Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[MacM]

Mac, just curious...

Do you disagree with either or both of SR's postulates?

For reference the postulates are:

1. The speed of light is measured to be the same to all observers regardless of relative motion

2. The laws of physics can be written in such a way that they are the same for all observers regardless of relative motion.

HeHe. You are going to love this answer.

Neither.

 

[1100f]

What you seem to not realize is you are saying one must accept SR declarations as physical fact and in doing so you cannot prove the error. I prefer to stick with physical principles and follow the facts.

If we start with your scenario, your physical principles lead to contradictions, So what you think is wrong are your ideas of physical principles. I agree with you.

 

[MacM]

READERS:

FYI: I thought this might help clarify the situation.

The attached sketch is a diagram of the start/stop relationships of the clocks per Relativity and the times of stopped clocks.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3387&stc=1

The "T's" represent sets of timers used. That is there are two T1's, two T2's etc., and they are applied to the clocks as marked.

It can be seen that since simultaneity is calcuable, such timers can start ALL clocks by adjusting for the increments between the vertical and stopping can be synchronized by adjusting stops along the diagonal.

Where Relativists seem to make their maistake is to believe that since it is indeed impossible to cause actual start/stop time to agree with observered start/stop times that simultaniety precludes achieving synchronization.

But the realitiy is that start/start can be synchronized in reality even though they do not appear as being synchronized.

For example. Reducing this to something more easily absorbed by using sound as an example instead of light. For this arguement we are going to declare that sound also is velocity independant or invariant just as is light, even though it isn't.

In Pete's prior case with two observers equi-distant from the atomic blast they each hear the blast simultaneously, although they hear it 480 seconds after the fact of the actual event.

That is a phenomena of information delay and clearly we can set timers to start the clocks 480 seconds after the event such that they read T = 0 or display times that are simultaneous with the event.

Likewise the observer (not in orbit but flying at high altitude so that sound can still be propagated) there is a shift in apparent time of the event from each ground based observation point. That is the motion causes a shift in when the orbiter hears the sound being received from those sonic echo reflectors. The moving observer would hear two blasts and they are not simultaneous.

However, it seems totally invalid to suggest that I cannot precalculate this shift so as to have my clocks each still read the time as being simultaneous with the blast.

I certainly can. So their arguement about not being able to synchronize clocks is simply false and is being based on relavistic fiat - that is based on statments being made that they cannot be synchronized.

What cannot be synchronized is the observation (in this case by hearing) with the reality of the event but the clocks clearly can be synchronized with the event and All clocks will register the event as T = 0.

The clocks can also be set so as to all read the same time for the event even though that reading is not the actual event time.

Now ask yourselves:

1 - Is it physically possible to precalculate the simultaneity between the actual event and when such observation will be recorded?

Of course it is.

2 - Then is it possible to use this information to start ALL clocks such that they start simultaneously with the event and will display times which represent the delay in the observation.

Of course it is.

That is the issue. Not that you cannot synchronize the observation with the event. That clearly cannot be done. But motion does not alter the ability to synchronize the start/stop time of clocks.

That is most obvious and shows the falicy of the Relativists claims that it cannot be acheived.

 

[MacM]

If we start with your scenario, your physical principles lead to contradictions, So what you think is wrong are your ideas of physical principles. I agree with you.

Not so. Please see my latest post immediately below your post here.

 

[1100f]

Not so. Please see my latest post immediately below your post here.

I really don't understand your diagram. What are the axis of your diagrams. In which reference frame are they drawn?
Can you show from your diagram that c is constant in all frames?

 

[MacM]

You are backpeddling on statements you previously agreed to. For reference:

“ Originally Posted by James R
You have now agreed that relativity predicts that clocks A and B cannot stop simultaneously in the reference frames of both A and B. If they stop simultaneously in frame A, then relativity says they cannot stop simultaneously in frame B. ”

“ Originally Posted by MacM
Correct. That is what Relativity says but that is perception and not reality.

We'll get back to this below.

Now you are backpeddeling. You have already agreed that 15,692 is the same time in both frames. By accepting Relativity in my test when "A" predicts "B" reads 15,692, B does read 15,692. That time is the same in both frames.

No.

B reads 15692 only when A reads 36000 in A's frame.
B reads 15692 only when A reads 6840 in B's frame.

Unfortunately, yours is nothing more than a fiat declaration. The fact is and it will be shown in the close of the new scenario which you have begun to analyze, that there is no time dilation. That infact 15,692 is the same in A and B's frame. The MA = 6,840 is shown to be false.

B's display is "the same time" in both frames, but A's corresponding simultaneous times are different in each frame, due to the relativity of simultaneity.

More meaningless mumbo-Jumbo fiat.

A stops at 36,000 seconds and B stops at 15,692 seconds and stops MA; which happens to be the same point in time in accordance with Relativity.

Only in A's frame, not B's.

False but it will be shown in the other scenario easier than here.

Agreed as to the observation but not as to actual stopped clocks. This is observation by a remote observer in motion and not the physical status of the clock.

This is where you go back on another previously-agreed statement. From above:

“ Originally Posted by James R
3. Special relativity says that the relativity of simultaneity is an effect which is totally independent of any delays caused by transmitting information. ”

“ Originally Posted by MacM
True. ”

You are missing the point. I agreed that is what Reltivity says but what it says happens to be nonsense. It is untrue.

You cannot now claim that relativity says this effect is due to "observation" and not the "physical status" of the clock, since you previously agreed that the relativity of simultaneity is not an observational effect, but a real effect, according to the theory of relativity.

You are trying to twist my agreement. My agreemnt was as to what Relativiy claims, not that I agree with that claim by Relativity.

The most you can claim is that relativity is wrong, and that relativity's claim that this is a real effect is wrong. But you haven't provided any evidence to back up that claim.

Actually I have suppplied considerable evidence. Does it force you to stop advocating the fiat of Relativity? No but these are different standards.

](For reference, if needed

“ Originally Posted by James R
3. Clock MA stops at the same time as B, since it is with B, in either frame.
4. Clock MB stops at the same time as A, in either frame.
”

“ Originally Posted by MacM
Agreed. ”

“ You: Do you agree that ALL three are stopped simultaneously? Yes or No.

Me: In frame A, yes. In frame B, no.

"You: Here is where we disagree. Not as to the observation but as to the real status of clocks. The fact that B has seen A running slow and therefore is not seeing it stop in real time is observational and not A's actual physical status. ”

I still agree with the above as written.

Yes, this is where we disagree. I say, and relativity says, this is A's actual status. Your job is to prove it isn't.

I will, maybe tonight, if I find you have responded to my other scenario from this morning.

“ You: Is 6,840 seconds recorded by MA the correct time that A should stop in B's FOR when B = 15,692? Yes or No.

Me: No. A doesn't stop until it reaches 36000.

"You: I think you screwed up here. Have another look. If B reads 15,692 seconds then Relativity predicts that B sees A as being 6,840 seconds when B stops. ”

I didn't screw up. You are correct that B sees A as being 6840 when B stops. But at this time, A hasn't stopped yet, according to B. Remember?

You did screw up. If you look close I asked about MA and you responded for "A".

Remember B is stopping in B's FOR and B has a view of A in B's FOR. When B = 15,692, A must equal 6,840.

Agreed, in B's frame of reference only, not in A's.

Disagree but i'll let this little bit of duplicity go for now and let the new scenario make the case.

I agree in this test that MA stops at the predicted time for B and that B sees A continue to run until it sees it stop at it actual stopped condition (which actually happened 29,160 seconds before B saw it happen).

Remember we factored out the signal delays. It is irrelevant when B "sees it happen". We're interested in the actual time it happened, measured in each reference frame. Relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with signal delays. You agreed to that.

Actually no I haven't agreed that Relativity of Simultaneity has nothing to do with information delay. I have said there are two distinct forms of information delay.

1 - "Static" which is based on mere physical seperation and information over distance at v = c delay.

2 - "Dynamic" which is a product of an illusion of motion but still nothing more than informtion delay and not a change in time tick rate.

But keep in mind if I put a timer in B to stop A when B stops at 15,692, since 36,000 and 15,692 exist simultaneously in both frames B cannot stop A at 6,840 since A is already at 36,000.

36000 and 15692 are not simultaneous in both frames. You previously agreed that relativity says they cannot be.

This is not only untrue but not what I agreed to.

Further if you do claim to stop A at 6,840 then A claims B is 2,892 not 15,692.

Right. And that would be a different test, wouldn't it?

Yes. But your lack of ability to link these events is the problem. You are accepting mere proclamations of Relativity to dictate your physical logic and are forfieting common sense and physical realities.

Me: A stops when it displays 36000 in either frame. In A's frame, it displays 36000 at t=36000. In B's frame, it displays 36000 at t'=82590.

You:" Agreed. Except B isn't timing to see the end of A. B stops at 15,692, MA stops at 6,840 stops; which is the time B claims A should read if stopped simultaneously between A and B. ”


Me:"6840 is the time B claims that A would read if it had stopped at the same time as B in B's frame. But A didn't stop at the same time as B in B's frame.

Agreed. But if you now follow the logic and place a device in "A" to stop it when B = 15,692 what happens? Remember A and B frames operate concurrently and when A = 36,000, B = 15,692 in A's FOR. If you now switch frames and claim that A is actually running slow in B's frame, you must remember that A is actually running fast in A's frame and A cannot be both 36,000 and 6,840 when B = 15,692.

If you have B stop "A" when B = 15692 and A = 6,840 then the stopped clock "A" cannot reach 36,000 seconds for B to get to 15,692. You are having stopped clocks running and you are having clocks have dual tick rates concurrently. 15,692 is common to both frames.

You must remember that the functions are taking place simultaneously and Relativity is creating a conflict of "Physical", not "Observationsal" possibilities between clocks.

According to relativity, the expression "the functions are taking place simultaneously" requires a reference frame. Otherwise it is meaningless. You previously agreed to that. See the quote at the top of this post.

False. It is only required if you choose to adapt the claims of Relativity as being valid. I will show that those claims are indeed false and hnce my statement without frames is valid.

Wrong answer. MA reads 6,840 simultaneous with B = 15,692 and A = 36,000.

I agree with that, in A's reference frame, but not in B's.

I accept that is your position and Relativity's but both are wrong.

You keep failing to specify reference frames. That is sloppy. You keep trying to drag in the concept of absolute time by stealth, and I have to keep pulling you up on it. You can't simply assume, without proof, that what is simultaneous in one frame is simultaneous in all frames.

I do not assume that. It is not necessarily so but is can be so and in my case I have made it so. Inspite of the claims of Relativity.

You need to prove your assumption, not just assert it over and over, or assume it.

I intend to do that but I also find it less than impressive that that is exactly what you do by repeating the claims of Relativity or saying "Relativity says". You are making unsupported assertions as proof of your position.

Wrong answer but I see what you are wanting to do. You are declaring MA a false signal claiming it doesn't happen in A's frame but my point is that it is happening in B's frame. It is B's view of A.

I agree it gives an accurate reading of clock A in B's frame. It does not, however, given an accurate reading of clock A in A's frame. It was not set up to do that.

Once you see the link you will understand your error.

Now try linking your frames to function concurrently which is what happens in reality.

This is what you need to prove. This is your assumption of universal time.

No it isn't. But I would like to see your proof that two events, the starting of clocks A and B simultaneously and the stopping of the same clocks simultaneously, using timers to control clocks in both frames during the same 36,000 period , which is the same period in both frames of rest - is not concurrent? I want to see our proof.

Can you prove it?

Yes I believe so but even if I don't I will point out that your only defense is offense. That is yo cannot justify Relativity but rely on and depend on distorted realities and statements from Relativity to preclude others from proving otherwise.

That is to say A sees B and B sees A concurrently in reality.

And relativity says "concurrently" (another word for "simultaneously") is different in each frame, and that difference is real.

I suggest that infact "Concurrently" and "Simultaneous" are not identical words and have slightly different connotations. Two clocks can be running concurrently and not be simultaneous (i.e. - have the same accumulated time) but not vice-versa. That is clocks which have started simultaneously must run concurrently but not vice versa.

Try linking those signals to control the clocks. Got a problem don't you?

No. I've shown this is no problem for relativity. Relativity does not require absolute simultaneity. Only you require that.

No, it is not my requirement. It is physical reality's requirement.

Go ahead put a timer in A that shuts it down when B sees 15,692 in B's FOR.

Do you mean B sees 15692 on B's clock, or on clock MA? If B, then we have the same test as always. If MA, then you've changed the test again. You need to stick to one test at a time. Stop going off on tangents.

I don't see where I mentioned MA here at all. You are making assumptions and assertions which are unjustified.

Duh indeed. If such declarations present physical impossibilities, let me suggest you must leave them behind if you want to talk physics instead of mysticism.

Fine. I'm quite happy to have that discussion.

Can we agree then that the relativistic explanation is internally consistent? In other words, do you agree that if relativity was correct, my presented explanation of this test would be correct?

Certainly. But Relativity isn't and hence you are not. Have you properly advocated Reltivity - Yes. But unfortunately Relativity is false.

If so, we can move on an discuss whether or not relativity is correct in the real world or not. If not, then we'll have to keep plugging away until you understand the relativistic explanation. (Yes, yes, I know you think you already understand it. Don't bother saying so.)

Well as long as you continue to pretend you have enlightened me as to what Relativity claims I will continue to say Bullshit. I know and knew what Relativity claims. I did and do still reject those claims.

You do believe in physical realities do you not or have you accepted voodoo for science?

Back at you, MacM. Relativity is physical reality.

Prove it.

We certainly agree that A cannot have two different readings at the same time. We disagree that MA = 6,840 doesn't apply. It is inherent in that B =15,692 in B's FOR and when it reads 15,692 Relativity predicts A must read 6,840.

...in B's frame of reference, but not in A's.

You are splitting your clocks into a dual reality once again.

You need to be clear about this, or we can't proceed.

Please explain in a mutual relative motion scenario where Relativity is functioning concurrently on clocks how B can have two different accumulated times of 15,692 seconds.

It can't. It only ever displays one reading at any time, according to each observer.

I didn't ask about observers, I only asked about clocks reality. Observers are where this becomes perception and illusion and not clock reality.

The test is arranged such that A's test period is 36,000 seconds. B's test period is 15,692 seconds such that they run concurrently and stop simultaneously.

... in A's frame, but not in B's.

Not so in physical reality but we will let it go for now.

If B's accumulated time is 15,692 seconds in its test period "A" MUST be at 6,840.

... in B's frame, but not in A's.

Again I won't waste time.

I understand that "A" read 6,840 when B stopped ...
in B's frame

Again we will get back to this.

but B sees it continue to run until it's 36,000 actual stop time because it was stopped in A's FOR.

Correct.

Good.

However, what you are failing to do is to now place a timer in A to cause it to stop when B reads 15,692 (which wouldn't change anything)...

if the timer is in A's frame, not in B's

How do you propose to put the timer in B's frame to control "A". You are getting confused here.

... or to put a timer in A to stop it at 6,840 but which will show that B now only reads 2,892 not 15,692.

which would be changing the test.

Yes but the intent is to show the circle jerk that you are following. Each loop of timers results in smaller and smaller amounts of time. 36,000, 15692, 6,840, 2,892, 1,260, 549, 240, etc, etc.; You are chasing your tail.

Considering that ALL three clocks are started/stopped simultaneoulsy,...

in A's frame but not in B's

I have stopped responding to our answers here because you are doing nothing but quoting the theory in questions as your proof. You must learn to justify and prove Relativity. Not quote it.

... this dictates that Relativity has the problem and not the description of the test.

It dictates that you have a problem of failing to adequately distinguish different frames, and of trying to sneak in absolute time everywhere.

I am sneaking in nothing. I am discussing physical principles and you are quoting a theory.

I have agreed that is what Relativity says and I agree that what I claim is Relativity is not real. It can only be perception. Not difficult to understand once you realize that reciprocity mandates no net time dilation between clocks.

If "reciprocity" mandates no net time dilation in this test, then "reciprocity" is not in accordance with relativity. Remember, you previously agreed on what relativity says about the relativity of simultaneity. Explicitly, see the quote at the top of this post.

Reciprocity is a physical principle which cannot be broken even by relavistic statements or proclamations.

Simply saying that "Relativity says these events are not simultaneous" does not make them unsimultaneous since precalibrated relavistic timers were used to correct simultaneity in the first place.

This is just wrong. Your "monitors" do not act as you would like them to. They might work if absolute time existed, but unfortunately it doesn't.

You are getting confused again. I said nothing about monitors. I said timers as in start/stop! The monitors are not starting and stopping the clcoks. timers are.

False. They function if Relativity is right. You seem to not understand the manner in which I say All stop simultaneously. There is a differance between apearing to stop and actually being stopped. The physical principle of timers is valid. It is the concept of relativity which is shown invalid by their use.

In response, I again refer you to a previously agreed statement:

“ Me: 3. Special relativity says that the relativity of simultaneity is an effect which is totally independent of any delays caused by transmitting information.

You: True. ”

The statement is still true but the claims are not. Your satement qualifies it as to what Relativity claims, not as to what is valid.

 

[MacM]

I really don't understand your diagram. What are the axis of your diagrams. In which reference frame are they drawn?
Can you show from your diagram that c is constant in all frames?

Well it is a diagram of time dilated clock relationships which is based on that principle. I can't say it would be easy to prove from the diagram.

X is accumulated clock time

Y would be start simultaneity shifts

and the diagonal would be stop simultaneity shifts at 0.9c.

But I think the text is more clear on the point being made.

 

[James R]

Collected here, for reference, are the statements MacM has agreed with, regarding the theory of relativity:

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.
4. The reference frame in which clock B is stationary moves relative to the reference frame in which clock A is stationary.
5. In A's reference frame, clock A and clock B stop simultaneously.
6. If clocks A and B stop simultaneously in A's reference frame, then relativity says that it is impossible for them to stop simultaneously in B's reference frame.

We now also have a clear statement from MacM that he believes in both postulates of Relativity. That is, he agrees that:

A. The speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames.
B. The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial reference frames.

I also record here MacM's agreement that I have presented a correct relativistic analysis of the 2 clock problem:

In other words, do you agree that if relativity was correct, my presented explanation of this test would be correct?

Certainly. But Relativity isn't and hence you are not. Have you properly advocated Reltivity - Yes. But unfortunately Relativity is false.

What remains, now, is for MacM to post his alternative analysis of the 2 clock problem.

 

[MacM]

Collected here, for reference, are the statements MacM has agreed with, regarding the theory of relativity:

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.
4. The reference frame in which clock B is stationary moves relative to the reference frame in which clock A is stationary.
5. In A's reference frame, clock A and clock B stop simultaneously.
6. If clocks A and B stop simultaneously in A's reference frame, then relativity says that it is impossible for them to stop simultaneously in B's reference frame.

Only as to what Relativity claims, not as to it being valid. It is not.

We now also have a clear statement from MacM that he doesn't believe in either of the postulates of relativity any more. That is, he does not believe that:

A. The speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames.
B. The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial reference frames.

Where in the hell did you get that. I have never said any such thing in fact I have explcitly said the opposite.

[post=703714]See Here [/post]

I also record here MacM's agreement that I have presented a correct relativistic analysis of the 2 clock problem:

Not a good statement. I have said you have presented the case in accordance with Relativity, not that you have made a correct relavistic analysis. You haven't.

What remains, now, is for MacM to post his alternative, non-relativistic analysis of the 2 clock problem.

What remains is for you to verify that you want to keep your answers of 10 hours and 4.35 hours for the last scenario I presented. If you say yes then "After 2 years of this shit I am prepared to show you how you are wrong"

[post=703574]Do You Stand By This Answer?[/post]

 

[James R]

Let's now look at MacM's latest post on the 2 clock problem. I divide this into two parts. In the first part, we will look at MacM's statements which contradict his previous statements. References to the agreed statements posted in my previous post are given.

Contradictions

Actually no I haven't agreed that Relativity of Simultaneity has nothing to do with information delay.

Directly contradicts previous agreement with point (3).

36000 and 15692 are not simultaneous in both frames. You previously agreed that relativity says they cannot be.

This is not only untrue but not what I agreed to.

Directly contradicts previous agreement with point (6).

According to relativity, the expression "the functions are taking place simultaneously" requires a reference frame. Otherwise it is meaningless. You previously agreed to that.

False.

Directly contradicts previous agreement with point (2).

No it isn't. But I would like to see your proof that two events, the starting of clocks A and B simultaneously and the stopping of the same clocks simultaneously, using timers to control clocks in both frames during the same 36,000 period , which is the same period in both frames of rest - is not concurrent? I want to see your proof.

Refer to previously agreed statement (6).

I didn't ask about observers, I only asked about clocks reality. Observers are where this becomes perception and illusion and not clock reality.

Contradicts previously agreed statement (3).

You seem to not understand the manner in which I say All stop simultaneously. There is a differance between apearing to stop and actually being stopped. The physical principle of timers is valid. It is the concept of relativity which is shown invalid by their use.

Directly contradicts agreed statements (3) and (6).

-------

In the second part of this post, I will list statements for which no support has been given. MacM has made many promises to show this and that, but hasn't delived on any, so far.

This is his argument, in essence:

That is what Relativity says but that is perception and not reality.

We'll get back to this below.

That's it. No proof. No actual arguments. Just MacM fiat declaration.

We also have:

The fact is and it will be shown in the close of the new scenario which you have begun to analyze, that there is no time dilation. That infact 15,692 is the same in A and B's frame.

I won't hold my breath on this one.

I agreed that is what Reltivity says but what it says happens to be nonsense. It is untrue.

There has been no alternative analysis presented.

I will, maybe tonight, if I find you have responded to my other scenario from this morning.

Maybe. Yeah.

I have said there are two distinct forms of information delay.

1 - "Static" which is based on mere physical seperation and information over distance at v = c delay.

2 - "Dynamic" which is a product of an illusion of motion but still nothing more than informtion delay and not a change in time tick rate.

This concept is new and completely unexplained. It is really just weasel words, to attempt to get around the relativistic relativity of simultaneity.

You must remember that the functions are taking place simultaneously and Relativity is creating a conflict of "Physical", not "Observationsal" possibilities between clocks.

Fiat declaration.

No it isn't. But I would like to see your proof that two events, the starting of clocks A and B simultaneously and the stopping of the same clocks simultaneously, using timers to control clocks in both frames during the same 36,000 period , which is the same period in both frames of rest - is not concurrent? I want to see your proof.

I'm not sure what you're asking for here, MacM. I can't give you a method which will start and stop all clocks simultaneously in both frames, because I say that such a thing is impossible.

I suggest that infact "Concurrently" and "Simultaneous" are not identical words and have slightly different connotations. Two clocks can be running concurrently and not be simultaneous (i.e. - have the same accumulated time) but not vice-versa. That is clocks which have started simultaneously must run concurrently but not vice versa.

This is new, and consists of more weasel words to attempt to get out of previously agreed statements. Since MacM has committed himself to agreeing that relativity says certain things (which doesn't require that he accepts relativity, of course), he tries to introduce new terms which supposedly constrain the theory of relativity, but which in fact form no part of that theory.

The two we have so far, then, are "reciprocity" and "concurrency". Both of these terms are things you won't find in any relativity text. Yet MacM claims they are concepts required by the theory of relativity. MacM asserts that there are subtle differences which only he really understands between "reciprocity" and "symmetry", and between "simultaneity" and "concurrency". Thus, he tries to drive a wedge of illogic into the theory of relativity, which in fact does not exist.

For example:

Reciprocity is a physical principle which cannot be broken even by relavistic statements or proclamations.

Why not just admit that these terms are part of a MacM theory, and nothing to do with relativity, MacM?

Not so in physical reality but we will let it go for now.

Again I won't waste time.

Again we will get back to this.

It is noted that MacM continues to avoid the primary issue of the thread - whether simultaneity in one frame means simultaneity in another.

Yes but the intent is to show the circle jerk that you are following. Each loop of timers results in smaller and smaller amounts of time. 36,000, 15692, 6,840, 2,892, 1,260, 549, 240, etc, etc.; You are chasing your tail.

I have no "loop of timers", so I don't know what you're talking about. If there is a "circle jerk" you should show it, not just assert its existence. That's a fiat declaration.
---------

Finally, we have several requests from MacM to prove relativity. For example:

Relativity is physical reality.

Prove it.

and

I intend to [prove my claims] but I also find it less than impressive that that is exactly what you do by repeating the claims of Relativity or saying "Relativity says". You are making unsupported assertions as proof of your position.

Recall, MacM, that your 2 clock scenario was supposed to disprove relativity. You assert that it clearly disproves relativity. Therefore, the onus is on you to establish your claim.

Can I prove the relativity is reality? That is a separate question. In fact, the answer is: no, I cannot, because no scientific theory can be proved beyond doubt. Can I say with confidence that relativity is correct? Yes, I can, because countless real-world experiments support that conclusion. If any experiments do not support the conclusion, they are a small minority, and since both sets of experiment cannot be right, we need to make a judgment about the most probable truth. In this case, the evidence is so greatly in favour of the truth of relativity that it is crazy to argue that relativity is wrong, except in areas where it is clearly understood that the theory does not apply.

What I have done above is to show you that the relativistic explanation of your 2 clock problem does not produce any internal contradictions in the theory of relativity. That eliminates one line of argument which you have been pursuing. Have I proved that relativity is correct? No, I have not. I have simply shown that your claim that relativity is inconsistent is wrong.

Can you show that relativity is incorrect with reference to a thought experiment? Maybe you can. But so far you have utterly failed to do that. To do so, you would need to produce an alternative theory and argue persuasively that it is more plausible than the theory of relativity. Even better, you should be able to propose real-world tests which would establish your claim beyond doubt.

What have you presented as an alternative so far? Nothing but fiat declarations about "reciprocity", and vague mumblings about your ability to start and stop timers simultaneously in multiple reference frames. Have you show your reciprocity principle is required by nature? Not at all. Have you presented a coherent argument for starting and stopping timers simultaneously in different frames? Not at all.

 

[James R]

MacM,

With all the assumptions I established in my post addressing your new scenario, I stand by my analysis of that scenario.

 

[James R]

MacM:

I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you said. I have altered my previous post to confirm that you agree with the posulates of special relativity. Please tell me if I am wrong about that, because it is important we get this straight.

If you do, in fact, agree with the postulates, then you are forced by logic to accept the relativity of simultaneity, the existence of time dilation and length contraction and so on, not just as "perception" but as actual descriptions of reality.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

With all the assumptions I established in my post addressing your new scenario, I stand by my analysis of that scenario.

Good then we can skip the rather overly long post regarding the other scenario which you only defend with fiat and not physical logic.

You have said that the traversing of the 9 light hour seperation is timed by "A" as 10 hours. You have said that according to "B" it is 4.35 hours.

You posted this as proof of time dilation due to relative velocity.

But based on your assumption what you prove is that there is no time dilation affect. Not that time dilations exists.

How? Simple.

You assumed Lorentz Contraction of space and claimed that the distance in A's frame was 9 light hours and at 0.9c that requires 10 hours.

In B's frame you claim that distance is now 3.92 light hours and at 0.9c that requires 4.35 hours.

OK so far?

If yes then you should realise this.

d = vt, t = d/v

A: d = 9 lh, v = .9c and t = 9 lh/.9c = 10 hours

B: d = 3.92 lh, v = 0.9c, t = 3.92 lh/0.9c = 4.35 hours.

The differance in registered clock times can only be due to Lorentz Contraction. NOT Time Dilation.

The clock tick rates have not changed.

If I drive 54 Mph for 9 miles it takes 10 minutes.

If I drive 54 Mph for 3.92 miles it takes 4.35 minutes.

Gee! I have time dilation at sub-luminal speeds.

Time dilation did not occur. If time also dilated the clocks would read 10 hours and 1.9 hours.

Now either Relativity is false as to dimensional contraction or it is invalid as to time dilation. It must be false to one or the other. It really doesn't matter which one the mere fact that Relativity is false requires a complete new attitude regarding my views vs your views.

My view is that it is not one or the other but both that are false. The entire concept is based on a mis-interpretation as to why light appears invariant.

The erroneous conclusion is that because light appears invariant that nothing can exceed the speed of light and that matter other than light or EM waves must obey the propagation limitations of those entities.

Simply put particle accelerators cannot cause particles to exceed the speed of light because light and EM waves have a finite velocity limit of v = c and noi amount of energy can make them reach or exceed v = c.

How do you propose that anything can be accelerated faster than the propelling force?

It simply has nothing to do with mass change with velocity.

I could go on but I will await your backpeddeling on these issues first.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you said. I have altered my previous post to confirm that you agree with the posulates of special relativity. Please tell me if I am wrong about that, because it is important we get this straight.

If you do, in fact, agree with the postulates, then you are forced by logic to accept the relativity of simultaneity, the existence of time dilation and length contraction and so on, not just as "perception" but as actual descriptions of reality.

No apology required. No harm done. However, your conclusions are in error. Both postulates can be valid but they do not mandate Relativity to explain our physics.

 

[James R]

MacM,

You're now confused about your new scenario. Remember we are talking about one journey here. The different distances for the trip are an effect of different reference frames.

You assumed Lorentz Contraction of space and claimed that the distance in A's frame was 9 light hours and at 0.9c that requires 10 hours.

In B's frame you claim that distance is now 3.92 light hours and at 0.9c that requires 4.35 hours.

OK so far?

Correct. You can't pick and choose which parts of relativity you want. It's all or nothing.

If yes then you should realise this.

d = vt, t = d/v

A: d = 9 lh, v = .9c and t = 9 lh/.9c = 10 hours

B: d = 3.92 lh, v = 0.9c, t = 3.92 lh/0.9c = 4.35 hours.

That's exactly how I calculated the times!

Notice that the equation d=vt is applied with ALL quantities measured in the same reference frame. If d is measured in B's frame, then the answer for t will apply in B's frame. If d is measured in A's frame, then the answer for t applies in A's frame.

Earlier, you asked why I said A was moving when I had earlier specified A was at rest. The answer is simple: In A's frame, A does not move, and B has velocity 0.9c. In B's frame, B does not move, and A has velocity 0.9c.

Thus, the 4.25 hours is the time measured by B for A to travel to B. The 10 hours is the time measured by B for B to travel to A.

The differance in registered clock times can only be due to Lorentz Contraction. NOT Time Dilation.

No. It's simply a matter of which frame you choose to look at the problem in.

From A's point of view, B has to travel 9 light hours, which takes 10 hours. A explains the final reading on B's clock by saying B's clock was running slow during the 10 hour trip.

From B's point of view, A has to travel 3.92 light hours, which takes 4.35 hours. B explains the final reading on A's clock by saying that, although A's clock was running slow, it was started long before B's own clock was started, giving it enough time to catch up to and overtake B's time.

The clock tick rates have not changed.

In which frame?

If I drive 54 Mph for 9 miles it takes 10 minutes.
If I drive 54 Mph for 3.92 miles it takes 4.35 minutes.

Those are different trips. Here we are talking about the same trip.

Gee! I have time dilation at sub-luminal speeds.

No. You're just confused, applying bad reasoning to two different trips and pretending they are one.

Now either Relativity is false as to dimensional contraction or it is invalid as to time dilation. It must be false to one or the other. It really doesn't matter which one the mere fact that Relativity is false requires a complete new attitude regarding my views vs your views.

As usual, your failure to apply the theory of relativity correctly has let you down. It's not relativity which is wrong. It's only you, as usual.

Now, do you want to get back to the main discussion here, or are you going to simply ignore my post on your 2 clock problem. Or maybe you have yet another bait and switch ready.

What is it to be now, MacM?

 

[MacM]

You're now confused about your new scenario. Remember we are talking about one journey here. The different distances for the trip are an effect of different reference frames.

No. I'm not confused at all. Your solution shows "Absolutely" no accumulated time dilation for clocks at high relavistic velocity for an extended period.

You assumed Lorentz Contraction of space and claimed that the distance in A's frame was 9 light hours and at 0.9c that requires 10 hours.

In B's frame you claim that distance is now 3.92 light hours and at 0.9c that requires 4.35 hours.

OK so far?

Correct. You can't pick and choose which parts of relativity you want. It's all or nothing.

If yes then you should realise this.

d = vt, t = d/v

A: d = 9 lh, v = .9c and t = 9 lh/.9c = 10 hours

B: d = 3.92 lh, v = 0.9c, t = 3.92 lh/0.9c = 4.35 hours.

That's exactly how I calculated the times!

And that is exactly how it is shown that time did not dilate. The time differential is due to distance traveled only and not time dilation.

Notice that the equation d=vt is applied with ALL quantities measured in the same reference frame. If d is measured in B's frame, then the answer for t will apply in B's frame. If d is measured in A's frame, then the answer for t applies in A's frame.

Earlier, you asked why I said A was moving when I had earlier specified A was at rest. The answer is simple: In A's frame, A does not move, and B has velocity 0.9c. In B's frame, B does not move, and A has velocity 0.9c.

Thus, the 4.25 hours is the time measured by B for A to travel to B. The 10 hours is the time measured by B for B to travel to A.

OK, fine then show the other frame. Show a time dilation affect. Not Lorentz Contraction affect. In your solution you concluded " BOTH" clocks agree on the accumulated times. Your answer here seems to be a bit squirrely.

The differance in registered clock times can only be due to Lorentz Contraction. NOT Time Dilation.

No. It's simply a matter of which frame you choose to look at the problem in.

You stated "Both" clocks agreed on the accumulated times. Both clocks would include both views. :bugeye:

From A's point of view, B has to travel 9 light hours, which takes 10 hours. A explains the final reading on B's clock by saying B's clock was running slow during the 10 hour trip.

Nonsense. "A" is a kindergarden drunk then. The issue is not resolved as time dilation. It may just as well be Lorentz Contraction induced error. Which as you now say "A" makes the excuse that "B's" clock ran slow to explain the error. Not proof of time dilation. It is proof of error in the relavistic measurement system.

From B's point of view, A has to travel 3.92 light hours, which takes 4.35 hours. B explains the final reading on A's clock by saying that, although A's clock was running slow, it was started long before B's own clock was started, giving it enough time to catch up to and overtake B's time.

If need be then perhaps we should cooncentrate on how you claim the start times are not simultaneous.

Is the start simulaneity shift calculable? What is it?

Fantastic. We finally have a very clear picture of what Relativity is all about. We claim Lorentz Contraction of space. Which is totally an unsupported concept. No evidence whatsoever and to overcome the errors that introduces into our physics we then claim time dilation is proven.

WOW what a load of bullshit. I have already posted a few months ago about the falicy of spatial contraction. Thread "Arguement for a Decelerating Expansion of the Universe". It showed that objects appear to accelerate toward you when in fact they are accelerating away. It results in distance changes which occur in time periods that can exceed millions of times the speed of light. It is wholly an unsupported piece of garbage function only to keep a mathematical circle jerk consistant.

But based on that erroneous, unsupported and ludricrus assumption about physics you now claim it proves time dilation. Sorry that is preposterous.

The clock tick rates have not changed.

In which frame?

Any frame. Time dialtion is based on nothing more that claiming an error as a solution for claiming an unsupported relavistic alteration to reality. That is make distance vary and then claim only time can explain the clocks reading differance between frames.

If I drive 54 Mph for 9 miles it takes 10 minutes.
If I drive 54 Mph for 3.92 miles it takes 4.35 minutes.

Those are different trips. Here we are talking about the same trip.

Irrelevant. Of course they are different trips. B's view is also a trip. A's view is also a trip. You have different distance in different views. My comment stands..

Gee! I have time dilation at sub-luminal speeds.

No. You're just confused, applying bad reasoning to two different trips and pretending they are one.

And you are confused to claim that the distance traveled is different due to relative velocity and then to in turn claim that the situation is corrected by "Assuming" time dilation between moving clocks.

You create the error and then generate another error to explain it away. This is not science it is a mathematical game of hide and seek.

Now either Relativity is false as to dimensional contraction or it is invalid as to time dilation. It must be false to one or the other. It really doesn't matter which one the mere fact that Relativity is false requires a complete new attitude regarding my views vs your views.

As usual, your failure to apply the theory of relativity correctly has let you down. It's not relativity which is wrong. It's only you, as usual.

I think not. Read again above. You have not proven time dialtion. You have only proven time dilation has been invented to explain away measurement errors created by Relativity's wrongful assumption that spatial dimension has contracted. A completely ludricrus idea, wholly unsupported by any evidence or data.

Now, do you want to get back to the main discussion here, or are you going to simply ignore my post on your 2 clock problem. Or maybe you have yet another bait and switch ready.

Finding the best format to discuss an issue is not "Bait and Switch". We now seem to have found the best format. We will stick with this one until it is resolved.

Now, Please prove your assumption that time has dilated. Show us the other view in this scenario and show us the results of reversing the assumption of who is at rest.

This is getting very interesting don't you think?

You claim that time dilation is proven as the only explanation for the time differance but you have created the time differance by altering distance traveled with any basis what-so-ever.

I know, I know, you are going to come back to the invariance of light. We can address that if need be but first at least acknowledge time dilation is only required if we first assume that time-space has no medium or substance but that it can be curved and contracted.

Just how do you propose to explain how "Nothingness" can be manipulated?

 

[MacM]

James R,

The attached sketch illustrates the intent of the original start sequence of the current running scenario. Perhaps you might wish to comment.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3395&stc=1

The initial start acceleration signal for B is generated from a midway point between clocks A and B.

That signal also presets the clocks to calculated affects and acceleration time schedule.

A is set to -1 LHr. B is set to -1LHr +/- any calculated affects on that clock during the non-inertial acceleration of 1 LHr at which time it has achieved 0.9c and is 9 LHr seperation between clocks, excluding any Lorentz Contracted views. i.e. - 10 LHr - 1 LHr = 9 LHr.

At that juncture both clocks read t=0.

Are you now going to change any of your times from 10 hours and 4.356 hours?

 

[James R]

MacM:

You are hopelessly confused, as usual.

And that is exactly how it is shown that time did not dilate. The time differential is due to distance traveled only and not time dilation.

So, are you now saying you agree that length contraction exists, but time dilation does not?

Let me ask you directly, since this seems to be the only way to get straight answers out of you.

True or false?

1. The theory of relativity predicts time dilation.
2. Time dilation really exists.
3. The theory of relativity predicts length contraction.
4. Length contraction really exists.
5. The theory of relativity says the speed of light is constant in all frames.
6. The speed of light really is constant in all frames.
7. The theory of relativity says the laws of physics take the same forms in all frames.
8. The laws of physics really do take the same forms in all frames.

No qualifications. Just straight true/false answers are all that is required.

OK, fine then show the other frame. Show a time dilation affect.

I already did. Re-read my post.

In your solution you concluded " BOTH" clocks agree on the accumulated times. Your answer here seems to be a bit squirrely.

They agree on final displayed times. They do not agree on total elapsed times since the start of the test. B says the test took 4.35 hours. A says it took 10 hours. The only way they can disagree about this is is time dilation effects occur.

The differance in registered clock times can only be due to Lorentz Contraction. NOT Time Dilation.

Are you talking relativity now, or MacM fantasy relativity, or something else?

You stated "Both" clocks agreed on the accumulated times. Both clocks would include both views.

Each clock has only one view, MacM.

From A's point of view, B has to travel 9 light hours, which takes 10 hours. A explains the final reading on B's clock by saying B's clock was running slow during the 10 hour trip.

Nonsense. "A" is a kindergarden drunk then. The issue is not resolved as time dilation. It may just as well be Lorentz Contraction induced error.

Well, show us your expert analysis, MacM. Your fiat declarations are getting tiresome.

If need be then perhaps we should cooncentrate on how you claim the start times are not simultaneous.

Is the start simulaneity shift calculable? What is it?

You'll have to be more specific. I don't know exactly what you're asking.

Haven't you worked out your own solution to your own problem in advance? Why don't you show me your calculations, and I'll tell you if you're right or wrong.

WOW what a load of bullshit. I have already posted a few months ago about the falicy of spatial contraction. Thread "Arguement for a Decelerating Expansion of the Universe". It showed that objects appear to accelerate toward you when in fact they are accelerating away. It results in distance changes which occur in time periods that can exceed millions of times the speed of light. It is wholly an unsupported piece of garbage function only to keep a mathematical circle jerk consistant.

You are hopelessly muddled. The expansion of the universe is a general relativistic effect which has nothing to do with special relativistic length contraction. I'm just going to ignore this irrelevancy for now.

But based on that erroneous, unsupported and ludricrus assumption about physics you now claim it proves time dilation. Sorry that is preposterous.

I haven't claimed to have proved anything. All I have told you (again) is what relativity has to say about your latest scenario. There's no proof of relativity here.

The point is, once again, that your new scenario does not disprove relativity. Your false reasoning depends on universal time, as usual. Which you haven't shown exists.

Any frame. Time dialtion is based on nothing more that claiming an error as a solution for claiming an unsupported relavistic alteration to reality. That is make distance vary and then claim only time can explain the clocks reading differance between frames.

Fiat declaration. Unsupported. You'll need to do better than this.

And you are confused to claim that the distance traveled is different due to relative velocity and then to in turn claim that the situation is corrected by "Assuming" time dilation between moving clocks.

It's not a "correction". It's a description. I have made no errors.

Now either Relativity is false as to dimensional contraction or it is invalid as to time dilation.

Another false dichotomy.

You would need to show this, if it were true. But you haven't, as usual. This is another MacM fiat declaration.

I think not. Read again above. You have not proven time dialtion.

I agree, and I never claimed I had proven time dilation. You claimed you had disproved it, but you were wrong.

Finding the best format to discuss an issue is not "Bait and Switch". We now seem to have found the best format. We will stick with this one until it is resolved.

Yeah, just like you stuck with the 2 clock problem until it was resolved.

LOL.

You only ever stick with something until you're backed far enough into a corner so that there's not enough wiggle room left. Then, the amazing dance hall tactics of MacM come out, and it's a quick Texas Two Step onto another topic.

I don't expect this to be any different.

Now, Please prove your assumption that time has dilated. Show us the other view in this scenario and show us the results of reversing the assumption of who is at rest.

I've already shown you both views. I carefully explained them to you. Please re-read my post.

I have no intention of proving time dilation. That is ultimately a question for experiment. I can justify time dilation, and in fact have derived the result in a separate thread specifically on that topic. I am sure you have blotted that from your mind, though.

By the way, have you heard that the Lens-Thirring effect predicted by general relativity has recently been confirmed by experiment? Another triumph for relaitivity! Relativity 1733. MacM Zero.

This is getting very interesting don't you think?

No. It's the same boring, repetitive argument you've been pushing for two years on this forum. You'll never learn.

You claim that time dilation is proven as the only explanation for the time differance but you have created the time differance by altering distance traveled with any basis what-so-ever.

Look, I could have ignored the existence of relativity and given you a comfy Newtonian solution for your problem which would have said nothing about relativity but which would have made your little mind feel content. Unfortunately, that would not be in accordance with reality, so I had to present a real-world solution.

 

[MacM]

You are hopelessly confused, as usual.

You really should forget your habit of biasing your posts to assume you are correct and others are lost. What you claim as being lost is merely disagreement with your view. Your view has not been justified and hence my (or our) views are not necessarily wrong simply because we disagree with you.

If you should ever be able to prove you (Relativity) are correct, then, and only then, would such comments have any merit. Yours is an assumption of being correct to the exclusion of any other answer.

And that is exactly how it is shown that time did not dilate. The time differential is due to distance traveled only and not time dilation.

So, are you now saying you agree that length contraction exists, but time dilation does not?

Another bad habit. Making up meanings that are not stated. I said "YOU" invoked length contraction. Show me anywhere I said I agreed that length contraction is real. In fact I explicity state the opposite in that thread.

Let me ask you directly, since this seems to be the only way to get straight answers out of you.

False. Nothing wrong with my answers. It is your habit of either ignoring what was said, distorting what was said, or interjecting some other irrelavant issue that confuses the thread.

True or false?

1. The theory of relativity predicts time dilation.
Yes

2. Time dilation really exists.

No

3. The theory of relativity predicts length contraction.

Yes

4. Length contraction really exists.

Not of space

5. The theory of relativity says the speed of light is constant in all frames.

Yes

6. The speed of light really is constant in all frames.

Not a suitable question for a Yes or No answer.

7. The theory of relativity says the laws of physics take the same forms in all frames.

Yes

8. The laws of physics really do take the same forms in all frames.

Yes

No qualifications. Just straight true/false answers are all that is required.

False.

OK, fine then show the other frame. Show a time dilation affect.

I already did. Re-read my post.

I had asked for clarification because of what appeared to be hedging in your text. I saw and inquired if you stood by your statment that BOTH clocks agree on 10 Hours and 4.356 Hours. If you stand by that statement, fine.

In your solution you concluded " BOTH" clocks agree on the accumulated times. Your answer here seems to be a bit squirrely.

They agree on final displayed times. They do not agree on total elapsed times since the start of the test. B says the test took 4.35 hours. A says it took 10 hours. The only way they can disagree about this is is time dilation effects occur.

False. The time differential is due to traveling 9 LHr vs 3.92 LHr at the same 0.9c relative velocity.

The differance in registered clock times can only be due to Lorentz Contraction. NOT Time Dilation.

Are you talking relativity now, or MacM fantasy relativity, or something else?

Considering the simplicity of the current issue, I must assume this is a dodge of the obvious fact that 9LHr/0.9c = 10 Hr and that 3.92 LHr/0.9c = 4.356 Hr and there is no change indicated due to time dilation but only length contraction.

BTW: You did not apply reciprocity and assume that at the start at t=0 that B is at rest and a travels.

You stated "Both" clocks agreed on the accumulated times. Both clocks would include both views.

Each clock has only one view, MacM.

Another dodge. Now assume B is stationary and A is in motion. What are the respective times of clock A and B on collision. Keep in mind both conditions exist concurrently during the travel times of the clocks. It is a matter of both clcok observers of having an opinion.

From A's point of view, B has to travel 9 light hours, which takes 10 hours. A explains the final reading on B's clock by saying B's clock was running slow during the 10 hour trip.

Nonsense. "A" is a kindergarden drunk then. The issue is not resolved as time dilation. It may just as well be Lorentz Contraction induced error.

Well, show us your expert analysis, MacM. Your fiat declarations are getting tiresome.

I have. If you cannot follow the logic and mathematics that reduced distance accounts for the reduced time then you are far beyond help. I'm sure ou do and this is nothing more than a dodge of recognizing that fact.

If need be then perhaps we should cooncentrate on how you claim the start times are not simultaneous.

Is the start simulaneity shift calculable? What is it?

You'll have to be more specific. I don't know exactly what you're asking.

Try looking at the attachment:

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment...ntid=3395&stc=1

Haven't you worked out your own solution to your own problem in advance? Why don't you show me your calculations, and I'll tell you if you're right or wrong.

See the attachment. And Thank You teacher. :bugeye:

WOW what a load of bullshit. I have already posted a few months ago about the falicy of spatial contraction. Thread "Arguement for a Decelerating Expansion of the Universe". It showed that objects appear to accelerate toward you when in fact they are accelerating away. It results in distance changes which occur in time periods that can exceed millions of times the speed of light. It is wholly an unsupported piece of garbage function only to keep a mathematical circle jerk consistant.

You are hopelessly muddled. The expansion of the universe is a general relativistic effect which has nothing to do with special relativistic length contraction. I'm just going to ignore this irrelevancy for now.

Nothing in that paragrah was relating to the expansion of the Universe. That was the title of the thread where I showed the true affect of claiming length contraction. Very much a part of this discussion. You can't get away with trying to make these dodges, false assertions and innuendos.

But based on that erroneous, unsupported and ludricrus assumption about physics you now claim it proves time dilation. Sorry that is preposterous.

I haven't claimed to have proved anything. All I have told you (again) is what relativity has to say about your latest scenario. There's no proof of relativity here.

Well that is for sure.

The point is, once again, that your new scenario does not disprove relativity. Your false reasoning depends on universal time, as usual. Which you haven't shown exists.

Bullshit. It is shown false by your own analysis. The only cause shown for time differential in the clocks was length contraction, not time dilation.

Any frame. Time dilation is based on nothing more than claiming an error as a solution for claiming an unsupported relavistic alteration to reality. That is make distance vary and then claim only time can explain the clocks reading differance between frames.

Fiat declaration. Unsupported. You'll need to do better than this.

Repeating for the last time: 9 LHr/0.9c = 10 Hr and 3.92 LHr/0.9c = 4.356 Hr. The differance in clock readings is 100% due to length contraction, NO time dilation shown. If you cannot or do not acknowledge this then this conversation is over since it is a futile waste of eveyones time in that you are ignoring absolute proof of error in claims made for relativity.

And you are confused to claim that the distance traveled is different due to relative velocity and then to in turn claim that the situation is corrected by "Assuming" time dilation between moving clocks.

It's not a "correction". It's a description. I have made no errors.

I didn't say you made errors. The error is Relativity (and yours for advocating it. )

Now either Relativity is false as to dimensional contraction or it is invalid as to time dilation.

Another false dichotomy.

And another dodge of the issue.

You would need to show this, if it were true. But you haven't, as usual. This is another MacM fiat declaration.

Another dodge of the issue and ignoring the mathematics. Saying it is my declaration bears no merit what-so-ever.

d = vt. Please show that is not a valid statement or admit that the clock times differ due to length contraction and not time dilation.

I think not. Read again above. You have not proven time dialtion.

I agree, and I never claimed I had proven time dilation. You claimed you had disproved it, but you were wrong.

So you admit you have no proof of Relativity? That it is conjecture? Fine I can accept that but I do not accept your rejection of my d = vt proof that the clock differentials are due to length contraction and not time dilation.

That is absolute nonsense. You are being unresponsive here. It is a glaring error in claims of Relativity.

Finding the best format to discuss an issue is not "Bait and Switch". We now seem to have found the best format. We will stick with this one until it is resolved.

Yeah, just like you stuck with the 2 clock problem until it was resolved.

Now,now don't get testy since you were boxed in. There is no reason to "Resolve" the other one since this one shows relativity in error. Further even here you refuse to acknowledge the obvious so what sense would there be to trying to debate a more complex situation.

If you do not understand the implications of d = vt then there is very little that could be discussed with any hope of getting viable answers from you.

LOL.

You only ever stick with something until you're backed far enough into a corner so that there's not enough wiggle room left. Then, the amazing dance hall tactics of MacM come out, and it's a quick Texas Two Step onto another topic.

I don't expect this to be any different.

Bullshit. You by no means had the upper hand in the other scenario but it was becoming clear that you were not going to admit to common logic. I was forced to alter the scenario to cut off YOUR Texas Two Stepping. WHICH I HAVE DONE.

The fact that you continue to try and ignore and distort that fact is not going unnoticed by others. I feel confident they see that 9Lhr/0.9c = 10 hours and that 3.92 LHr/0.9c = 4.356 Hours is a function of distance traveled and not time dilation of clocks.

Now, Please prove your assumption that time has dilated. Show us the other view in this scenario and show us the results of reversing the assumption of who is at rest. [/qluote]

I have no intention of proving time dilation. That is ultimately a question for experiment. I can justify time dilation, and in fact have derived the result in a separate thread specifically on that topic. I am sure you have blotted that from your mind, though.

Why would you say that. I think it requires infact a better understanding to pin you down than it does to simply quote "Because Relativity says".

By the way, have you heard that the Lens-Thirring effect predicted by general relativity has recently been confirmed by experiment? Another triumph for relaitivity! Relativity 1733. MacM Zero.

Perhaps another H&K major proof, who knows. Of course aI saw that but I would also have to say it is far to soon to say anything has been proven. Also I have said many times some aspect of Relativity are mathematically useful and make useful predictions. But they hapen to be based on nothing but mathematics and often lead to feloneous conclusions.

So Frame Dragging may be some affect. I have my doubts since it seems unlikely that a time-space consisting of NOTHING can be curved, contracted or dragged. If you want to start talking about some form of fabric or medium then perhaps these issues would begin to have a sensiable foundation but not until.

This is getting very interesting don't you think?

No. It's the same boring, repetitive argument you've been pushing for two years on this forum. You'll never learn.

And you have just proven by this statement that that goes for you as well. You just lost and you don't even know it or lack the courage to admit it.

You claim that time dilation is proven as the only explanation for the time differance but you have created the time differance by altering distance traveled without any basis what-so-ever.

Look, I could have ignored the existence of relativity and given you a comfy Newtonian solution for your problem which would have said nothing about relativity but which would have made your little mind feel content. Unfortunately, that would not be in accordance with reality, so I had to present a real-world solution.

I think your presentation was just fine. I'm very comfy having you show after two years that time dilation doesn't occur. Thanks. You get down right cranky when you lose don't you.

 

[Paul T]

Considering the simplicity of the current issue, I must assume this is a dodge of the obvious fact that 9LHr/0.9c = 10 Hr and that 3.92 LHr/0.9c = 4.356 Hr and there is no change indicated due to time dilation but only length contraction.

Repeating for the last time: 9 LHr/0.9c = 10 Hr and 3.92 LHr/0.9c = 4.356 Hr. The differance in clock readings is 100% due to length contraction, NO time dilation shown. If you cannot or do not acknowledge this then this conversation is over since it is a futile waste of eveyones time in that you are ignoring absolute proof of error in claims made for relativity.

Wrong! That 4.356 hours, instead of 10 hrs is what the time dilation is. Time dilation and length contraction are complimentary. Either of one does not exist individually.

Your interpretation that "differance in clock readings is 100% due to length contraction, NO time dilation shown" is completely WRONG. Why didn't you say that length contraction is 100% due to time dilation? Compute it this way: 10hr*0.9c = 9 light hours vs 4.356hr*0.9c = 3.92 light hours. What make you think that this is less real than your "9 LHr/0.9c = 10 Hr and 3.92 LHr/0.9c = 4.356 Hr"?