously they should both display those readings, if indeed time dilation occurs.

In which frame does A3 stop when B1 stops? You haven't specified the frame.

A's and B's. Don't argue. It has already been agreed that the timers stop A1, B1 and A3 simultaneously. I know B1 perceives A1 is still running but A1 is actually stopped and what B1 sees is A1 running until its time display reaches its stopped display due to information delay.

However, we can stipulate the space ship has no means of communication or observation and must rely upon its relavistic monitor clock A3 to determine when A stopped and what the display according to Relativity must be since we know they all physically stopped simultaenously.

The B1 control timer is set to stop B1 at the computed end of the 10 hour test according to clock A1.

What computation? By who? Of what?

You got to be kidding.

Clock B3 is done the same but is applied to the A2 view of B2.

Same again.

Same again. You really might do better if you paid attention.

You haven't specified in which frame you want to start all clocks simultaneously.

Of course I have. Using two sets of clocks and relavistically preset timers ALL six clocks start simultaneously. However the other frame would not necessarily see them start the same time. But that is a moot issue.

7 -Start/Stop "Simultaneity" is guaranteed by assuming the validity of Relativity. If that doesn't work then what can we say?.

How will it work, specifically? This is nothing but a FIAT declaration by you? Explain, if you can.

Of course I can and I already have many times. But to not appear to be balking I'll repeat it once more. The simultaneity shift is computed and programmed into preset timers such that starting and stopping are physically simultaneous. The fact that each frame may see the other clock still running, if it had the ability to see it, has no bearing on the start/stop status of the clocks.

8 - During the 10 hour test from the A1 clock's view the following times will be recorded. Note: ALL clocks stop simultaneously or Relativity is invalid:

You're assuming in your "Note" what you are setting out to show in the first place.

Circular reasoning, MacM. You can't prove relativity is false by assuming relativity is false. Try again.

What?. Try again indeed. I didn't assume Relativity was false, I assumed it was valid. That is how we can rely on the timers to achieve simultaneity so as to compare numbers displayed by the stopped clocks.

If the stopped displays of the clocks agree with Relativity then it has been validated.

If the numbers don't match then there can only be two explanations.

1 - Simultaneity failed which means Relativity is false.

2 - Simultaneity suceeded but numbers don't match which means time dilation in Relativity is false.

A1 = 36,000 seconds
B1 = 15,692 seconds/A3 = 6,840 seconds.

In which frame, at what time?

Already specified. But that is clock set "X" where A1 is considered at rest.

Since simultaneity between frames has been programmed into the timers it also becomes A and B's frame data for simultaneously stopped clocks.

9 - During the 10 hour test from the B2 clock's view the following times will be recorded:

A2 = 15,692 seconds/B3 = 6,840 seconds
B2 = 36,000 seconds

In which frame, at what time?

You really aren't trying very hard here James.

10 - It should be noted that even though All clocks stop simultaneoulsy in Set "X's" view, when B1 stops it sees A1 continue to run until it reaches its actual stop time of 36,000 seconds. Likewise in set "Y" when A2 stops it sees B2 continue to run until it reaches 36,000 seconds even though it is actually stopped.

How can a clock continue to run after it has stopped? Please explain.

Talk about trying to bait and switch.

I have made it abundantly clear that after A1 is stopped B1 would see it continue to run due to information delay. But B1 is only watching history catching up to his frame.

A1 is NOT running. It has been your position that because B1 saw A1 running it was still running but that is shear falicy. A1 is stopped and has a final display. It is not and will not change.

You said all clocks stop simultaneously, but now you claim some clocks continue to run. Which is it? Stop the flip-flop.

No you don't James. You are doing the flip-flop. You have claimed they continued to run. I have argued they are not running, they are stopped but are seen to continue to run because of time delay.

I have never said a stopped clock continues to run that is absured. But that however, has been your stated position in the past. Your claim is it is not stopped in B's frame. But that is a moot point. The issue is the stopped displays and the predicted time accumulation due to relavistic affects which should be recorded.

11 - Recall that A1 and A2 and A3 represent one physical clock during the test.

Recall? You never mentioned that before.

I have never used 6 clocks before to cut off your wiggle room. I have mentioned it here and this is just a reminder that all A's are times of "Clock A" and all B's are "Clock B" in the real world. I use multiple clocks with simultaneity controls to show the relavistic views of different frames and observers of the same clock.

B1, B2 and B3 represent one physical clock. Collectively they represent the requirement of a clock to represent the various observers view in Relativity.

How? Please explain.

I just did above.

12 - You now have a situation where each clock in the test must display three distinctly different times simultaneously as a function of when they stopped according to the observers view, even though they all stopped simultaneously in physical reality..

You haven't shown that.

I certainly have but you will continue to pretend to not understand and to claim it is false but you are wasting your time.

Either the timers achieve simultaneity or Relativity is false. Assuming simultaneity the numbers prove Relativity is false.

Since it is physically impossible for a clock to display multiple times upon stopping, Relativity is shown to be a falicy.

It would be if you'd shown that. But you haven't.

Unfortunately for you I have. It just may take a while before you are forced to face that reality.

"Reciprocity" is a MacM concept. It is not part of relativity.

Excuse me for being blunt but bullshit. "Reciprocity" is not MacM's concept.

Reciprocity is a word with a meaning which happens to described what is "Required" by Relativity where there is only constant relative motion between two observers.

That requirement is that each observer sees the other as being in motion in equal amounts vice-versa. Having a common relative velocity input to a mathematical formula mandates that each frame will calculate the same relavistic affect. i.e. the same amount of clock slowing.

That is Reciprocity.

It really doesn't matter that Einstein choose to not make that clear, it is a physical fact. One which even you cannot deny.

MacM's model of relativity may well be wrong, but actual relativity is correct.

MacM does not have a model of Relativity. It is Albert's and your Relativity which is being analyzed. Unfortunately it fails the analysis.

The only context where this function could be gaged would be in a universe having absolute time as a reference.

No idea what this means.

Give me a break. Stop trying to weasel. If relavistic predictions are that both clocks slow an equal amount there can be no systemic measureable differential in clock displays. That means time dilation is no physically real and time has not been altered between observers. IF both clocks slow that must be in relation to some other reference which can only be a universal time.

Simultaneity must also undergo the same observer reciprocity due to relative motion.

[Or this.

Pretending to be thick skulled does not allow you to dodge the issue.

At best, time dilation therefore is relagated to being an "illusion of motion" with no actual affect on time or aging.

No, you're wrong.

Words are cheap. You might try actually addressing the issue presented.

BTW: The library told me to expect the book within 2-3 weeks. They have ordered it in. Enjoy what little time you have left with you beloved theory.

 

[Paul T]

Of course I can and I already have many times. But to not appear to be balking I'll repeat it once more. The simultaneity shift is computed and programmed into preset timers such that starting and stopping are physically simultaneous. The fact that each frame may see the other clock still running, if it had the ability to see it, has no bearing on the start/stop status of the clocks.

Only a dumb would set that kind of silly experiment. This seem to be the set up:

Put a clock on earth and another similar one in a spaceship. Preset both clocks to stop when they hit reading 36,000 seconds. Then let the spaceship move away from earth at relativistic velocity until the clock stop. Experiment done. Get the spaceship clock back to earth and compared their reading, and....voila they both show 36,000 seconds. No time dilation. Congratulation, mister...you had just proved that SR flawed...hahahahahaha

BTW: The library told me to expect the book within 2-3 weeks. They have ordered it in. Enjoy what little time you have left with you beloved theory.

This 2-3 weeks time of waiting could be a nightmare for whoever supporting relativity here. What will you do after you get the book and discover that SR (time dilation concpet in particular) is seriously flawed even according to Einstein himself? Will you publish your finding in the scientific journal? Many seem to be unaware of the flawed. You will be remembered as a hero. OMG.

 

[MacM]

Only a dumb would set that kind of silly experiment. This seem to be the set up:

Put a clock on earth and another similar one in a spaceship. Preset both clocks to stop when they hit reading 36,000 seconds. Then let the spaceship move away from earth at relativistic velocity until the clock stop. Experiment done. Get the spaceship clock back to earth and compared their reading, and....voila they both show 36,000 seconds. No time dilation. Congratulation, mister...you had just proved that SR flawed...hahahahahaha

Funny indeed. You now prove not only can you not speak and write english you can't read either.

This 2-3 weeks time of waiting could be a nightmare for whoever supporting relativity here. What will you do after you get the book and discover that SR (time dilation concpet in particular) is seriously flawed even according to Einstein himself? Will you publish your finding in the scientific journal? Many seem to be unaware of the flawed. You will be remembered as a hero. OMG.

Get real. I am just responding to James R deliberate resistance to acknowledgeing Einsteins statement. I have no need to be remembered at all. You seem to fail to realize that this is about clarifiying science not becoming hero's. Reading AE's clarifications in no manner reqires any individual achievement; Oh except in our case since you seem to have trouble with reading or at least reading comphrension.

 

[James R]

MacM,

Since you appear unable to address the problems with your scenario, I will give what actually happens according to relativity. That is, I will assume that relativity is true, and tell you what it actually predicts for your test.

Relativistic prediction for MacM's clock test

1. Clock A is stationary. At the same location as clock A, there is clock MB, which is to "monitor" clock B at A's location.
2. Clock B moves at 0.9c away from clock A. Comoving with clock B is clock MA, which is to "monitor" clock A at B's location.
3. When clocks A and B are at the same location, both are started.
4. When clock A reads 36000s in A's reference frame, all clocks (A,B,MA,MB) are stopped simultaneously, in A's reference frame.
5. In clock A's frame, the following events occur, at the time t.

(a) At t=0 all clocks start.
(b) At t=6840, all clocks are still ticking. The readings on the clocks are:

A: 6840
B: 2981
MA: 1299
MB: 2981

(b) At t=15692s, all clocks are still ticking. Readings are:

A: 15692
B: 6840
MA: 2981
MB: 6840

(c) At t=36000s, all clocks stop simultaneously. Readings are:

A: 36000 (stopped)
B: 15692 (stopped)
MA: 6840 (stopped)
MB: 15692 (stopped)

At this time, the test is finished, so these are the final times displayed on all clocks.

6. In clock B's reference frame, the following events occur, at the time t'.

(a) At t'=0 all clocks start.
(b) At t'=6840, all clocks are still ticking. The readings on the clocks are:

A: 2981
B: 6840
MA: 2981
MB: 1299

(b) At t'=15692s, clock B stops ticking, and so does MA. Clocks A and MB continue to tick in this frame. Readings are:

A: 6840
B: 15692 (stopped)
MA: 6840 (stopped)
MB: 2981

(c) At t'=36000s, clocks B and MA are stopped, while clocks clocks A and MB continue to run. Readings are:

A: 15692
B: 15692 (stopped)
MA: 6840 (stopped)
MB: 6840

(d) At t'=82590s, clocks A and MA stop, which ends the test. Readings are:

A: 36000 (stopped)
B: 15692 (stopped)
MA: 6840 (stopped)
MB: 15692 (stopped)

7. Compare the readings in 5(c) and 6(d), after both observers agree the test has finished. They are the same. All observers, in both frames of reference, agree on the final times displayed by the clocks.

Notes

8. Looking at either frame, no clock continues to run after it has stopped. In a single frame, each clock stops at one and only one time, and continues to display that time forever, after it has stopped.
9. No clock ever displays two times at once.
10. All clocks stop simultaneously in one and only one frame. In the other frame, they do not stop simultaneously.
11. The above readings are real times, not displays delayed in any way by signalling issues. Any signalling delays have been taken out.
12. The "monitor" clocks do not do exactly what MacM thinks they do. Note that in A's reference frame, the displays on clocks B and MB are always the same. Similarly, the displays on clocks A and MA are always the same in B's frame, at least until clock MA stops (because A continues to run after this). However, note that in A's frame, clock MA does not display the same time as A, and in B's frame, clock MB does not display the same time as B.

---

This is what relativity really says about this situation. Anything MacM claims to the contrary about the predictions of relativity for this experiment is simply wrong.

 

[MacM]

Since you appear unable to address the problems with your scenario, I will give what actually happens according to relativity. That is, I will assume that relativity is true, and tell you what it actually predicts for your test.

First, I have no problems addressing issues for the described test. Secondly there are no problems for the test. Third your effort to pretend stupid and/or to mistate points of the presentation are to numerous to waste time since you have made it clear you will not accept the only conclusion that can be reality.

Relativistic prediction for MacM's clock test

1. Clock A is stationary. At the same location as clock A, there is clock MB, which is to "monitor" clock B at A's location.

2. Clock B moves at 0.9c away from clock A. Comoving with clock B is clock MA, which is to "monitor" clock A at B's location.

3. When clocks A and B are at the same location, both are started.

4. When clock A reads 36000s in A's reference frame, all clocks (A,B,MA,MB)
are stopped simultaneously, in A's reference frame.

5. In clock A's frame, the following events occur, at the time t.

(a) At t=0 all clocks start.

(b) At t=6840, all clocks are still ticking. The readings on the clocks are:

A: 6840
B: 2981
MA: 1299
MB: 2981

(b) At t=15692s, all clocks are still ticking. Readings are:

A: 15692
B: 6840
MA: 2981
MB: 6840

(c) At t=36000s, all clocks stop simultaneously. Readings are:

A: 36000 (stopped)
B: 15692 (stopped)
MA: 6840 (stopped)
MB: 15692 (stopped)

At this time, the test is finished, so these are the final times displayed on all clocks.

6. In clock B's reference frame, the following events occur, at the time t'.

(a) At t'=0 all clocks start.

(b) At t'=6840, all clocks are still ticking. The readings on the clocks are:

A: 2981
B: 6840
MA: 2981
MB: 1299

(b) At t'=15692s, clock B stops ticking, and so does MA. Clocks A and MB continue to tick in this frame. Readings are:

A: 6840
B: 15692 (stopped)

BULLSHIT. At 15,692 seconds. It has been shown that "A" has already achieved 36,000 seconds. The only 6,840 second "stopped" reading is MA. "A" continues to appear to run from the 6,840 second reading when B stopped because it had already reached 36,000 and stopped. The information delay allows B to see that happen. "A" did not stop at 6,840 seconds.

You are trying to use two different 15,692 seconds times for clock B. This testing is simultaneous. You are grossly in error.

7. Compare the readings in 5(c) and 6(d), after both observers agree the test has finished. They are the same. All observers, in both frames of reference, agree on the final times displayed by the clocks.

That is not the test. The test is finished when clocks stop and the precalculated relavistic timers stop all clocks simultaneously. There is no 82,590 second for clock B it stopped at 15,692 seconds. Test over.

10. All clocks stop simultaneously in one and only one frame. In the other frame, they do not stop simultaneously.

ALL clocks were stopped simultaneously period. Observation of other clocks running is just the perception of the clock catching up to the other frame but the clock is actually stopped and the display reading will be what the other frame sees when he sees it stop. The stopped readings are the results of the test.

End of Test Correct Clock Readings are.

A = 36,000 seconds/MB = 15,692 seconds
B = 15,692 seconds/MA = 6,840 seconds

Times each physical clock must display to verify Relativity:

A = 36,000 seconds AND 6,840 seconds
B = 15,692 seconds.

This is what relativity really says about this situation. Anything MacM claims to the contrary about the predictions of relativity for this experiment is simply wrong.

Again mere fiat declarations. Your arguement fails.

Do you still claim all these clocks cannot be stopped simultaneously?

To claim so invalidates Relativity. Either the timers work or Relativity is invalid.

If Relativity is valid then the timers work and the simultaneous stopping of the clocks produces my numbers not yours. My numbers show it is physically impossible for time dilation to be real.

Finally using your altered scenario, if I set a precalculated timer into "A" such that it stops in your scenario by B being in control MB now only shows 2,982 seconds not 15,692 seconds.

Sorry. You need to try again.

 

[Yuriy]

James R,
do you now understand that we deal with a diagnosis?

 

[MacM]

James R,
do you now understand that we deal with a diagnosis?

We now understand that the great Yuriy doesn't have a valid answer either.

 

[GMontag]

OK Mac, three more true or false questions:

1. The numbers you are quoting for A's view of B and B's view of A are both calculated using the same time dilation equation, true or false?

2. You claim that the numbers you are quoting for A's view of B have taken observational delays into account, and are therefore reality, true or false?

3. You claim that the numbers you are quoting for B's view of A have *not* taken observational delays into account, and are therefore an illusion, true or false?

 

[James R]

MacM:

BULLSHIT. At 15,692 seconds. It has been shown that "A" has already achieved 36,000 seconds.

Not in B's frame.

I'm only telling you what relativity says, MacM. You can disagree that relativity is correct, but you can't disagree on what it predicts. Not without being wrong.

The only 6,840 second "stopped" reading is MA. "A" continues to appear to run from the 6,840 second reading when B stopped because it had already reached 36,000 and stopped. The information delay allows B to see that happen. "A" did not stop at 6,840 seconds.

I already told you that all information delays have been factored out.

Put them back in if you like. It makes no difference.

You are trying to use two different 15,692 seconds times for clock B. This testing is simultaneous. You are grossly in error.

No. Clock B only ever displays the number 15692 once. It never backtracks. It only counts from 0 to 15692 until it stops.

That is not the test. The test is finished when clocks stop and the precalculated relavistic timers stop all clocks simultaneously.

That happens in A's frame, but not in B's, according to relativity.

Whether or not you like the relativistic concept of simultaneity, you can't deny that the concept exists in relativity, and you can't deny that in the relativistic picture we need to apply it here.

You can say it isn't "reality" if you like, but you can't say it isn't relativity.

There is no 82,590 second for clock B it stopped at 15,692 seconds. Test over.

Time goes on regardless of any clock. Clock B stops at 15692 seconds. Everybody agrees on that. But time itself doesn't stop at 15692 seconds. That's crazy talk.

ALL clocks were stopped simultaneously period.

Not according to relativity. I'm just telling you what relativity says. You can disagree if you like, but don't claim relativity says the above when it doesn't.

Observation of other clocks running is just the perception of the clock catching up to the other frame but the clock is actually stopped and the display reading will be what the other frame sees when he sees it stop.

Signal delays have been factored out in my presentation, so this is false. All times given are real times.

End of Test Correct Clock Readings are.

A = 36,000 seconds/MB = 15,692 seconds
B = 15,692 seconds/MA = 6,840 seconds

We agree on this.

Times each physical clock must display to verify Relativity:

A = 36,000 seconds AND 6,840 seconds
B = 15,692 seconds.

No. A cannot display two times at once, and relativity does not require that. I don't know where you got that idea from, but it is just wrong.

Again mere fiat declarations. Your arguement fails.

The only fiat declarations are yours. I have presented all the relevant relativistic calculations which lead to the above figures earlier in this thread, though I'm sure you've blotted them from your mind. Moreover, I have given you a series of spacetime disagrams which also support what I've said.

What have you provided in the way of relativistic calculations? Nothing.

Who is making fiat declarations about what relativity says? Only you, MacM. Only you.

Do you still claim all these clocks cannot be stopped simultaneously?

No. I claim they can all be stopped simultaneously EITHER in A's frame, or in B's frame, but not in both, since simultaneity is different in each frame.

Surely you've had long enough to understand this argument. Why haven't you got it yet? It has been explained over and over. You really must be thick.

To claim so invalidates Relativity. Either the timers work or Relativity is invalid.

Fiat declaration. *yawn*

If Relativity is valid then the timers work and the simultaneous stopping of the clocks produces my numbers not yours. My numbers show it is physically impossible for time dilation to be real.

Your numbers are not based on relativity, but on MacM fantasy relativity.

 

[MacM]

BULLSHIT. At 15,692 seconds. It has been shown that "A" has already achieved 36,000 seconds.

Not in B's frame.

I'm only telling you what relativity says, MacM. You can disagree that relativity is correct, but you can't disagree on what it predicts. Not without being wrong.

This is circular. It is based on the assumption that Relativity is right even if physical analysis shows it is wrong. And it is wrong.

The only 6,840 second "stopped" reading is MA. "A" continues to appear to run from the 6,840 second reading when B stopped because it had already reached 36,000 and stopped. The information delay allows B to see that happen. "A" did not stop at 6,840 seconds.

I already told you that all information delays have been factored out.

Put them back in if you like. It makes no difference.

And I have told you ALL clocks stop simultaneously. That means in all frames simultaneously. Either agree that precalculated timers based on relavistic mathematics can stop all clocks simultaneously or show just cause why they do not. Otherwise Relativity is falsified. Being stopped is entirely different than being "SEEN" still running.

In case you have forgotten the issue is "Perception" vs "Reality".

No. Clock B only ever displays the number 15692 once. It never backtracks. It only counts from 0 to 15692 until it stops.

Good then you must agree that "A" either reads 36,000 seconds and MB reads 15,692 and MA reads 6,840 OR that "A" reads 6,840 and MB reads 2,892.

I don't really care which ONE you want to claim BOTH are physical impossabilities; and NEITHER show Relativity as being valid as to time dilation since any view you choose to represent requires one of the clocks to display two different stopped displays of accumulated time.

That happens in A's frame, but not in B's, according to relativity.

Actually Relativity has damn little to do with this at this point. Relativity would have you continue to disregard the other observers view and the physical link being made by simultaneous stopping of the clocks.

Whether or not you like the relativistic concept of simultaneity, you can't deny that the concept exists in relativity, and you can't deny that in the relativistic picture we need to apply it here.

We have applied it here. It was applied to the preset timers.

You can say it isn't "reality" if you like, but you can't say it isn't relativity.

Your are right. I say it is Relativity and that it isn't reality.

Time goes on regardless of any clock. Clock B stops at 15692 seconds. Everybody agrees on that. But time itself doesn't stop at 15692 seconds. That's crazy talk.

Of course time doesn't stop. Nobody ever suggested such a thing. But stopped clocks do not continue to run. Clocks viewed running when they have in fact been stopped is nothing more than perception and not a clock actually running in reality. Stopped clock readings are the issue and not some perception of a stopped clock still running.

It is the accumulated ticks of clocks that is in question. Accumulated ticks are recorded by the stopped clock.

Not according to relativity. I'm just telling you what relativity says. You can disagree if you like, but don't claim relativity says the above when it doesn't.

Lets not play with words. Of course Relativity says that but then Relativity never intended for old MacM to use Relativity to simultaneously stop the clocks.

It is this issue that you must address and not keep referring to what Relativity says. Now once again can you calculate time dilation according to relativity? Yes or No.

Having calculated time dilation can you then preset a timer such that it will cause both clock A, B and MA to stop simultaneously. If you insist you can add the proviso "Within A's Frame. Yes or No?

Signal delays have been factored out in my presentation, so this is false. All times given are real times.

False. Seeing a stopped clock run is not seeing a running clock. Stopped time displays are the only reality. If you choose to not call it an illusion of motion information delay, I really care less. The time dilation predicted by Relativity does not show in the stopped clocks.

End of Test Correct Clock Readings are.

A = 36,000 seconds/MB = 15,692 seconds
B = 15,692 seconds/MA = 6,840 seconds

We agree on this.

Times each physical clock must display to verify Relativity:

A = 36,000 seconds AND 6,840 seconds
B = 15,692 seconds.

No.

Yes.

A cannot display two times at once,

Of course not. That has been my point.

and relativity does not require that. I don't know where you got that idea from, but it is just wrong.

Please pay attention. Relativity damn sure does require that as shown by stopping the clocks simultaneously. You cannot turn a blind eye to the facts simply because it shows Relativity is false.

The only fiat declarations are yours. I have presented all the relevant relativistic calculations which lead to the above figures earlier in this thread, though I'm sure you've blotted them from your mind. Moreover, I have given you a series of spacetime disagrams which also support what I've said.

I have not made fiat declarations. I have presented a physical test using properly calculated time dilations predicted by Relativity and the results of that test. I have not forgotten your presentation. I showed that if your view from B stops A when B reaches 15,692, then A never reaches 36,000 it stops at 6,892 but MB stoops at 2,892 not 15,692.

You have solved nothing in your re-work of my presentation. Relativity still fails the test.

What have you provided in the way of relativistic calculations? Nothing.

Oh. So who did the calculations for times of clocks at 0.9c relative velocity for 10 hours test? I thought I did.

Who is making fiat declarations about what relativity says? Only you, MacM. Only you.

The record of this thread seems to be in disagreement with our position. I'll note that you are withdrawing to a position of quoting Relativity even when to do so doesn't alter the test and results.

No. I claim they can all be stopped simultaneously EITHER in A's frame, or in B's frame, but not in both, since simultaneity is different in each frame.

I have already shown that is not the case. If I were to have A and B run 10 hours then there would be a conflict. I haven't done that. I have timed it such that A runs 10 hours. B runs 15,692 as per A's view (and B's view).

The frames have been synchronized as to test times. MB is in agreement. MA is not, even though 15,692 is the actual time in B's frame of his test.

The 15,692 seconds in B's Frame is in agreement with A's view of B. There is no conflict. They are synchronized on their timers to shut down simultaneously.

Shutting down simultaneously at 15,692 in B's frame and 36,000 seconds in A's frame shows that B's view of A as having only accumulated 6,840 seconds is false. Like you said 15,692 is the same 15,692 seconds. The problem is A now is required to display two different times in the same test period.

You sir are wrong. Relativity sir is false.

Surely you've had long enough to understand this argument. Why haven't you got it yet? It has been explained over and over. You really must be thick.

The only ones thick here are the ones that do not see that A running 36,000 seconds means B runs 15,692 seconds and that B by shutting down after 15,692 seconds claims A only ran 6,840 seconds. Further that even if by some magic you want to claim that B shut down A at 6,840 seconds that MB would still show B only ran 2,892 seconds.

You are trapped sir. My test does prove Relativity is a falicy.

Fiat declaration. *yawn*

Yes we can see that you must pretend to not see the problem. Ignoring it does not make it go away. If you cannot address it then you lose. *yawn*

Your numbers are not based on relativity, but on MacM fantasy relativity.

My numbers are based on your Relativity. I have no theory of Relativity.

You just don't like the numbers and have no idea how to actually show error in the results.

The only thing you can do is to ignore them or to try and make fiat declarations about what Relativity claims. It is a shame but I agree Relativity claims way to much.

 

[MacM]

OK Mac, three more true or false questions:

1. The numbers you are quoting for A's view of B and B's view of A are both calculated using the same time dilation equation, true or false?

True.

2. You claim that the numbers you are quoting for A's view of B have taken observational delays into account, and are therefore reality, true or false?

The numbers are the results of t2 vs t1 accumulated time using gamma, Whatever the cause. I do not want to start trying to break apart what causes what. Relativity says time is dilated and that clocks accumulate time at different rates. My test does that and disregards any information delay aspects.

3. You claim that the numbers you are quoting for B's view of A have *not* taken observational delays into account, and are therefore an illusion, true or false?

False. I claim that if time dilation is valid then after 15,692 seconds run time in B's frame and all clocks are stopped simultaneously that Relativity claims that A will only read 6,840 seconds.

A, B, and MA all stop simultaneously. MA does not equal A. Relativity is false.

If you want to argue that B stops A at 6,840 seconds when it shut down at 15,692 seconds then A no longer displays 36,000 seconds and MB according to Relativity claims that B stopped at 2,892 seconds and MB does not equal B.

In this test setup the test time is 10 hours A's time and 15,692 seconds in B's time frame. The test period is synchronized and all clocks stop simultaneously using relavistically precalculated timers.

 

[GMontag]

I claim that if time dilation is valid then after 15,692 seconds run time in B's frame and all clocks are stopped simultaneously that Relativity claims that A will only read 6,840 seconds.

Mac, Mac, Mac.... How many times do we have to tell you before it gets through your thick skull? When you are talking about predictions that relativity makes, and you claim that two events are simultaneous, you have to say in which reference frame. Otherwise your claim is meaningless. In relativity, simultaneity is frame dependant. I've told you this at least 5 times by now. God knows how many times JamesR has told you. Probably too many to count. And yet you still claim relativity predicts things that it does not.

If all clocks stop simultaneously in B's frame at t'=15,692, then relativity does predict that A will read 6,840. But, since in your scenario, all the clocks don't stop simultaneously in B's frame, it's irrelevant.

A, B, and MA all stop simultaneously. MA does not equal A. Relativity is false.

A, B, and MA all stop simultaneously in A's frame. MA is not required to equal A in A's frame. MB is required to equal B, and it does.

A, B, and MA do not stop simultaneously in B's frame. In this frame MA is required to equal A, and it does. MB is not required to equal B, and it doesn't.

There is no conflict here.

If you want to argue that B stops A at 6,840 seconds when it shut down at 15,692 seconds then A no longer displays 36,000 seconds and MB according to Relativity claims that B stopped at 2,892 seconds and MB does not equal B.

I'm not arguing that B stops A at all. When B stops in B's frame at t'=15,692, A does read 6,840. But A doesn't stop then, because the clocks don't stop simultaneously in B's frame.

MB does not equal B in B's frame, but that alright, because it isn't required to. MA only has to equal A in B's frame, and MB only has to equal B in A's frame. This is because MA is B's predictions of what A reads, and MB is A's predictions of what B reads. A's and B's predictions are only valid in their respective frames.

In this test setup the test time is 10 hours A's time and 15,692 seconds in B's time frame. The test period is synchronized and all clocks stop simultaneously using relavistically precalculated timers.

All clocks stop simultaneously in A's frame only.

Get this through your head Mac, there is *no* way to program the timers such that relativity will predict that the clocks stop simultaneously in both frames. The math simply will not work that way.

 

[Paul T]

Get real. I am just responding to James R deliberate resistance to acknowledgeing Einsteins statement. I have no need to be remembered at all. You seem to fail to realize that this is about clarifiying science not becoming hero's. Reading AE's clarifications in no manner reqires any individual achievement; Oh except in our case since you seem to have trouble with reading or at least reading comphrension.

You want it or not, you will be stil remembered as a hero who proved Einstein's reativity flaw. The clock is ticking. Within 2-3 weeks there would be no more relativity, all busted by an old man named MacM, the HERO!

 

[James R]

MacM:

Some simple true-false questions for you. See if you can answer with just the word "true" or "false".

True or false?

1. Special relativity says simultaneity is relative.
2. According to special relativity, 2 events which are simultaneous in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in a relatively-moving frame.
3. Special relativity says that the relativity of simultaneity is an effect which is totally independent of any delays caused by transmitting information.

That's all for now. We need to establish whether you understand relativity, before we can decide whether you can refute it on its own grounds.

Are you brave enough to answer the questions? Only three words are required from you - one for each question.

Or will you do the MacM Texas Two Step?