Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
- Status
MacM,
Why don't you start by reading my initial post on this scenario properly? Go through it step by step and at least try to understand it. Most of your questions have already been addressed.
Your assertion now seems to be that length contraction is real in some sense, but time dilation is not. I would like you to explain your conception of length contraction, please. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it exists or not, as indicated by this response:
Of what, then? And how? And how do you tell the difference between length contraction "of space" and "not of space"? What kind of length contraction do you believe in, MacM?
Then there's this cyptic response.
Then give the full answer. Explain yourself. Most people would have no problem answering this with a simple "yes". What's your great idea?
When they meet up, they agree on their displays, as I said before.
Why is the 3.92 lhr figure correct, in your view? I can't wait to hear, seeing as you believe in length contraction but "not of space".
Did you notice that the situation refers to the same events from 2 reference frames? A difference in timing between the frames can't indicate anything but time dilation.
And there's really no need to keep presenting my own calculations to me. Since I made them in the first place, I'm well aware of what they say. I even explained them to you in the post which you all but ignored.
I don't know whether I applied "reciprocity", since that is a MacM concept of uncertain meaning. I did, however, solve the problem in two frames: one in which A is at rest, and one in which B is at rest.
10 hours and 4.35 hours, as calculated previously.
Concurrency is another vague MacM term. It appears to conflict with relativity.
Your link doesn't work.
Then why do you now rely on it to claim that time dilation doesn't exist?
Where is the error in relativity? I've shown you that, once again, relativity is consistent.
What's correct, then? What are the correct distances travelled, in each frame? What are the correct times? How do you derive the results?
MacM, I used d=vt to calculate the times. I wouldn't use it if I thought it wasn't valid, would I?
Try reading ahead before you post knee-jerk responses.
Why don't you start by reading my initial post on this scenario properly? Go through it step by step and at least try to understand it. Most of your questions have already been addressed.
Your assertion now seems to be that length contraction is real in some sense, but time dilation is not. I would like you to explain your conception of length contraction, please. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it exists or not, as indicated by this response:
Of what, then? And how? And how do you tell the difference between length contraction "of space" and "not of space"? What kind of length contraction do you believe in, MacM?
Then there's this cyptic response.
Then give the full answer. Explain yourself. Most people would have no problem answering this with a simple "yes". What's your great idea?
When they meet up, they agree on their displays, as I said before.
Why is the 3.92 lhr figure correct, in your view? I can't wait to hear, seeing as you believe in length contraction but "not of space".
Did you notice that the situation refers to the same events from 2 reference frames? A difference in timing between the frames can't indicate anything but time dilation.
And there's really no need to keep presenting my own calculations to me. Since I made them in the first place, I'm well aware of what they say. I even explained them to you in the post which you all but ignored.
I don't know whether I applied "reciprocity", since that is a MacM concept of uncertain meaning. I did, however, solve the problem in two frames: one in which A is at rest, and one in which B is at rest.
10 hours and 4.35 hours, as calculated previously.
Concurrency is another vague MacM term. It appears to conflict with relativity.
Your link doesn't work.
Then why do you now rely on it to claim that time dilation doesn't exist?
Where is the error in relativity? I've shown you that, once again, relativity is consistent.
What's correct, then? What are the correct distances travelled, in each frame? What are the correct times? How do you derive the results?
MacM, I used d=vt to calculate the times. I wouldn't use it if I thought it wasn't valid, would I?
Try reading ahead before you post knee-jerk responses.
James R said:
Being addressed and being given viable answers seems to be two different issues.
James R said:
MacM said:
MacM said:
James R said:
This discussion is not about the validity of length contraction. It is about time dilation. Would be glad to join you in that discussion under another topic. Lets stay on the topic of time dilation where you have just shown that it doesn't exist but that dimension of space contracts.
James R said:
Simple you were mandating yes/no answers and while I acknowledge the speed of light does seem to measure invariant, the conclusion that have been given that fact are not confirmed and are the vary basis for Relativity.
Lets try some new postulates:
1 - The observed invariance of light is the consequence of the manner in which it is generated and/or observed and does not represent an invariant quality or property of any enity in actual practice.
2 - The observed invariance of light or EM waves does not madate that universal masses must adhere to a simular phenomena.
MacM said:
James R said:
Care to quit hedging and give a complete answer? Why did you qualify the agreement as being only when they meet up?
MacM said:
James R said:
This has nothing what-so-ever with what I believe. I did not state I believed in the 3.92 figure. It is your figure. I merely point out to the readers that your own alteration of dimensions has accounted for the different clock readings to the exclusion of any time dilation affects.
MacM said:
James R said:
False. Put it in table form. ** is at rest
Obsv.......Dist.........Time
A**.....________...._______
B.........________...._______
B**.....________...._______
A........________...._______
James R said:
As long as you keep ignoring the implications of what you have just done there is a need to keep repeating the conclusion. Now fill out the above table and "Prove" your case.
MacM said:
James R said:
Another dodge of a simple solid physical principle.
WEBSTER: Concurrent.
1 - occurring at the same time, existing together.
2 - meeting in or going toward the same point; converging.
3 - acting together,cooperating.
At the same time one observer says the clock time is 10 hours the other say the time is 4.356 hours. and vice versa. You have one clock and one reading. When these clocks crash there are not two different readings only one. What do the clocks read on collision.
Don't tell me from which frame. That is nonsense. One clock one physical display. This is the real world, not the one where you have different clock displays upon the instant of collision.
MacM said:
James r said:
Repaired: [post=704636]Here[/post]
MacM said:
James R said:
This has nothing to do with what I rely on. It has to do with the mathematics of your presentation. When clocks travel 9 LHr and 3.93 LHr at 0.9c it results in the 10 Hr and 4.356 Hr results you posted. Those time differances are due to length contraction. There is no time dilation. Clock tick rate could not also vary according to Relativity or the clocks would have read 10 Hr and 1.9 Hr.
MacM said:
James R said:
Consistantly wrong possibly. You can not stick your head in the sand and ignore that your own conclusion is that tick rate of the clocks did not change. Time on the clock only differed due to the distance they each traveled.
MacM said:
James r said:
I don't because I say it is bullshit. You have just shown it is bullshit. You just want to ignore it.
MacM said:
James R said:
Of course not you think relativity is valid and the truth is flashing like a whorehouse red light. "Clock display differential are due to length contraction (distance traveled) and not a change in clock tick rate. - NO TIME DILATION IS SHOWN."
MacM said:
James R said:
My response is not knee jerk.
Last edited:
MacM said:
Double talk of what? I pointed out again your failure to understand that length contraction and time dilation must exist together; cannot be one real and the other unreal. You thought that only length contraction is real while time dilation is the product of it, but you forgot that the other round must be also true, that is the time dilation is the product of length contraction. What happen to your silly "reciprocity" word? Doesn't it apply here?
MacM:
Pull out your favorite equation:
t2 = t1 sqrt(1-(v/c)<sup>2</sup>)
Plug in t1=10 hours, v=0.9c, and you get t2=4.35 hours.
There you go. Time dilation!
You're in denial.
Here's the information you asked for:
A's frame (in which A is at rest):
Distance travelled by A: 0
Distance B travelled by B: 9 light hours
Time measured on A's clock before B collides: 10 hours
Time elapsed on B's clock as seen by A after A's clock starts: 4.35 hours.
Start time of A's clock: 0
Start time of B's clock: 0
B's frame (in which B is at rest):
Distance travelled by A: 3.92 light hours
Distance travelled by B: 0
Time measured on B's clock before A collides: 4.35 hours
Time elapsed on A's clock as seen by B after B's clock starts: 1.9 hours
Start time of A's clock: -8.1 hours (that is, 8.1 hours before B's clock starts)
Start time of B's clock: 0
Pull out your favorite equation:
t2 = t1 sqrt(1-(v/c)<sup>2</sup>)
Plug in t1=10 hours, v=0.9c, and you get t2=4.35 hours.
There you go. Time dilation!
You're in denial.
Here's the information you asked for:
A's frame (in which A is at rest):
Distance travelled by A: 0
Distance B travelled by B: 9 light hours
Time measured on A's clock before B collides: 10 hours
Time elapsed on B's clock as seen by A after A's clock starts: 4.35 hours.
Start time of A's clock: 0
Start time of B's clock: 0
B's frame (in which B is at rest):
Distance travelled by A: 3.92 light hours
Distance travelled by B: 0
Time measured on B's clock before A collides: 4.35 hours
Time elapsed on A's clock as seen by B after B's clock starts: 1.9 hours
Start time of A's clock: -8.1 hours (that is, 8.1 hours before B's clock starts)
Start time of B's clock: 0
Last edited:
Paul T said:Double talk of what? I pointed out again your failure to understand that length contraction and time dilation must exist together; cannot be one real and the other unreal. You thought that only length contraction is real while time dilation is the product of it, but you forgot that the other round must be also true, that is the time dilation is the product of length contraction. What happen to your silly "reciprocity" word? Doesn't it apply here?
I seem to understand perfectly well. Better infact than yourself. It has just been proven that two functions of Relativity, which you and James have argued are real affects, that must occur physically in cases of relative motion CANNOT occur simultaneously.
One or the other must become illusions of motion if you choose to argue one is physical. Therefore you cannot declare either as physical reality and both then become illusion.
Your only pragmatic solution is to make a choice and declare one physical and the other illusion.
Which one do you choose.?
James R said:
The terms "as seen" says it all. I have been correct for two years. It is an illusion of motion and not physical reality. The observers view has not and cannot alter the physical clock display.
Thank you. Now apologize for yourself and all the members here that have assualted my character and intelligence since I have been correct.
The term "as seen by" is the same as "in the reference frame of".
This says nothing about preception versus reality. I have explained to you many times that observations are equally real in all reference frames. I guess you've conveniently forgotten again.
Enjoy your fantasy, MacM. You're a real winner. In this thread, you have proven nothing. You have shown no flaws in relativity. All you have done is made "FIAT declarations". When you can't face reality, you can always run away and pretend it all never happened.
You say I have no effective rebuttal. To what? No argument has been presented which needs rebutting.
You say I have no effective rebuttal. To what? No argument has been presented which needs rebutting.
James R said:
I clearly have forgotten nothing. You have gorgotten that for two years I have maintained that Relativity is not all physical reality but is an illusion of relative motion.
That has been made clear in this thread. Your continued effort to resisting acknowledging that fact just shows your lack of integrity as does your continued personal attacks which now are shown to be absolutely false, baseless slander.
James R said:
More denial on your part. It has been shown that length contraction and time dilation cannot coexist as both physical realities. One or the other must be perception, illusions, etc when either of them are made physically real in a given relative motion scenario.
Physical realities are not something which can be made exist at the whim of the writer. You must choose one or the other as being physical and the other illusion or both must remain illusion. Which is it? Length contraction which accounts for the display differentials of clocks or is it time dilation?
When the clocks collide you have agreed as to the readings of the clocks physically. Compounding relavistic principles declaring both physically real (and hence must function simultaneously) results in disagreement between the observation and the actual display of the clock readings. One must therefore be illusion. Pick one.
Last edited:
Yes, and in that time you've given not a single reason why anybody should accept your claim.
You haven't shown that.
What, no MacM fiat declarations?
Another false dichotomy.
This is your incorrect absolute time assumption again. Both being physically real says nothing about simultaneity.
There's no problem with such a discrepancy, as long as signalling delays are involved. When you factor them out, you're left only with the actual readings.
James R,
I of course dispute that but it isn't important since you have. You have shown that 100% of the displayed time differential between the clocks was due to length contraxtion. No room for time dilation.
Saying that reality cannot be at the whim of the writer hardly is a fiat declaration. It is a sound fact and principle. I would love to see you disagree. It would make your credabiity zilch.
Still in denial I see.
I made no assumptions. I pointed out the physical realities of our own presentation.
OMG. Left with the "Actual" readings. Now what do we do. No more illusion. No more fantasy. Can't have that Relative becomes exposed. LOL.
I of course dispute that but it isn't important since you have. You have shown that 100% of the displayed time differential between the clocks was due to length contraxtion. No room for time dilation.
Saying that reality cannot be at the whim of the writer hardly is a fiat declaration. It is a sound fact and principle. I would love to see you disagree. It would make your credabiity zilch.
Still in denial I see.
I made no assumptions. I pointed out the physical realities of our own presentation.
OMG. Left with the "Actual" readings. Now what do we do. No more illusion. No more fantasy. Can't have that Relative becomes exposed. LOL.
MacM,
Well, we could go back and forth one the "I said, you said, you have shown, I have shown, no your haven't, yes I have" thing for a long time, but I think I'll jump off here unless you have something new to add.
I guess this thread is finally over.
Well, we could go back and forth one the "I said, you said, you have shown, I have shown, no your haven't, yes I have" thing for a long time, but I think I'll jump off here unless you have something new to add.
I guess this thread is finally over.
MacM said:
Tsk...tsk...tsk, your dumbness given rise to many silly idea, and you don't even realize that such silly idea is self contradictory. How could you think that only length contraction exist but time dilation does not? If what you think is correct, someone travelling in a fast moving spaceship away from earth, for example, would measure its distance to earth contracted, but since the spaceship's clock ticking at the same rate as that on earth, this spaceship observer would find that he or she travelling at velocity relative to earth slower than the velocity according to earth observer. The silly idea is therefore self contradictory. How on earth someone who claimed that he knows relativity better than anybody else (including Einstein) has this kind of stupid idea?
Oh, I forgot, you don't believe length contraction is real for space. Okay, then you can assume that there is a string connecting earth and the destination planet.
Please cook another explanation to resolve this discrepancy.
Paul T said:
You really should take that course in reading comprehension. I have never said any such thing. I have simply pointed out that both functions that you and Relativity claim are physical realities cannot exist simultaneously in a relative velocity calculation or the data disagrees with the physical reading of clocks.
That one or both therfore must me an illusion and not physical reality. Perhaps your time would be better spent trying to resolve this confict of Reltivity than trying to post personal attacks that are distortions and horseshit.
This is a riot. You idiot. You have just re-introduced the topic of my thread entitled "Arguement for a "Decellerating Universal Expansion"; which introduced the conflict Relativity creates. Relativity was not my idea or concept. The conflict is in the ludricrus idea that spatial dimension contracts for a moving observer.
Thanks for reminding us that in addition to there being no time dilation that length contraction has its own achillies heel.
Please post your resolution for the fact that an object accelerating away at high relavistic velocity would appear to be approaching at multiples of v = c. Then you will have contributed something useful to the Theory of Relativity for as it currently stands that is what happens as "I" pointed out to "you".
Last edited:
- Status