Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[MacM]

MacM:

I will not respond in detail to your latest post, since it is simply more of
the same from you. I have covered all of the issues raised above, and to do
so again would be a waste of my time.

Therefore, I present my rebuttal in brief point form.

1. You refer to an earlier quote from a textbook on relativity. (Which one,
MacM? Please cite your source properly.)

Here is the quote:

Ditto on the "more of the same". Anyone argueing that one must use
relavistic mathematic to evaluate Relativity is simply geing outright
foolish. Obviously if one applies the mathematical rules of the theory one
will get the same result.

This is a more fundlemental issue. One that requires you step out of your
"Guardian of the Faith" uniform and think physical reality. It seems few
here have that capacity.

The link you request is here:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

Don' let the lead throw you off. Scroll down to Time-Dilation. There are talking Einstein's Relativity.

You claim that this supports your view that relativity is simply about
signalling delays. However, it does nothing of the kind. You have taken it
out of its particular context, which I assume was some kind of particular
thought experiment, similar to the one I have presented in this thread.

You are incorrect.

This quote is irrelevant for the purpose you wish to put it to.

No it isn't.

2. In your latest post you say "I have not denied the relativity of
simultaneity". Yet that is what you have done all along in this thread. Once
again, you can't seem to argue consistently. One minute you're saying there
is a universal time (which implies no relativity of simultaneity), and the
next you're saying you have never denied relativity of simultaneity. You're
inconsistent.

Denying "Simulatneity" is entirely different than rendering it moot i.e. = "0" for the purpose of the demonstration.

3. You are also inconsistent in your flip-flopping about particle
entanglement. One minute you say you're not advocating entanglement as a
method for FTL communication. The next, you're claiming that everybody knows
that entanglement allows FTL communication.

This is simply to offset the anticipated responses that FTL doesn't exist. It does just ask any entangled particle pair. But that does not mean I am claiming it use. I claimed simulation of the consequence of the instantaneous communication in the evaluation process.

4. I agree that IF FTL communication of information was possible, then there
would be problems with causality. This MAY mean that relativity would need
to be revised. But it is drawing a very long bow on the basis of nothing to
say relativity is invalidated NOW by some fantasy of FTL communication.

Well at least we are in partial agreement. In fact almost in total agreement. Which is strange considering how many and you continue to rant and rave about the concept being totally invalid. The point where we disagree is that you seem to think the simulation of such communication is the cause of the disparity. It is not. It merely exposes it. Big difference. If you can come to understand and accept that then you have no choice but to come to the same conclusion that I have. Relativity has a roblem.

5. You claim to have set up your tabletop version of the 2 clock experiment
to "simulate the mathematical results of relativity". I have pointed out the
flaw in that setup - you have ignored the relativity of simultaneity. Since
this is an indispensible part of relativity, you cannot ignore it and at the
same time "simulate the mathematical results of relativity". Without the
relativity of simultaneity, you're not simulating relativity. Trying to pull
the wool over people's eyes by saying you are is just misleading.

Fair point. But the problem with this position is you are setting up an arbitraty defense for the theory. If the theory does not fit realistic evaluation of physical principles, as in no impossibilities in the real world, exclusive of the theory's application of it's own unique mathematics, then you are simply claiming it is valid because its mathematics says so. You are back pedaling on common sense physics and physical realities in favor of the theory you are attempting to evaluate. It cannot be done in that fashion. It is simply false to conclude that rendering a mathematical component to zero alters the basic concept of the theory. It is nothing more than operating at the extremes where "Simultaneoity = 0". F = ma. Making a = "0" doesn't mean F = ma is no longer a valid theory it simply means there is no F or F = 0. Same principle.

6. The 2 clocks in my example only stop at one particular time according to
each observer. There is only one event for each clock, represented by a
single point on each spacetime diagram, which is the event "Clock A stops"
or "Clock B stops". No clock continues to run after it has stopped in my
analysis. To suggest otherwise is a straight out lie. Stopped means stopped
in my analysis just as much as it does in yours.

But you claim because of "Simultaneity" they don't stop at the same time in absolute time and we have shown that they do. You don't acknowledge that but continue to talk about simultaneity when it is no longer affective.

7. There is no distinction between "apparent invariance" and "true
invariance". Either something (like the speed of light, for example) is
invariant, or it isn't. Either it varies or it doesn't. You can't flip-flop
on that and try to have it both ways, as you seem to want to do in your
latest post.

This is not a flip-flop but it is an entirely different subject. It just happens that the cause of the "apparent" invanriance it isn't truely physically invariant. You simply draw the wrong conclusion based on that observation. I'll have to leave it there unless you want to open a topic about it.

8. Relativity is in no way "circular". You have introduced that claim as a
new issue in your latest post, without any supporting argument.

It is not a new arguement. It is fact. different sets of algothritums are collectively applied to form the mathematical circle (make it consistant).

9. You are now claiming that time dilation does not exist. Once again, this
means that you dispute one or both of the postulates of special relativity.
But you continue to avoid facing that issue face on. You want a bet each
way, so you can worm your way out later if your position turns out to be
untenable. Well, I have news for you, MacM. Sitting on the fence is
untenable. Either time dilation exists or it does not. Which is it to be?

Not setting on the fence. Come to a conclusion where you conceed time dilation does not exist (or doesn't exist as per Relativity as you currently have it) and then and only then can one begin to assess the postulates and what might be their mis-interpretation.

10. The word is "innuendo", not "enuendo". That's yet another thing I have
explained to you before, but you've reverted back to your old ways again.
I'm beginning to wonder if maybe you're too old to take in new
information.

Indeed you are correct. I was getting it right for some time. Funny my Webster 3rd College Edition doesn't have either spelling, so for now I will take your word for it. Just as many other word it may well be that their are two spellings but I'll be checking that out.

In closing let me just say this discussion could be concluded if you were to simply openly agree (which you have somewhat done twice now) that the tests I have proposed, should they be possible to perform in reality (not just simulate) would mean that Relativity is either false or in need of signifigant modification.

Can you do that? Yes or No.

Now I hope you say yes so that we can shut this down. While I will not be content because it is my personal opinion that to simulate the instant communication affect carries the exact same weight in terms of evaluation but that can wait for another day if need be.

Thanks for your time.

 

[MacM]

The issue is not proving SR correct using SR. It started with your claiming that SR is flawed. Of course, it is completely acceptable to show SR's flaw using valid SR concept. But, showing SR's flaw using incorrectly applied SR concept?

Frankly therein lies your down fall. You lack the capacity to think outside the pages you memorized in school. I'm not trying to be personally derogatory, it seems just to be fact.

PS: Glad you finally figured out 6,840 seconds was a valid view.

That's what you have done here and is not acceptable at all. What I have tried to do was simply showing you (something which you have already known, as always ) that you have employed incorrect method and therefore your claimed flaw is BS. I have no intention to prove SR correctness. I just proved that your method of analysis was incorrect and in so doing dismissed your SR's flaw claim for the time being .

What you roved is far from what you claim to have proved. You only proved my assessment above. You are incapable of thinking for yourself and rely onthe Relvistic mathematics as proof of Relativity. That frankly is having the fox guard the hen house and is absolutely worthless as a tool of evaluaton.

MacM, I found your reasoning very stupid. You thought it is okay for you to use SR concept to show SR's flaw but when someone corrected you on your wrongly usage of the concept you argued that no one should prove a theory correct using the theory itself (which actually agreeable to me to a point). Everything were started by you, the usage of SR concept, etc. Why all the sudden, the rule of the game change to..... "No SR please"? Where is the logic, MacM. To prove SR flaw, one should use SR incorrectly? Hahahaha.

Goes to show only your abiity to distort the facts and your limited vision. It has always been the case that you cannot prove a theory using the principles of the theory. What about that do you find "Stupid". Of course I have not applied Relavistic mathematics. that would be absolutely futile for the purpose of the evalulation. What nonsense. And you presume to call me stupid. What a joke.

 

[MacM]

The issue is not proving SR correct using SR. It started with your claiming that SR is flawed. Of course, it is completely acceptable to show SR's flaw using valid SR concept. But, showing SR's flaw using incorrectly applied SR concept?

Frankly therein lies your down fall. You lack the capacity to think outside the pages you memorized in school. I'm not trying to be personally derogatory, it seems just to be fact.

PS: Glad you finally figured out 6,840 seconds was a valid view.

That's what you have done here and is not acceptable at all. What I have tried to do was simply showing you (something which you have already known, as always ) that you have employed incorrect method and therefore your claimed flaw is BS. I have no intention to prove SR correctness. I just proved that your method of analysis was incorrect and in so doing dismissed your SR's flaw claim for the time being .

What you proved is far from what you claim to have proved. You only proved my assessment above. You are incapable of thinking for yourself and rely on the Relvistic mathematics as proof of Relativity. That frankly is having the fox guard the hen house and is absolutely worthless as a tool of evaluaton.

MacM, I found your reasoning very stupid. You thought it is okay for you to use SR concept to show SR's flaw but when someone corrected you on your wrongly usage of the concept you argued that no one should prove a theory correct using the theory itself (which actually agreeable to me to a point). Everything were started by you, the usage of SR concept, etc. Why all the sudden, the rule of the game change to..... "No SR please"? Where is the logic, MacM. To prove SR flaw, one should use SR incorrectly? Hahahaha.

Goes to show only your abiity to distort the facts and your limited vision. It has always been the case that you cannot prove a theory using the principles of the theory. What about that do you find "Stupid". Of course I have not applied Relavistic mathematics. that would be absolutely futile for the purpose of the evalulation. What nonsense. And you presume to call me stupid. What a joke.

 

[MacM]

Thank you. I scrutinized that carefully and agree with it completely. For those who wish to make a rebuttal, forget it -- it's futility to try. Relativity is golden as it stands, and certainly doesn't reflect any inherent contradictions.

First Welcome to SciFi, Opps, SciForums.

Your comments are actually a bit premature. Not claiming the test and conclusions are valid here (although I believe they are) but your commentary does nothing to address the issues raised.

Do you have any constructive commentary that you can apply directly to the issue or do you choose to pick what appears to you to be a front runner and hide behind their skirts?

 

[dristam]

...your commentary does nothing to address the issues raised.

Do you have any constructive commentary that you can apply directly to the issue or do you choose to pick what appears to you to be a front runner and hide behind their skirts?

Agreed: I have nothing substantive to add. I think I understand relativity fairly well and will defend it against the usual pot shots, ie. against those who merely misinterpret it. Frankly, I cannot find a meaningful point of entry into the current debate, as it has been long and involved, and because James is seemingly doing fine. I've heard of the "entangled pair" twist and admit that I cannot address it specifically. A lot of folks find Relativity to be "counter intuitive" (is the usual phrase), but I think it makes beautiful and elegant sense.

Yeah I was just hangin' around with nothing better to do and I sought an arena to quibble about relativity... but I uh, well I uh, well James is doing great so I'll just give it a rest. No biggie.

Thanks for the words of welcome!

 

[Paul T]

Now I hope you say yes so that we can shut this down. While I will not be content because it is my personal opinion that to simulate the instant communication affect carries the exact same weight in terms of evaluation but that can wait for another day if need be.

Hahaha, the usual MacM. Why must shut down the discussion only if everybody agree to your BS, not the other way round...you stop the BS and admit your mistake?

 

[Paul T]

Frankly therein lies your down fall. You lack the capacity to think outside the pages you memorized in school. I'm not trying to be personally derogatory, it seems just to be fact.

It's still good I memorized them, unlike you who don't even have something correct to memorize.

PS: Glad you finally figured out 6,840 seconds was a valid view.

Not see it as valid. Starting from 15,692 seconds and gamma of 2.294... you have two choices:

Devide 15,692 with gamma which gives = 6,840 or​

Multiply 15,692 with gamma which gives = 36,000​

You have picked the first choice, the wrong one. The second choice is what fit with SR's LT result. The problem lies to your usage of incomplete SR's formulae.

Since you like to feel important as the one finding SR's flaw, I suggest you to keep your wrong choice.

Other than that, I think I have said enough.

 

[chroot]

This debate has not advanced noticeably in at least a year. I myself spent a great deal of my time explaining the exact same things to MacM a very long time ago. I find it quite entertaining (though not surprising) that he's now parading the same sad ponies all over again as if nothing happened. Trust me on this one: nothing you say to MacM will ever affect him.

Here is a summary of the arguments:

1. MacM doesn't believe in relative simultaneity. He feels it is intuitively wrong, and thus just discards it altogether. MacM does not seem to recognize that he is doing nothing more than constructing a strawman by discarding bits of relativty theory in this fashion.

2. MacM believes in absolute time. He believes that causing clocks to stop simultaneously in the frame of reference of one observer must stop them in every simultaneously in every frame of reference. He provides no reasoning as to why this should be true, except that he feels it makes more sense to him.

3. MacM has dreamt up thought experiments that depend on instantaneous communication. Though no mechanism of instantaneous communication has ever been found, MacM has no trouble at all believing on faith that it's just a matter of time until someone discovers one.

4. MacM chooses to believe that quantum entanglement is such a method of instantaneous communication. He simply doesn't understand quantum entanglement well enough to see his own error. While everyone else on the planet is telling him he's not understanding the situation, he's more than happy to just stick his fingers in his ears and keep repeating his belief.

5. MacM is delighted to know that instantaneous communication itself would be an indication of the failure of relativity. Since he believes instantaneous communication is possible, he thus believes relativty is flawed.

6. MacM does not seem to recognize that everyone already knows that relativity is not compatible with instantaneous communication, and somehow feels that he is showing everyone something new and worthy of praise by pointing it out.

- Warren

 

[MacM]

Agreed: I have nothing substantive to add. I think I understand relativity fairly well and will defend it against the usual pot shots, ie. against those who merely misinterpret it. Frankly, I cannot find a meaningful point of entry into the current debate, as it has been long and involved, and because James is seemingly doing fine. I've heard of the "entangled pair" twist and admit that I cannot address it specifically. A lot of folks find Relativity to be "counter intuitive" (is the usual phrase), but I think it makes beautiful and elegant sense.

Yeah I was just hangin' around with nothing better to do and I sought an arena to quibble about relativity... but I uh, well I uh, well James is doing great so I'll just give it a rest. No biggie.

Thanks for the words of welcome!

Not a problem. You responded well to my goad, I hope others can learn from your lead.

 

[MacM]

Hahaha, the usual MacM. Why must shut down the discussion only if everybody agree to your BS, not the other way round...you stop the BS and admit your mistake?

If it were true I would. It may be true but you certainly haven't shown it.

 

[MacM]

It's still good I memorized them, unlike you who don't even have something correct to memorize.


Not see it as valid. Starting from 15,692 seconds and gamma of 2.294... you have two choices:

Devide 15,692 with gamma which gives = 6,840 or​

Multiply 15,692 with gamma which gives = 36,000​

You have picked the first choice, the wrong one.

Correction. I believe James R., explained to you it was the right one and you were wrong.

The second choice is what fit with SR's LT result. The problem lies to your usage of incomplete SR's formulae.

Talk about hard headed. You don't use relavisitic formulas when comparing common sense to Relativity as a test. What are you testing when you use such formulas as proof of Relativity. They are Relativity. You are hopless indeed.

Since you like to feel important as the one finding SR's flaw, I suggest you to keep your wrong choice.

Other than that, I think I have said enough.

You have more than enough since you have said nothing useful. Your lableing is getting boring. At what point do you see me saying I am important. The issue however is. You might try addressing the issue. You might learn something.

 

[MacM]

Hahaha, the usual MacM. Why must shut down the discussion only if everybody agree to your BS, not the other way round...you stop the BS and admit your mistake?

That smirk doesn't serve you well. James R. has already agreed as much twice in this thread. I was simply trying to get a clear and concise response so that it would not be questioned in the future.

He has twice stated that "IF" a system of instant communication were developed then Relativity would have to be rethought".

So your smart remark goes against you and not me. At least James R., has the intelligence to think through and come to reasonable conclusions. I haven't seen you do that.

 

[MacM]

This debate has not advanced noticeably in at least a year. I myself spent a great deal of my time explaining the exact same things to MacM a very long time ago. I find it quite entertaining (though not surprising) that he's now parading the same sad ponies all over again as if nothing happened. Trust me on this one: nothing you say to MacM will ever affect him.

Hi chroot,

Actually you are in error. I have presented slightly different situations than back then. It was your refusal to address the question on grounds of impossible test specifications that has jprompted me to restructure the case.

It isn't therefor the same sad ponies. The responses however have been. And they miss the point as usual.

Here is a summary of the arguments:

1. MacM doesn't believe in relative simultaneity. He feels it is intuitively wrong, and thus just discards it altogether. MacM does not seem to recognize that he is doing nothing more than constructing a strawman by discarding bits of relativty theory in this fashion.

Just where do you see me state I do not believe in "Simultaneity"? ou are as usual fabricating your own case to argue. I have stated that in absence of simultaneity where the affects of relavistic mathematics are being evaluated there is a problem exposed with relativity.

The elimination of the information delay in these cases does not create the problem. The problem is the generation of the relavistic data which becomes exposed by making it so that it can be directly compared with physical reality.

2. MacM believes in absolute time. He believes that causing clocks to stop simultaneously in the frame of reference of one observer must stop them in every simultaneously in every frame of reference. He provides no reasoning as to why this should be true, except that he feels it makes more sense to him.

Now everyone can see what I mean. I have not claimed that at all. Perhaps you should go back and read the material rather than me repeated the arguement here.

3. MacM has dreamt up thought experiments that depend on instantaneous communication. Though no mechanism of instantaneous communication has ever been found, MacM has no trouble at all believing on faith that it's just a matter of time until someone discovers one.

I frankly think it is possible but that really isn't at issue. If it isn't or doesn't happen it doesn't alter the question at hand. The issue is what happens to relavistic mathemaics when one assumes it.

4. MacM chooses to believe that quantum entanglement is such a method of instantaneous communication. He simply doesn't understand quantum entanglement well enough to see his own error. While everyone else on the planet is telling him he's not understanding the situation, he's more than happy to just stick his fingers in his ears and keep repeating his belief.

If you want to attack me at least do it truthfully. I most certainly understand the limitations of using particle entanglement. That is that either party testing their particle breaks the link and you have no way of knowing if you caused it or it was the result of a message.

5. MacM is delighted to know that instantaneous communication itself would be an indication of the failure of relativity. Since he believes instantaneous communication is possible, he thus believes relativty is flawed.

The two issues are entirely seperate. While possible, I would further qualify it as higly improbable, at lest as of today. Don't tell me what I believe and what I think because you simply do not know.

6. MacM does not seem to recognize that everyone already knows that relativity is not compatible with instantaneous communication, and somehow feels that he is showing everyone something new and worthy of praise by pointing it out.

- Warren

Oh. glad you told me that. Suppose that is why it hasn't been mentioned from the outset starting over a year ago, even with you.

Not a strong point on your part ch. But glad you agree at least, just as James R has and Pete even concluded that (which from his post, it doesn't seem he had even considered before this).

What I did find interesting (and telling) is how aggressively Relativitist defended against the assertion that Relativity is a function of a delayed information communication system. And then just a aggressively assert that it cannot survive in an instantaneous communication enviornment, that it must have delayed information to function. Hmmm.

And the after over a year and many, many post to claim, "Oh we all knew that all along". I am not convienced.

So for my part I consider this issue closed.

 

[James R]

MacM:

The link you request is here:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

Don' let the lead throw you off. Scroll down to Time-Dilation. There are talking Einstein's Relativity.

That's a nice tutorial, though it develops relativity in a non-standard way. As I said, it gives no support at all to your argument that time dilation is nothing but a signal delay effect. In fact, the conclusion is the opposite, since all signal delays are taken into account, yet there is still time dilation between the times measured by A and B at the end of the process.

Maybe you should review the text until you understand it.

Denying "Simulatneity" is entirely different than rendering it moot i.e. = "0" for the purpose of the demonstration.

You can't write the concept of simultaneity out of existence. Every observer has a concept of which events are simultaneous, and that concept is different for observers in relative motion. Your statement that you can "render it moot" is just wrong.

The point where we disagree is that you seem to think the simulation of such communication is the cause of the disparity. It is not. It merely exposes it. Big difference. If you can come to understand and accept that then you have no choice but to come to the same conclusion that I have. Relativity has a roblem.

Must I repeat myself yet again?

1. If FTL communication was possible, then relativity might have problesm.
2. There is no evidence that FTL communication is possible.
3. Therefore, is it invalid to conclude that there are any current problems with relativity based on this.

Fair point. But the problem with this position is you are setting up an arbitraty defense for the theory. If the theory does not fit realistic evaluation of physical principles, as in no impossibilities in the real world, exclusive of the theory's application of it's own unique mathematics, then you are simply claiming it is valid because its mathematics says so. You are back pedaling on common sense physics and physical realities in favor of the theory you are attempting to evaluate. It cannot be done in that fashion. It is simply false to conclude that rendering a mathematical component to zero alters the basic concept of the theory. It is nothing more than operating at the extremes where "Simultaneoity = 0". F = ma. Making a = "0" doesn't mean F = ma is no longer a valid theory it simply means there is no F or F = 0. Same principle.

Phew! There are so many errors in this single paragraph I almost don't know where to begin. Let's take another look at it, point by point:

But the problem with this position is you are setting up an arbitraty defense for the theory. If the theory does not fit realistic evaluation of physical principles, as in no impossibilities in the real world, exclusive of the theory's application of it's own unique mathematics, then you are simply claiming it is valid because its mathematics says so.

The only person who has proposed a "realistic evaluation of the physical principles" here is me. You have only proposed a fantasy involving instantaneous communication, for which there is no evidence in the real world.

You are back pedaling on common sense physics and physical realities in favor of the theory you are attempting to evaluate.

Physics is not dictated by "common sense". Relativity, in many ways, totally contradicts common sense. But that doesn't mean it is wrong. Exactly the same thing can be said about many other physical theories, such as quantum mechanics, which in "common sense" terms is utterly bizarre.

The universe doesn't care if a theory goes against MacM's "common sense". It cares about whether the theory matches actual observations.

It cannot be done in that fashion. It is simply false to conclude that rendering a mathematical component to zero alters the basic concept of the theory.

Straw man.

It is nothing more than operating at the extremes where "Simultaneoity = 0".

As I said above, this is totally meaningless. You can't write simultaneity out of existence. That is indeed a "common sense" concept which even you should be able to understand.

But you claim because of "Simultaneity" they don't stop at the same time in absolute time and we have shown that they do. You don't acknowledge that but continue to talk about simultaneity when it is no longer affective.

There is no absolute time, so it is not surprising that there is no absolute concept of simultaneity either.

This is not a flip-flop but it is an entirely different subject. It just happens that the cause of the "apparent" invanriance it isn't truely physically invariant. You simply draw the wrong conclusion based on that observation. I'll have to leave it there unless you want to open a topic about it.

Since this argument is incoherent, I'm quite happy to leave it. It's just another attempt by you to open an extra escape route in case you feel backed up against the wall.

Me: Relativity is in no way "circular". You have introduced that claim as a new issue in your latest post, without any supporting argument.

You: It is not a new arguement. It is fact. different sets of algothritums are collectively applied to form the mathematical circle (make it consistant).

An unsupported assertion. Which sets of algorithms? How are they applied? This is so vague as to be useless.

Me: Either time dilation exists or it does not. Which is it to be?

You: Not setting on the fence. Come to a conclusion where you conceed time dilation does not exist (or doesn't exist as per Relativity as you currently have it) and then and only then can one begin to assess the postulates and what might be their mis-interpretation.

Hang on a minute. Is this you telling me to come to a conclusion on this? Well, in case you missed it the first few hundred times, my conclusion is this:

Relativity gives a correct description of real-world time dilation.

Now, stop dodging the question and give us your conclusion. Does time dilation exist or doesn't it, according to you?

Indeed you are correct. I was getting it right for some time. Funny my Webster 3rd College Edition doesn't have either spelling, so for now I will take your word for it.

Webster's dictionary doesn't list the word "innuendo"? I'm sorry, but I find that impossible to believe.

In closing let me just say this discussion could be concluded if you were to simply openly agree (which you have somewhat done twice now) that the tests I have proposed, should they be possible to perform in reality (not just simulate) would mean that Relativity is either false or in need of signifigant modification.

Can you do that? Yes or No.

I have already stated at least three times that IF FTL ever turned out to be possible, problems would arise which might require relativity to be revised. However, there is currently no need to do so.

Agree?

What I did find interesting (and telling) is how aggressively Relativitist defended against the assertion that Relativity is a function of a delayed information communication system. And then just a aggressively assert that it cannot survive in an instantaneous communication enviornment, that it must have delayed information to function. Hmmm.

This is another disingenuous response from you, which seems to be becoming more and more your style.

The point which has been made is very specific:

Time dilation is not an artifact of signaling delays.

You are trying to twist that into a more general statement about relativity. No such statement has been made by supporters of relativity.

And the after over a year and many, many post to claim, "Oh we all knew that all along". I am not convienced.

There is a substantial scientific literature which discusses issues which would arise from FTL communication, mostly involving the possibility of reverse time travel and the consequential violations of causality. Your imaginings that you are the first person to consider such issues are misguided, as usual.

So for my part I consider this issue closed.

But you haven't admitted any of your mistakes yet. Are you not going to come clean?

 

[MacM]

MacM:I have already stated at least three times that IF FTL ever turned out to be possible, problems would arise which might require relativity to be revised. However, there is currently no need to do so.

Agree?

Unfortunately yes. It doesn't seem to matter about any alternate possibilities. Nothing but absolutely nothing will be done to consider or look for alternatives until the failure of Relativity is indisputable.

This is another disingenuous response from you, which seems to be becoming more and more your style.

I take exception to this. I have made mention more than once here on this issue. It hasn't just arisen.

There is a substantial scientific literature which discusses issues which would arise from FTL communication, mostly involving the possibility of reverse time travel and the consequential violations of causality. Your imaginings that you are the first person to consider such issues are misguided, as usual.

Perhaps but then again this only applies if you accept time to be the 4th dimension which I do not. Time reversal is another nonsense of current physics and pure mathematics.

But you haven't admitted any of your mistakes yet. Are you not going to come clean?

I admit that I mistakenly only looked for (1) "n" in innuendo. It is indeed in the dictionary.

As to this and perhaps some of these secondary issues. I see no point in even responding. You are not prone to even consider the possibilities.

Shame but so be it.

 

[James R]

The only possibility to be considered here is the possibility that you admit that relativity has no inconsistencies, as far as can be shown based on our current physical knowledge.

You have completely failed to do what you set out to do in this thread, which was to show that relativity includes inherent self-contradictions. Of course, you'll never admit that.

 

[MacM]

The only possibility to be considered here is the possibility that you admit that relativity has no inconsistencies, as far as can be shown based on our current physical knowledge.

You have completely failed to do what you set out to do in this thread, which was to show that relativity includes inherent self-contradictions. Of course, you'll never admit that.

1 - Sorry to dissapoint again but due to your carfefully qualified statement "... to current physical knowledge", makes it a valid statement, with the priviso "that we have properly investigated".

2 - There are issue which are not beinginvestigated which should be.

3 - I never started this thread.

 

[James R]

There are issue which are not beinginvestigated which should be.

Such as...?

 

[MacM]

Such as...?

1 - Relavistic mass concept.

2 - v = c absolute limit, which is based on nothing but math and relative velocity energy inputs vs an accelerated frame carrying its own energy source.

I'm sure there are others

 

[chroot]

Here are MacM's sad ponies, one at a time:

1. MacM doesn't believe in relative simultaneity.
He feels it is intuitively wrong, and thus just discards it altogether. MacM does not seem to recognize that he is doing nothing more than constructing a strawman by discarding bits of relativty theory in this fashion.

Evidence, nineteen months ago:

MacM: "Do the computations and make the clocks all agree with every observers view of reality after the clocks are stopped and returned to earth to read elapsed time during the test."

MacM: "The requirement here is for you to make the clocks provide all observer views as reality simultaneously."

MacM: "So if your answer is that the analysis fails because you don't have the technology to achieve the theoretical test then your answer falls short."

He was corrected:

chroot: "I have the feeling that you don't grasp the failure of simultaneity that is inherent in relativity."

chroot: "Just because some events (the stopping of your clocks) are simultaneous in one reference frame (C's, for example) does not mean they are simultaneous in any other reference frame. To A and B, for example, the clocks do not appear to stop simultaneously."

chroot: "If you stop the clocks when they read 10, 9.798, and 9.539 hours, they will stop simultaneously -- according to clock C. Any other observer will disagree on that simultaneity. The failure of simultaneity is bit of the "paradox" that I believe you missed."

Evidence, recent:

MacM: "But by using Relativity to preset a timer on board to stop the clock in accordance to the time that "A" claims clock "B" has accumulated, you insure that all clocks are in fact stopped "Simultaneous and you have eliminated the affect of Simultaneity."

MacM: "the property of Simultaneity was dealt with by using Relativity so as to actually stop the clocks at the same time without simultaneity delay"

MacM: "At that point in time no clock is continuing to run and no times are changing any further because I used Relativity to shut them down "Simultaneously". That is the meaning of the term "Simultaneity" and "Simultaneous"."

MacM: "Wrong. That only occurs if Simultaneity is involved. It isn't, that is the reason for using Relativity to "Simultaneously" stop the clocks."

MacM: "Simple. the fact is I should be allowed to simply for thought experimental purposes stipulate it [the absence of the relativity of simultaneity]."

MacM: "Simultaneity has been eliminated by the use of precalculated relavistic values to control the clocks. If the clocks do not shut down "Simultaneously" and "Instantaneously" with clock "A" then Relativity has failed."

MacM: "I also repeat that it is you that repeatedly ignore the point that "Simultaneity of Relativity" in this case is no answer what-so-ever since it does not and cannot enter the data stream being considered."

MacM: "There is no "Relativity of Simultaneity"."

MacM: "Everything will have shut down and there simply is no simultaneity to contend with."

MacM: "How many times do I have to illustrate from a very simple construct that there simply is no simultenity issue affective in this test."

MacM: "Although in your arguements you contiue to claim they are stopped in one view but not another which is re-inserting simultaneity in to the process which is not allowed in my tests."

He was corrected:

Pete: "OK, so you are stipulating that all the clocks are stopped simultaneously in A's reference frame when A reads ten hours... The most important point is that SR suggests that in B's reference frame and C's reference frame, clock C stops first, then clock B, then clock A."

Pete: "Your final method of stopping the clocks is fine. All clocks will be stopped simultaneously in A's reference frame. In B's frame and C's frame, clock C will stop first, then clock B, then clock A, ie they don't stop simultaneously in any frame except A's."

Pete: "We really seem to be stuck on the universal instant problem. You appear to be insisting that if the clocks stop simultaneously per clock A, then they must also stop simultaneously per clock B."

James R: "All that is happening here is that you are claiming that what is simultaneous in one frame must be simultaneous in all frames. You are ignoring the verified results of relativity which say it isn't so. You are trying to reinstate some kind of Newtonian world with universal time. Such a thing doesn't exist, and wishing doesn't make it so."

James R: "Look, it's a simple point: What is simultaneous for one observer is not simultaneous for another observer in relative motion."

James R: "Your problem is that you fudge the simultaneity issue by assuming that any events which occur simultaneously in one frame must be simultaneous in all frames, which is not true."

Pete: "You have no idea what you're talking about. All the precalculated values do is ensure that the clocks stop simultaneously in A's frame - not in any other frame. The simultaneity implications of SR are in no way eliminated."

James R: "You can only ensure that the clocks stop simultaneously in one reference frame, since different frames have different concepts of what is simultaneous."

James R: "Once again, your continued pig-headed refusal to acknowledge the existence of the relativity of simultaneity has led you astray."

James R: "In your latest post you say "I have not denied the relativity of simultaneity". Yet that is what you have done all along in this thread."

James R: "Without the relativity of simultaneity, you're not simulating relativity."