Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[chroot]

Ok, I'll be more than happy to say it: Look, this has been studied in depth and determined that Relativity is not compatiable with instantaneous communication, but since we can't achieve it now and likely never will it is a moot point.

It's true. It doesn't even require much "in-depth" studying. It's really extremely simple. Relativity cannot coexist with instantaneous communication. I'm sorry if you feel people here have been trying to avoid saying that. I have the feeling they were not trying to avoid saying it; they probably just didn't know what you needed to hear. Since I came back here a few days ago and read pretty much every post you've ever made on the topic, I think I saw more easily what you were stuck on.

What you have shown is that relativity is not compatible with instantaneous communication. Bravo. It's an important realization, and I applaud you for detecting it. I really do wish you would have been a little less circumspect, and a little less offensive, in your presentation, but I really do applaud your conclusion. I hope that it's been a learning experience for you, and I really do hope that it encourages you to continue learning physics. Relativity is a beautiful and very powerful theory, but it is unlikely that any theory we have today is absolutely true.

You are absolutely correct that if we ever do discover instantaneous communication, it will be the death knell of relativity. And no -- quantum entanglement is not such a mechanism, so please do not suggest it again. Scientists are certainly not biased against such discoveries -- you can be sure that anyone who finds a way to communicate instantaneously will be regarded as a modern-day Einstein. It just happens that quantum entanglement, sadly, is not capable of it. Maybe one day someone will discover another mechanism, or, perhaps, no such mechanism exists to ever be found. Either way, physicists are not dogmatists, and many salivate every day at the thought of besting relativity. It's all in the details, though -- you better know what you're doing first.

- Warren

 

[MacM]

I've done this before remember? Let me remind you... summarized...
"You are wrong and I am right. (Realtivity) is wrong, and so are you, because I am right. You're list of quotes is wrong, even though I said them, because I am right."

"Oh yeah, (realtivity) sucks."

Actually you got the shoe on the wrong foot. This is precisely the type of responses being given by members here. We are right. Relativity says so.

Well if you are seriously trying to evaluate relativity why the hell quote it?

The point has been people here do not want to evaluate Relativity. They want it accepted. That is an error and unscientific. But of course it is easier to distort peoples statements and to say what they thinks and believe, even though you just make it up and misrepresent their true thoughts.

But then again for you to jump on a band wagon does seem to be your limit of contribution.

 

[Persol]

But of course it is easier to distort peoples statements and to say what they thinks and believe

An example please? How is you saying you believe FTL communication a distortion of you saying 'FTL communication has been acheived'.

Well if you are seriously trying to evaluate relativity why the hell quote it?

It would be pretty difficult to evaluate something if you aren't aloud to talk about it.

even though you just make it up and misrepresent their true thoughts

You are hillarious. I didn't realize that there is a sciforums conspiracy to change the content of your posts. Chroot and I must have gone back and made you say all those stupid things you said which we quoted. That's the only logical answer....

Or maybe you actually said those things, and are now trying to weasel your way out. Unfortunately old age seems to be hitting, as you can't even remember what you've previously said.

 

[chroot]

And here I am, trying to make amends and reach a conclusion that would hopefully satisfy everyone (see my first post of page 8), yet the personal insults are still flying. Why?

Relativity is most certainly incompatible with instantaneous communication. Are you not pleased, MacM?

- Warren

 

[MacM]

Lol, can I call it or what?

You seem to believe you can but only because you see reality through very tinted glasses.

You do realize you posted entire paragraphs like this, right?

I damn sure did. Post simular bullshit like that at me and see if I cower into a corner. I won't.

Persol]My god, you aren't even a good liar...

Thank you. I am glad at least you are better at something than myself. I wouldn't want to develope your false sense of superiority.

"Information HAS been sent FTL."

Again with the lies by posting out of context. The point was made that that referred to particles communicating with each other. Or do you still claim they don't and all this just happens by magic. That they do not send information to each other when entangled. You got to be sick in the head to take such a position.

"The fact is useful information is being transmitted at least billions times faster than c."

And I suppose you want to claim that particle entanglement doesn't? If you know how fast particle entanglement function why don't you enlighten us. We can stop all the research, ave time and money and just check in with you to let you explain exactly how the universe really works. What a joke. Go back to playing with your computers and jpretending you know so much more than your superiors on the job. Show them how lthey should really be running their company. that the last I recall is what you were claiming before.

You stated you secretly did things different that you were instructed by your superiors since you knew the right way to do it. As I recall I replied to you that you would never work for my company but if you did you damn sure would be fired. You f-ing knit wit know it all.

You've distorted every attempt you have made at understanding/disproving relativity. You could at least try not to blatantly LIE.

Which has been demonstrated as wrong. You can believe anything you want, but if you are going to continue using the 'I know I am right, ignoring your proof' line... you should take it to the religious forum.

Actually the only thing shown wrong has been the distorted versions of what I have said. I think it is obvious who acts on faith and who is open to re-interpretation.

 

[Persol]

And I suppose you want to claim that particle entanglement doesn't?

Yes, I do... and so will anyone else who knows about the subject.

I'm going to go get my parrot to edit your posts so we can 'make stuff up' some more.

 

[MacM]

We should consider the effect pink flying elephants have on relativity. There is no excuse for turning off our brains and accepting relativity as the last word.

You can't just make things out which can't exist in reality and then think that it tells you something about relativity.

What can't exist in reality is a concept where clocks possess two different times simultaneously. Particle entqnglement already shows v = c is not some magical limit. LOL.

 

[chroot]

Well, I thought we were on the cusp of an amiable agreement with the admission from professional scientists that indeed relativity is incompatible with instantaneous communication, but I guess you'd both rather just ignore that and continue to sling poop at each other. I give up for, what, the fifth time?

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Assuming (and I don't, I think you are an outright liar) that you knew Relativity and instant communication were incompatiable

Everyone knows this, MacM. Relativity assumes a constant speed of light, which directly abolishes the notion of absolute, universal time. If you start talking about instantaneous communication, you reinstate a notion of absolute, universal time. Relativity is directly incompatible with instantaneous communication, and everyone has known this for more than a century. Several people have already said it in this thread. It's nothing new, and I'm not trying to fleece you.

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, as it was called, describes the collapse of a quantum wavefunction spread out over a large distance. The so called "spooky at a distance" collapse was actually quite a formidable opponent to relativity theory, and for a while it was not known whether or not particle entanglement represented a true flaw in relativity. People have known that particle entanglement would challenge relativity, if it were to permit instantaneous communication, since the 1930's. It was originally called a paradox, like all other paradox, because it was not fully understood at the time. Today, we are quite sure that entanglement cannot be used to transmit information, and that is what is prohibited by relativity. If you really think I'm a liar and I didn't know that instantaneous communication is at odds with relativity until you showed me, dream on. Please. The scientific community has been aware of this incompatibility for seventy years.

You assume wrongfully (as a basis at least) that that must mean it isn't possible because relativity MUST be right. Ha. Talk about ones side hurting laughing. You stupid fool.

No, actually, I would be extremely happy if someone found a way to communicate instantly. It would not only provide a lot of new physics to study, it would enable us to populate the galaxy while still being in close contact with our buddies back at home. I would love to live in a universe where instantaneous communication is possible if for nothing but social reasons. However, to date, there is absolutely no indication that it is possible, and I have to accept this -- it is the experimental fact, and I am a scientist, not a dogmatist. In the future, it is possible that some experiment will demonstrate instantaneous communication, and it will indeed be a great day for everyone, physicists included. Nobels will be flying! As much as I would love to see it happen, I have to remain realistic. I only ask that you do the same.

- Warren

 

[MacM]

Ok, I'll be more than happy to say it: Look, this has been studied in depth and determined that Relativity is not compatiable with instantaneous communication, but since we can't achieve it now and likely never will it is a moot point.

Good. For that is an acceptable statement.

It's true. It doesn't even require much "in-depth" studying. It's really extremely simple. Relativity cannot coexist with instantaneous communication. I'm sorry if you feel people here have been trying to avoid saying that. I have the feeling they were not trying to avoid saying it; they probably just didn't know what you needed to hear. Since I came back here a few days ago and read pretty much every post you've ever made on the topic, I think I saw more easily what you were stuck on.

I'm quite sure you don't know. The only thing I have been stuck on is the fact that people made absolutely nonsenseical statements based soley on quoting Relativity. they have displayed an complete (not unwillingness) but lack of ability to think out of the box. If they couldn't read it inside the pages of their physics manual they couldn't talk about it. That is sad not my ponies.

=chroot]What you have shown is that relativity is not compatible with instantaneous communication. Bravo. It's an important realization, and I applaud you for detecting it. I really do wish you would have been a little less circumspect, and a little less offensive, in your presentation, but I really do applaud your conclusion. I hope that it's been a learning experience for you, and I really do hope that it encourages you to continue learning physics. Relativity is a beautiful and very powerful theory, but it is unlikely that any theory we have today is absolutely true.

Thank you. But I'm afraid we have different views as to what that actually may mean.

]You are absolutely correct that if we ever do discover instantaneous communication, it will be the death knell of relativity. And no -- quantum entanglement is not such a mechanism, so please do not suggest it again. Scientists are certainly not biased against such discoveries -- you can be sure that anyone who finds a way to communicate instantaneously will be regarded as a modern-day Einstein. It just happens that quantum entanglement, sadly, is not capable of it. Maybe one day someone will discover another mechanism, or, perhaps, no such mechanism exists to ever be found. Either way, physicists are not dogmatists, and many salivate every day at the thought of besting relativity. It's all in the details, though -- you better know what you're doing first.

- Warren

You may very well be right as to particle entanglement but frankly I strongly suspect you aren't. As I posted earlier several key accomplishments have been achieved just in the past year.

Time will tell and I promise to go much easier on you than you have on me should it be achieved because to hold my view requires a bit more in the way of vision than you have shown to date. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[MacM]

Everyone knows this, MacM. Relativity assumes a constant speed of light, which directly abolishes the notion of absolute, universal time. If you start talking about instantaneous communication, you reinstate a notion of absolute, universal time. Relativity is directly incompatible with instantaneous communication, and everyone has known this for more than a century. Several people have already said it in this thread. It's nothing new, and I'm not trying to fleece you.

I'll actually accept this statement in the manner you have couched it. However, it would still be my opinion that the conclusion drawn so strongly in favor of Relativity as to these two incompatiable options will actually one day come down in favor of banisment of Relativity.

No, actually, I would be extremely happy if someone found a way to communicate instantly. It would not only provide a lot of new physics to study, it would enable us to populate the galaxy while still being in close contact with our buddies back at home. I would love to live in a universe where instantaneous communication is possible if for nothing but social reasons. However, to date, there is absolutely no indication that it is possible, and I have to accept this -- it is the experimental fact, and I am a scientist, not a dogmatist. In the future, it is possible that some experiment will demonstrate instantaneous communication, and it will indeed be a great day for everyone, physicists included. Nobels will be flying! As much as I would love to see it happen, I have to remain realistic. I only ask that you do the same.

- Warren

It might surprise you that I have and I do. However, I am not quite so quick to slam the door in such an absolute manner to suggest that we know all there is to know. We do not. (Please note I said "We"), not just you.

 

[chroot]

I understand that you feel the scientists are unfairly slamming the door on particle entanglement as a possible mechanism of instantaneous communication. I can even empathize with you to an extent. You are certainly welcome to keep an open mind on the issue, but it is very disingenuous to assert that particle entanglement definitely does permit instantaneous communication, or to assert that relativity definitely is invalid before such evidence is found.

It is unfortunate that particle entanglement really does not currently seem to be a possible mechanism of instantaneous communication. I strongly recommend that you keep reading about the latest advances, but demonstrate your intellect by remaining skeptical. Don't believe something just because it supports your hopes. The evidence really does have to be there. The benefit of listening to the scientific community is that they really are highly skilled at analyzing experiments and theories; the disadvantage is that they may not always be willing to accept something radical. Scientists struggle with a perpetual trade-off between open-mindedness and realism, but, generally, scientists do the best they humanly can. Give them some respect, but definitely double-check all their results.

- Warren

 

[MacM]

I understand that you feel the scientists are unfairly slamming the door on particle entanglement as a possible mechanism of instantaneous communication. I can even empathize with you to an extent. You are certainly welcome to keep an open mind on the issue, but it is very disingenuous to assert that particle entanglement definitely does permit instantaneous communication, or to assert that relativity definitely is invalid before such evidence is found.

1 - I don't think scientist are being overly negative. I do believe relativists are. The reason is quite obvious. You all will be out of work and need to go back to school and learn physics all over again. But many many scientist are working onparticle entanglement research and it is their advances and optimisim that I tend to believe. Not the nay sayers of Relativity that use BS and personal attacks on anyone that tries to address the issue.

It is unfortunate that particle entanglement really does not currently seem to be a possible mechanism of instantaneous communication. I strongly recommend that you keep reading about the latest advances, but demonstrate your intellect by remaining skeptical.

This quite frankly is a simple case of is the cup half empty or half full. You see it empty I see it full. At the same time I am a realist but I am an optimistic realist. You are a pessimist.

Don't believe something just because it supports your hopes.

The universe doesn't operate in concert with our wishes, not even consistant with our logic but I am very aware of that.

The evidence really does have to be there. The benefit of listening to the scientific community is that they really are highly skilled at analyzing experiments and theories; the disadvantage is that they may not always be willing to accept something radical. Scientists struggle with a perpetual trade-off between open-mindedness and realism, but, generally, scientists do the best they humanly can. Give them some respect, but definitely double-check all their results.

- Warren

Your tone has changed. I would hope that means you may have finally begun to listen and not just hear what you expected to hear. I may have from time to time over stated something but in the most general terms I am a realist. But being a realist does not equate to being a pessimist.

Now, I do not want to digress into another verbal battle over it but I want to repeat the fact that I indeed have seen some things that only two people in the world have as of to date (as far as I know) and that is the pains taking of months of data that - IF repeated by others - clearly says not only is Newton wrong (which we know) but that Dark Matter , Dark Energy, MOND and yes even GR are wrong.

So cut me some slack for not just taking your (and others) words for it that Relativity is just fine.

 

[chroot]

Well, if anything, the discovery that relativity is totally wrong would create more work for scientists (relativists included), not less. Scientists are not trying to keep new physics out of sight because it might make them lose their jobs -- scientists thrive, quite literally, on new physics. Again, you seem to be appealing to a sort of scientific conspiracy that I personally have never witnessed. Few others in the scientific community feel there is any conspiracy, either. Science is really mainly done with open doors -- journals and lectures are the most common forms of scientific communication, and anyone is welcome to read or attend.

And, yes, you're right -- our differing views on the use of quantum entanglement can be said to be something of a personal opinion. There is currently more evidence in favor of my view, but it possible that there will later be more evidence in favor of yours. I cannot say. We can hopefully agree not to count our respective chickens before they hatch.

There will be no verbal attacks forthcoming, from me anyway. No one is going to be upset with you for feeling that dark matter, dark energy, GR, etc. are wrong. Any scientist worth his/her salt will tell you he/she cannot be sure they are right. Most of the scientifically-minded people on this forum do not take issue with your right to champion a different worldview. They do take issue with your tactics -- posting dubious websites as offerings of proof, claiming things will definitely be shown to be true when no one can be sure, that sort of thing. If you'd agree to remain as open-minded as you'd like your opponents to be, we'd all get along much better.

That said, I hope you and I can agree on some kind of truce, and perhaps you can stop this anti-relativity crusade of yours. The experiments done to date support mainstream scientific thought. It is possible that new experiments will demonstrate new physics which will obsolete existing physics, and, when confronted with this new evidence, scientists will have to accept it. Relativity is not invulnerable, and no good scientist is so dogmatic as to say it is. Any evidence that indicates relativity is false will be scrutinized very, very thoroughly -- but if it survives that scrutiny, relativity will be superceded. At the moment, however, no such evidence exists. You can certainly keep your fingers crossed, though. I hope we can agree on this.

- Warren

 

[MacM]

Well, if anything, the discovery that relativity is totally wrong would create more work for scientists (relativists included), not less. Scientists are not trying to keep new physics out of sight because it might make them lose their jobs -- scientists thrive, quite literally, on new physics. Again, you seem to be appealing to a sort of scientific conspiracy that I personally have never witnessed. Few others in the scientific community feel there is any conspiracy, either. Science is really mainly done with open doors -- journals and lectures are the most common forms of scientific communication, and anyone is welcome to read or attend.

Not really. I see many serious scientist actually researching areas which you have repeatedly poo-pooed. So it is not a scientific conspiracy. It is a few but far to many, like yourself that are just outright obnoxious and refuse to consider even the possibility that you are wrong.

And, yes, you're right -- our differing views on the use of quantum entanglement can be said to be something of a personal opinion. There is currently more evidence in favor of my view, but it possible that there will later be more evidence in favor of yours. I cannot say. We can hopefully agree not to count our respective chickens before they hatch.

I at least have been there. For you that seems to be a softening of your "It is IMPOSSIBLE in the universe" posts don't you think?

There will be no verbal attacks forthcoming, from me anyway. No one is going to be upset with you for feeling that dark matter, dark energy, GR, etc. are wrong. Any scientist worth his/her salt will tell you he/she cannot be sure they are right. Most of the scientifically-minded people on this forum do not take issue with your right to champion a different worldview. They do take issue with your tactics -- posting dubious websites as offerings of proof, claiming things will definitely be shown to be true when no one can be sure, that sort of thing. If you'd agree to remain as open-minded as you'd like your opponents to be, we'd all get along much better.

In all fairness, I do believe I am already more open to the possibilities than yourself, at least if your postings have been a true representation of your convictions. If they have been some sort of defense mechanisim let me suggest you not be so paranoid.

That said, I hope you and I can agree on some kind of truce, and perhaps you can stop this anti-relativity crusade of yours. The experiments done to date support mainstream scientific thought. It is possible that new experiments will demonstrate new physics which will obsolete existing physics, and, when confronted with this new evidence, scientists will have to accept it. Relativity is not invulnerable, and no good scientist is so dogmatic as to say it is. Any evidence that indicates relativity is false will be scrutinized very, very thoroughly -- but if it survives that scrutiny, relativity will be superceded. At the moment, however, no such evidence exists. You can certainly keep your fingers crossed, though. I hope we can agree on this.

- Warren

Again there is and has been no crusade. My point has been the failure of many scientist to even consider the alternative meanings of the data. The data does support Relativity. But frankly relativity does not hold exclusive ownership over all truths.

I do not have my fingers crossed for the demis of Relativity, other than in the sense that if you were forced to abandon it perhaps we could once more start to make real advances where currently everything is being evaluated in the light of Relativity. A whole lot of time is being expended trying to describe things in terms of relativity to the exclusion of all other thought.

TRUCE IT IS UNTIL THE NEXT TIME.

 

[MacM]

On the contrary, I was careful to select quotes which stood on their own and did not depend heavily on context.

Actually you have picked sentances out of paragraphs on long topics.

I'll not bother trying to find that particular sentance but you tried to imply that I stated "Information has already been sent FTL" to mean that we (as in humans) are already using particle entanglement or some other FTL technology.

That simply is outright false. I know of many times I have made simular statements but followed immediately with a queston. "Unless you reject the idea that entangled particles don't communicate" or something to that affect.

An entirely a different perspective than what you have tried to suggest. I simply have never in my life made a claim that we had conquered particle entanglement in the manner you have suggested here that I did.


These supposed quotes are distortions of there stated or intended meaning because they are completely out of context.

 

[James R]

I would like to extend a huge "thankyou" to chroot for summarising MacM's position in such a useful manner, and doing so much leg work in gathering the evidence (in the form of quotes) to support that summary.

I agree 100% with chroot's analysis and subsequent comments in this thread.

I would like to comment on MacM's response to the points raised, just a little. MacM has a tendancy to try to re-write history after the fact. In this case, the documentation is so conclusive that this is all but impossible, but let's give MacM a fair hearing...

The charges are:

1. MacM doesn't believe in relative simultaneity.
2. MacM believes in absolute time.
3. MacM's thought experiment depends on instantaneous communication, for which there is currently no evidence.
4. MacM believes that quantum entanglement is a method of instantaneous communication.
5. MacM asserts that instantaneous communication itself would be an indication of the failure of relativity.
6. MacM does not recognize that physicists already know 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.

Evidence for the prosecution:

This is set out in chroot's posts, above.

The defence:

1. 1. MacM doesn't believe in relative simultaneity.

I believe in fact that it is primarialy nothing more than the product of delayed information via the invariance of and finite speed of light.

In other words, MacM tries to defend the point by saying simultaneity exists but is an artifact of signal delay. This is the same as saying that relativity of simultaneity is not real, but only an illusion caused by light signalling.

The verdict: Guilty as charged.

2. MacM believes in absolute time.

The defence:

I did not simply stop the clocks in one frame of reference. ... In fact others here ultimately concluded that indeed I have stopped all clocks simulatneously but they then concluded I was no longer testing Relativity.

Nobody arguing against MacM ever agreed that he stopped all clocks in all reference frames simultaneously. On the contrary, the point has been made over and over again that the clocks DO NOT stop simultaneously in all frames. To do so would require absolute time.

Verdict: Guilty as charged.

3. MacM's thought experiment depends on instantaneous communication, for which there is currently no evidence.

MacM admits the charge:

I said I think it may well be possible. [i.e. instantaneous communication]

Verdict: Guilty by his own admission.

4. MacM believes that quantum entanglement is a method of instantaneous communication.

The defence:

...I damn well do understand the functioning of particle entanglement.
...Clearly entangled particles communicate in an instaneous fashion, which we yet do not understand, nor can take advantage of. But that certainly doesn't make it impossible - EXCEPT by standards of a mathemaical concept called Relativity.

So, while possibly accepting that no information can be transmitted using particle entanglement, given our current state of knowledge, MacM continues to insist, on the basis of nothing at all, that this will perhaps become possible at some indeterminate future date.

Verdict: A verdict of "innocent" does not seem appropriate here. The best we can say is the charge is unproven.

5. MacM asserts that instantaneous communication itself would be an indication of the failure of relativity.

I would be delighted to see such a developement.

The prosecution admits that instantaneous communication would be incompatible with relativity.

6. MacM does not recognize that physicists already know 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.

That has been pretty much my opinion. Absolutely.

Verdict: Guilty by his own admission.
----------

Conclusion: The case presented by chroot has been accurate and represents a fair, unbiased, summary of MacM's views. It is supported by his entire record of posts.

I now to turn to subsequent comments by MacM. MacM says:

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.

It is misleading to suggest that relativity is "a function of a delayed information communication system". The statement is not false in and of itself. The problem is the implied (and elsewhere explicit) assertion that relativity is only an artifact of delayed information transmission. The point has been covered and previously explained to you many times, but you still don't get it.

I have shown that stopped clocks, according to Relativity, must possess and display two different accumulated times and that isn't a problem?

This is plain, outright dishonesty. You have shown no such thing, and the details of why you have not done so have been patiently explained to you many times here. You have even conceded the point in previous posts to this thread. Yet you now conveniently ignore past discussion.

Not surprising, really, is it? I find it very interesting indeed that you were making the same statements a year and a half ago and yet, despite all the explanation in the intervening time, you still trot out the same tired assertions as if none of the previous discussion ever occurred.

Your brain must be stuck in neutral.

The point has been people here do not want to evaluate Relativity. They want it accepted. That is an error and unscientific.

This thread has been all about evaluating relativity. What has it shown? It has shown, that according to what is known today, relativity is rock solid. The only new thing you may have learnt here is that relativity would have problems if instantaneous communication could ever be achieved.

You may very well be right as to particle entanglement but frankly I strongly suspect you aren't. As I posted earlier several key accomplishments have been achieved just in the past year.

A minor admission at last. But where's the follow-up? If you believe any accomplishments this year (or any other year) affect the arguments presented in this thread, please post them.

Again there is and has been no crusade. My point has been the failure of many scientist to even consider the alternative meanings of the data. The data does support Relativity. But frankly relativity does not hold exclusive ownership over all truths.

Scientists always consider alternative meanings of data. Once again, you have made a slight admission about relativity here. I'm sure you'll quickly retract that again, of course. Nobody has ever claimed relativity holds exclusive ownership over all truths, and I'm sure physicists would be happy to concede that point.

 

[James R]

A couple of unrelated matters.

Moderation

This thread has been edited to remove off-topic personal comments and also off-topic discussions of moderation issues on a forum unrelated to sciforums. Please stick to the topic, people.

Problems with relativity

MacM: You may be interested in picking up a copy of the latest issue of Scientific American magazine, which deals with Einstein's legacy. Among other articles it includes:

* a nice article about some of the technology which wouldn't exist today without Einstein's physics.
* an article discussing possible flaws in the theory of relativity, as proposed by real physicists.

In particular, the second article mentioned is worth checking out, because it is about people who know what they are talking about raising real possible objections to Einstein's theories. If you want to learn how to be taken seriously, this might be a good start.

 

[MacM]

Yes, I do... and so will anyone else who knows about the subject.

I'm going to go get my parrot to edit your posts so we can 'make stuff up' some more.

If you don't calll what occurs in particle entanglement, just what the hell do you think it should be called? This should be interesting and very educational. Everyone get their pencils out to take notes.

 

[MacM]

I would like to extend a huge "thankyou" to chroot for summarising MacM's position in such a useful manner, and doing so much leg work in gathering the evidence (in the form of quotes) to support that summary.

I agree 100% with chroot's analysis and subsequent comments in this thread.

No real surprises here.

I would like to comment on MacM's response to the points raised, just a little. MacM has a tendancy to try to re-write history after the fact. In this case, the documentation is so conclusive that this is all but impossible, but let's give MacM a fair hearing...

Yea. I guess you and I hold a different view of "Fair". But I'll try to respond without rewriting history.

The charges are:

1. MacM doesn't believe in relative simultaneity.

As stated a mis-representation of fact. What simultaneity is however is another matter.

2. MacM believes in absolute time.

Guilty as charged. But that doesn't exclude simultaneity. I know for you that is somewhat different but I think it is fact.

3. MacM's thought experiment depends on instantaneous communication, for which there is currently no evidence.

True statement (barring of course particle communication) but avoids the fact that the assumption is within the pervue of thought experiment for the sole purpose of understanding the mechanisims involved. To me that is a big so what? We should be doing more of that.

4. MacM believes that quantum entanglement is a method of instantaneous communication.

False. That has been covered many times. What I have said is "Entangled Particles" communicate. I challenge you to defend an arguement to the contrary.

5. MacM asserts that instantaneous communication itself would be an indication of the failure of relativity.

Absolutely true.

6. MacM does not recognize that physicists already know 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.

I would have to certainly say that would be a rightous impression since the entire time, the issue of instant communication was only addressed as "It is impossible, it cannot be done"

In other words, MacM tries to defend the point by saying simultaneity exists but is an artifact of signal delay. This is the same as saying that relativity of simultaneity is not real, but only an illusion caused by light signalling.

Quite likely that is the case. No apologies here.

Nobody arguing against MacM ever agreed that he stopped all clocks in all reference frames simultaneously. On the contrary, the point has been made over and over again that the clocks DO NOT stop simultaneously in all frames. To do so would require absolute time.

Here I do believe we have a mixed bag. Yes, many including you argued that not all clocks stopped instantly. But I'll have to go back and find where I do believe concessions on that issue were made but then justified by saying "But you are no longer dealing with Relativity when you do that".

In any case I would take exception to your or anyone's claim that clocks "A" and "B" do not and are not actually physically stopped simultaneously in both their frames in my tests stipulation.

I'll admit that for most of the time you have argued, inspite of the clear evidence supporting the simultaneous to both clocks view, that simultaniety prevented it. You merely repeated relativity by route memory and can give no justification in the real world for such a conclusion.

The arguement that to do so may mean it is no longer Relativity may have some traction but to me it is a stretch. But to argue both clocks did not stop at the very same instant in the theoretical case as presented is fool hardy faith with no justification that can be put forth.

3. MacM's thought experiment depends on instantaneous communication, for which there is currently no evidence.

I still argue that particle entanglement opens the door, in that it shows v = c is not some absolute limit.

4. MacM believes that quantum entanglement is a method of instantaneous communication.

So, while possibly accepting that no information can be transmitted using particle entanglement, given our current state of knowledge, MacM continues to insist, on the basis of nothing at all, that this will perhaps become possible at some indeterminate future date.

I'm sure those actually working their asses off in this field (that claim they will achieve the use of particle entanglement) would be glad to here that you find their efforts have no merit what-so-ever.

5. MacM asserts that instantaneous communication itself would be an indication of the failure of relativity.

Indeed it would.

6. MacM does not recognize that physicists already know 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.

If not at least forcing the issue, after almost two years, to where it got discussed. Perhaps a bit more candor and a little less "You are ignorant, we are smart" responses would have resolved this over a year ago. It certainly left the impression you didn't know or understand.

Conclusion: The case presented by chroot has been accurate and represents a fair, unbiased, summary of MacM's views. It is supported by his entire record of posts.

Now that should leave a bad taste in your mouth.

It is misleading to suggest that relativity is "a function of a delayed information communication system". The statement is not false in and of itself. The problem is the implied (and elsewhere explicit) assertion that relativity is only an artifact of delayed information transmission. The point has been covered and previously explained to you many times, but you still don't get it.

Oh, I get it. And I would hope we could open a thread just to this issue in detail and see just how well you defend your position physically. I don't mean by virtue of quoting Relativity. I mean physically explain your assertion and conclusion. I have mine.

Do you think you have the moxy to actually give a mechanical (physical) explanation or are you going to have to rely upon "Relativity says so" routine?

If it is the latter then my charge stands. "You choose to prove Relativity via the claims of Relativity" which is a circular basless and worthless position.

If you can put forth actual proof of your assertion then I would be very much interested in seeing it for then we could say we are in complete agreement. No more arguement.

I suspect that you will either ignore this challenge or try to do some Texas Two Step around the issue. But I will wait and see.

Not surprising, really, is it? I find it very interesting indeed that you were making the same statements a year and a half ago and yet, despite all the explanation in the intervening time, you still trot out the same tired assertions as if none of the previous discussion ever occurred.

That just might be because you are stuck with your answers "That is because Relativity says so". That is not an answer. It is folklore and simple faith, it is not physics.

Your brain must be stuck in neutral.

Ditto.

A minor admission at last. But where's the follow-up? If you believe any accomplishments this year (or any other year) affect the arguments presented in this thread, please post them.

Your standard demand, keep repeating demands. Those issues were posted when they came up. I damn sure am not going to go back and dig it all up and go around the circle again. It is available on the web. Go find it or go back through all these threads and find it. I have better things to do than re-argue side issues already placed on the table.

1 - They have found ways to selectively entangle particles. It is no longer a case of just arbitrarily entangled particles and we don't know the entangled state.

2 - They have been able to manipulate, actually penetrate a copper shield, and not loose the entangled state.

****************************************************
So James R, are you up to the challenge?

Two identical clocks "A" and "B", are calibrated to and connected by light beams. They are equipped with a modulating system which when they see the doppler shift between them stabilize (meaning linear velocity and no acceleration has occured between the clocks which occurs simultaneously), they start sending out sideband modulation via the communication beams between the two clocks moving relative to each other. The modulation encodes the beam by encompassing a number of carrier beam cycles which is correlated to that clocks' operating tick rate.

Upon receipt of the first modulation. It sets an oscillator locally at "B" and "A", since light travels between the two at "An invariable and constant speed" arriving at each clock "Simultaneously", which in addition to starting the clocks starts a counter which tracks the other clocks accumulated time.

When clocks see "A" reach 36,000 seconds (the same moment the counter at "B" will also reach 36,000 counts). All clocks stop and all monitors stop.

Care to comment on the readings in such a case. Care to explain your claim that "Relativity of Simultaniety" still exists in the data between the clocks?

I thought not.

In summary. Your efforts to depict me as some sort of jug head is hardly supported by the fact that this system does indeed synchronize two clocks.

Something generally argued impossible. This arangement does indeed eliminate any simultaneity consideration from the issue, like it or not.

Now if this is not true lets see something besides "Because My Mommy Told Me So".

I do believe this all puts a bit of a different perspective on your polite but unwarranted and untruthful attack.