Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[James R]

MacM,

Effectively, in your latest post you have verified everything chroot said. Let's move on, then, shall we?

You have now admitted that you believe in absolute time. Here is the quote:

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

So, you believe in absolute time, and simultaneity in that absolute time. Fine. So, as stated previously, you do not believe that simultaneity is relative. You believe there is one notion of simultaneity which applies to all observers everywhere.

The problem with that position is that it is inconsistent with experimental results which show clearly that time dilation is a fact of life. And once you have time dilation, simultaneity must become relative.

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"

There's not the slightest bit of evidence it can be done. That's not quite the same thing as saying it is impossible, and I have certainly never made that claim.

You have also now agreed with this statement:

"... relativity of simultaneity is not real, but only an illusion caused by light signalling."

Quite likely that is the case. No apologies here.

But, as I pointed out above, all experimental evidence supports the theory of relativity, including time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity. Once again, you have no support but your own gut feeling that you don't like it, which counts for nothing.

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".

Don't bother. There were no concessions made. It is true to say that once you deny the relativity of simultaneity, you're no longer dealing with relativity. You'll hear no argument about that.

You merely repeated relativity by route memory and can give no justification in the real world for such a conclusion.

The real world justification is that all real-world experiments ever done support relativity, and none go against it.

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

Relativity only says v=c is a limit for transmission of information. It says nothing about entanglement effects.

Me: 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.

You: 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.

Ironically, I am one of the very people you refer to who is working their ass off dealing with things like quantum entanglement. For your information, I am not actually an expert in relativity, believe it or not. My expertise is in, you guessed it, quantum physics. And, you can take it from me, I don't think my efforts have no merit.

I am sitting here with a wry smile following this little exchange. You do make me laugh sometimes.

And I would hope we could open a thread just to [the issue of the relativity of simultaneity] 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?

You'll have to explain to me how your unrealistic thought experiment is supposed to be more physically correct than my realistic one. My explanation of the 2 clock problem in this thread is more physical than yours. Yours relies on imaginary methods of communication. Mine relies on tried and tested methods.

No, I'm afraid that if you consider you've defended your position physically, then I have more than done so.

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.

I haven't tried to prove relativity at all in this thread. All I have done is to show you where your errors lie in your conception of what relativity says. It is you who claimed that your thought experiment replicated the results which would be achieved via relativity, not me. But unfortunately, you got it wrong.

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.

Is "Because MacM says so" physics, then? Because that has been your only argument, in essence.

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.

Who is "they"?
Selectively, how?
Be specific.

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

Please explain the relevance of this.

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.

Actually, I've already done so, earlier in the thread.

It's not my fault if you didn't bother to read my reply.

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.

Which system? Your first system, or the new one you just posted?

If you're talking about your latest attempt, I'm afraid that the clocks don't both reach 36000s simultaneously, according to either observer.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

Effectively, in your latest post you have verified everything chroot said. Let's move on, then, shall we?

You have now admitted that you believe in absolute time. Here is the quote:

So, you believe in absolute time, and simultaneity in that absolute time. Fine. So, as stated previously, you do not believe that simultaneity is relative. You believe there is one notion of simultaneity which applies to all observers everywhere.

The problem with that position is that it is inconsistent with experimental results which show clearly that time dilation is a fact of life. And once you have time dilation, simultaneity must become relative.

There's not the slightest bit of evidence it can be done. That's not quite the same thing as saying it is impossible, and I have certainly never made that claim.

You have also now agreed with this statement:

But, as I pointed out above, all experimental evidence supports the theory of relativity, including time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity. Once again, you have no support but your own gut feeling that you don't like it, which counts for nothing.

Don't bother. There were no concessions made. It is true to say that once you deny the relativity of simultaneity, you're no longer dealing with relativity. You'll hear no argument about that.

The real world justification is that all real-world experiments ever done support relativity, and none go against it.

Relativity only says v=c is a limit for transmission of information. It says nothing about entanglement effects.

Ironically, I am one of the very people you refer to who is working their ass off dealing with things like quantum entanglement. For your information, I am not actually an expert in relativity, believe it or not. My expertise is in, you guessed it, quantum physics. And, you can take it from me, I don't think my efforts have no merit.

I am sitting here with a wry smile following this little exchange. You do make me laugh sometimes.

You'll have to explain to me how your unrealistic thought experiment is supposed to be more physically correct than my realistic one. My explanation of the 2 clock problem in this thread is more physical than yours. Yours relies on imaginary methods of communication. Mine relies on tried and tested methods.

No, I'm afraid that if you consider you've defended your position physically, then I have more than done so.

I haven't tried to prove relativity at all in this thread. All I have done is to show you where your errors lie in your conception of what relativity says. It is you who claimed that your thought experiment replicated the results which would be achieved via relativity, not me. But unfortunately, you got it wrong.

Is "Because MacM says so" physics, then? Because that has been your only argument, in essence.

Who is "they"?
Selectively, how?
Be specific.

Please explain the relevance of this.

Actually, I've already done so, earlier in the thread.

It's not my fault if you didn't bother to read my reply.

Which system? Your first system, or the new one you just posted?

If you're talking about your latest attempt, I'm afraid that the clocks don't both reach 36000s simultaneously, according to either observer.

Thank you for clarifying my prediction.

You favor the Texas Two Step and stand behind your impressive understanding of physics by merely saying because Relativity says so.

I have recited the same #2 experiment covered in this thread. You nor anyone has given a direct answer to the test that provide any answer as to how you proclaim simultaneity is still involved. You only take the position that it is because Relativity says it must be.

I would rather see, indeed it is paramount to any concept to have any merit, to exlain in detail just where this is true.

1 - Is or is not the distance from A to B the same? Yes or No.

2 - Does or does not light travel at an invariant and equal speed between A and B in both directions? Yes or No.

3 - Given the calibrated states of the two clock systems, does or does not each clock have an equal view of relative velocity via the doppler shift of the respective communication beams with the other clock? Yes or No.

4 - Since doppler shift is a function of relative velocity from observer to the light source. Does or does not each clock see the transition from accelerating recession to linear velocity between the clocks simultaneously Yes or No.

5 - Starting side beam modulation upon receipt of indication of loss of doppler shifted light beams, does or does not that modulated (encoded proper clock rate) of each clock, get propagated simultaneously and received simultaneously by each clock? Yes or No.

6 - Having received such respective clock information does or does not respective clocks and clock monitors all agree as to the simultaneous synchronization of the start of the test. Yes and No.

7 - Does or does not the on board monitors of each clock correctly display the other clocks true proper time vs the standard view of such a clock when shifted by communication delay in conventional time dilation calculations via Relativity? Yes or No.

8 - Does or does not the fact that the clocks are so arranged that the clocks display of accumulated time by its local proper time remain in total agreement with its view of the other clock via the on board monitor and is not the monitor of each clock in total agreement with each other.? Yes or No.

9 - Does that not mean that each clock and each monitor, in a real absolute time way, remain synchronized.? Yes or No.

10 - Does or does not this arrangement result in the fact that regardless of the time of the experiment, that each clock and all monitors stop at the same instant in real time based on the fact that all are fully synchronized? Yes or No.

Now the above simple list of questions, in my view, must realistically ALL be answered in the affirmative. I already know of some that you are going to respond to by saying "NO".

However, this is your opportunity to enlighten us as to the specific aspects of this described test, WHICH COULD BE CONDUCTED TODAY USING TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY, that can and should be answered by anything other than "Yes".

Any "No" answer must be accompanied by a full explanation backed up by proof. To say because Relativity says so is definately an unresponsive and invalid response.

In absence of any substantial proof, physically, other than because that is what we believe, or that is because it is required by Relativity to be valid, are unresponsive answers.

No Texas Two Stepping allowed. You either can or cannot respond with proof. If you fail to do so, I stand vindicated until "Proven" wrong.

You can respond with your claim of what the reading will be since you disagree that they all will read the same time upon shut down and comparison. But those readings must be qualified by proof other than Relavistic calculations which have been rendered moot in this configuration or you must give proof that this configuration is not simultaneous.

The most simplified statement defining Relativity at large is a concept where by FIAT it is claimed that A = B = C but that C does not = A. It is a fabrication soley based on the fact for the concept to function, one has to subscribe to a totally impossible condition of reality.

If I am wrong then you are obligated to show the origin and fact of Relativity of Simultaneity beyond information delay by speed of light communication. Saying "Light Cones" show "Simultaneity" AFTER removal of information delay does not qualify as a valid answer unless you can state just how that happens, exclusive of simply reciting Relativity.

Thank you.

 

[Billy T]

I have only read the last two posts (James R’s and MacM’s reply), so I am not sure I fully understand the thought experiment MacM is proposing to show that maintaining clocks synchronized is no problem and absolute time exists. I think he is wrong, in part because some cosmic ray particles observed at the earth’s surface have such short lifetimes that even traveling at the speed of light from the upper atmosphere where they were produced, they would have decayed (if their “clocks” were not running more slowly than those on earth) long before reaching the surface.

MacM, please note that no one has been indoctrinating these particle with “relativity theory” and I am not appealing to it when I state you are wrong. None the less, you still deserves to receive at least one “no” to your 10 questions, with specific explanations, not the general refutation that “absolute time” violates “confirmed” relativity theory (No theory is ever completely confirmed, only well tested, so theory can not prove you wrong.)

I also am not sure exactly what you mean by most of your questions. For example: question 1 “... distance from A to B the same?” I assume you are asking if distance AB = distance BA, but question 4 speaks of “the transition from accelerating recession to linear velocity between the clocks” so I think even you would admit the answer is “no” if distance AB were measured when clock A shows 10 seconds after initial separation and distance BA were measured when Clock B displays 10 billion years. That is, I think you want to make the two measurements “at the same time”, but whether or not “at the same time” is possible or well defined is, as I understand it, the essence of the discussion.

Thus, I can’t even answer MacM’s first question, even assuming it is “Does AB = BA when both distances are measured at the same time?” with a simple “yes or no” without essentially agreeing that absolute time does exist and this “fact” permits the distances to be measured “simultaneously.”

Question 2’s answer is “yes,” at least if put as “Is speed of light in vacuum invariant even if measured coordinate systems moving relative to each other?” For example, MacM, lets suppose you were right about absolute time and distance and, by prior agreement after separation of the clocks has become one light week, a flash bulb is fired a both A and B. Further assume that at the “simultaneous” time of the flash bulbs fire, on planet A, the local barometric pressure is very much lower than it will be a week later when the flash from B arrives. In this case, I think even you would answer question 2 with a “no.”

I also have some problems with question 3, but I will only note that if B is accelerating away from A when cycle “x” of the light wave is emitted, then the continuing acceleration of B will have no effect upon the transit time or wavelength of that cycle when it arrives at A, but will lengthen both the transit time and wavelength of cycle “x” that was emitted by A when it arrives at B. As I understand your thought experiment, your Doppler synchronized clocks cease to agree, and even you should admit this when B is accelerating. My point is that if you demand people give only a “yes or no” answer you must ask your question more clearly and with greater care. I think I could give a “no” answer, with the physical explanations you request, to all most all of your questions as they have been asked.

So rather than continue, I will ask only one question of you:

Does the half life of an unstable (radioactive) particle depend upon the coordinate system of measurement or is it absolute characteristic of the particle, like charge is? That is, would all careful physicist publish the same value for particle half life or should such published tables always be qualified by some phrase like “measured on Alpha Centaurs planet 4.”

Because of the observational facts (not thought experiments, nor “relativity theory”) about cosmic rays mentioned above, you can chose either absolute time (in contradiction to many experiments and well tested theory) or an absolute (invariant) half life for each particle subject to radioactive decay, (which is observed in both nature’s and man’s experiments) but you can’t have both absolute. Make your choice. Personally, even leaving relativity theory aside, I think the choice consistent with observations, rather than the one contradicted by them, is the better choice.

 

[MacM]

Billy T,

Let me start by simply saying while I have not finished your post from the first couple of paragrahs it seem to be a thoughtful response and is appreciated. There certainly isn't any expectation or reqirement that you will concur with my analysis. But you at least seem willing to listen and not make unsupported rash judgements. You are commended in that regard.

Now I will attempt to clarify where I have already seen some mis-interpretation. That is partly due to the fact that there have been more indepth discussion prior to the close posts to which you have read and they did not include the same detail as has already been stipulated.

I have only read the last two posts (James R’s and MacM’s reply), so I am not sure I fully understand the thought experiment MacM is proposing to show that maintaining clocks synchronized is no problem and absolute time exists. I think he is wrong, in part because some cosmic ray particles observed at the earth’s surface have such short lifetimes that even traveling at the speed of light from the upper atmosphere where they were produced, they would have decayed (if their “clocks” were not running more slowly than those on earth) long before reaching the surface.

I am very aware of the muon decay, particle life time in accelerators and atomic clocks test flying the clocks in opposite directions around the earth.

I do not contest such data (other than the atomic clocks and I believe that, according to even many scientist, those results have been contested and some claims of data tampering was leveled at those results. So I would just say view them with a skeptical eye.)

However, let me suggest that the apparent agreement with such data and Relativity is not in fact proof of validity of Relativity. It is entirely possible (and in my view likely) that while the mathematics may serve us well Relativity is in of itself an incomplete picture and does not exclude more indepth physical answers for the data.

MacM, please note that no one has been indoctrinating these particle with “relativity theory” and I am not appealing to it when I state you are wrong. None the less, you still deserves to receive at least one “no” to your 10 questions, with specific explanations, not the general refutation that “absolute time” violates “confirmed” relativity theory (No theory is ever completely confirmed, only well tested, so theory can not prove you wrong.)

I would have to think that this "No" is more appropriately a "Maybe No". that I could accept. But I do not accept the data you have referred to a proof of Relativity in exclusion of alternative explanations. I do agree that it is supportive of Relavistic conclusions.

I also am not sure exactly what you mean by most of your questions. For example: question 1 “... distance from A to B the same?” I assume you are asking if distance AB = distance BA,

This really is a straight forward foundation question. Since one can get side tracked by issues such as Lorentz Contraction due to relative velocity, I am seeking confirmation that regardless of any such distances, the distance from A to B is going to be the same as the distance from B to A.

but question 4 speaks of “the transition from accelerating recession to linear velocity between the clocks” so I think even you would admit the answer is “no” if distance AB were measured when clock A shows 10 seconds after initial separation and distance BA were measured when Clock B displays 10 billion years. That is, I think you want to make the two measurements “at the same time”, but whether or not “at the same time” is possible or well defined is, as I understand it, the essence of the discussion.

Here is where you have come into the discussion toward the end. The test involved the two clocks starting out side by side and calibrated together with respective light beams maintaing communication between the clocks when one is assumed to be at rest and the other accelerates away.

We are not timing this transistion. We are monitoring the doppler shift in the communication system such that each clock has a Red Shifted light signal from each other that is continually changing which reflects acceleration. When that acceleration is terminated and the clock begins to coast, you have a steady doppler shift which indicates both that you now have constant relative velocity but also a measure of the relative velocity between the clocks. Both clocks see the same results at the same amount of time from the event because they are linked by each others matched light beams.

Thus, I can’t even answer MacM’s first question, even assuming it is “Does AB = BA when both distances are measured at the same time?” with a simple “yes or no” without essentially agreeing that absolute time does exist and this “fact” permits the distances to be measured “simultaneously.”

Only because system does not start until the moving clock begins to coast. When that happens because both clocks are in constant contact by their respective light beams and the distance is the same and the speed of light is the same in both directions between moving clocks, each clock will receive the stable doppler indication at the same time. Without quibbling over the term simultaneous but from a simple relavistic principle in that everything that has happened to one clock has happend to the other clock by the same amount of information delay between clocks - hence simultaneous.

Question 2’s answer is “yes,” at least if put as “Is speed of light in vacuum invariant even if measured coordinate systems moving relative to each other?” For example, MacM, lets suppose you were right about absolute time and distance and, by prior agreement after separation of the clocks has become one light week, a flash bulb is fired a both A and B. Further assume that at the “simultaneous” time of the flash bulbs fire, on planet A, the local barometric pressure is very much lower than it will be a week later when the flash from B arrives. In this case, I think even you would answer question 2 with a “no.”

I would have to spend more time to digest your proposal (see note below) to be sure but since it doesn't seem to fit into the events being discussed, I'll simple point out that I am not sending a control pulse at any specific time. It is a natural condition of recipocal relative velocity between clocks that they see the transition to a constant speed and the end of acceleration.

(note: I have had time now to consider more slowly what you said. Certainly if you fire a signal pulse that over time of transfer, there is some conditional ununiform change in one clocks enviornment there could be a shift, however if you assume an identically timed shift in both clocks that would not be the case. But ultimately this test assumes no unilateral changes.)

When doppler shift stablization occurs each clock automatically begins to modulate its beam to encompass some given number of carrier waves in the primary beam which represents that clocks proper time tick rate.

That envelope of information can take any amount of transfer time (delay) and such delay is equal between the two clocks such that each clock will in real time receive the modulated beam simultaneously.

When that happens each clock not only starts to run counting off some preagreed amount of local time before shutting down but also using the proper clock rate information used to start the clocks, initiates the oscilator counter for a monitor which duplicates the true time of the other clock locally in absence of the otherwise induced information delay.

That is to say each clock and monitor will remain synchronized the entire test and all read exactly the same at the end of the test. That seems to support the view of absolute time but where Relativity of Simultaneity is mere information delay. There are those here that claim otherwise and quote Relativity as saying so. But I have as yet to see ny physical proof that that is the case. It seems to be an artificaial concept introduced to cause Relativity to remain consistant and nothing more but I am awaiting for some sort of confirmation that that view is in error. As yet it has not been presented.

I also have some problems with question 3, but I will only note that if B is accelerating away from A when cycle “x” of the light wave is emitted, then the continuing acceleration of B will have no effect upon the transit time or wavelength of that cycle when it arrives at A, but will lengthen both the transit time and wavelength of cycle “x” that was emitted by A when it arrives at B. As I understand your thought experiment, your Doppler synchronized clocks cease to agree, and even you should admit this when B is accelerating. My point is that if you demand people give only a “yes or no” answer you must ask your question more clearly and with greater care. I think I could give a “no” answer, with the physical explanations you request, to all most all of your questions as they have been asked.

Again we are not timing during the acceleration but only after the doppler shift is seen to stablize and the modulated information about proper time tick rate has been transmitted and received by the other clock(s). They are very much synchronized in that manner.

So rather than continue, I will ask only one question of you:

Does the half life of an unstable (radioactive) particle depend upon the coordinate system of measurement or is it absolute characteristic of the particle, like charge is? That is, would all careful physicist publish the same value for particle half life or should such published tables always be qualified by some phrase like “measured on Alpha Centaurs planet 4.”

No the data as published is fine. It is simply recognizing that the data may not be the exclusive consequence of Relativity, although Relativity may well mathematically predict the affect.

Because of the observational facts (not thought experiments, nor “relativity theory”) about cosmic rays mentioned above, you can chose either absolute time (in contradiction to many experiments and well tested theory) or an absolute (invariant) half life for each particle subject to radioactive decay, (which is observed in both nature’s and man’s experiments) but you can’t have both absolute. Make your choice. Personally, even leaving relativity theory aside, I think the choice consistent with observations, rather than the one contradicted by them, is the better choice.

I have used this example before. Not that is is excellent but that it is crappy. Being deliberately crappy is to emphasize my point. I can take an aluminum pan and mark its sides with graduations, fill it with water and call it a clock. As the water evaporates I have an indication of time passed since the pan was filled.

The obvious problem here is that the process of evaporation is highly enfluenced by temperature, humidity, air currents, stiring, etc., and I can light the stove and see hours turn into seconds.

The problem here is that there are no clocks in existance that actually measure a quanitity of something called time. All clocks, even muon decay, are processes, subject to vary under outside enfluences - i.e. energy change.

cascading down through an atmosphere certainly generates pressure forces, temperaure changes etc. The fact that various clocks may change their displayed rate of time, in no way proves that time has changed or even exists for that matter.

I want to thank you again for a thoughtful and polite response. Hope this has helped clarify some points. Ask more if need be.

 

[Persol]

The problem here is that there are no clocks in existance that actually measure a quanitity of something called time.

Call me shortsighted, but such a clock will never exist. Without processes you have no reason to define 'time'.

 

[James R]

MacM,

Essentially, what you are asking for is for me to evaluate a thought experiment in physics, but without referring to any of the known laws of physics.

What you are asking is no different from asking a question like: "Without using Newton's laws of motion, calculate the acceleration of a 3 kilogram object when a force of 24 Newton acts on it." It can't be done.

If you ask a question which requires the theory of relativity for its correct solution, you can't at the same time demand that the theory of relativity not be used. Without using it, you get a wrong solution, if you get a solution at all.

So, I'm afraid I am going to have to decline to answer any of your questions unless I am allowed to refer to laws of physics which have been tried and tested in real experiments. If and when you give the go-ahead to use these known laws of physics, I will answer all your questions.

I also need to check that I am quite clear on the details of your procedure, because I do not want any misunderstandings to arise about the experimental setup later on. Here is your statement:

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.

Now, I will set out my understanding of the test, in my own words. I need you to tell me if my description is correct. If I have made any errors in my description, please let me know. Once we are agreed on all the details, then we can proceed.

Here's my understanding of the first part of your procedure:

1. A and B are sychronised at time zero, when the clocks are side-by-side at the same location, to read zero time.
2. Clock B travels at speed 0.9c relative to A, in the positive x direction (which also means A travels at 0.9c relative to B in the negative x direction).
3. At each tick of clock A, A sends a signal to B saying "Clock A reads t seconds."
4. At each tick of clock B, B sends a signal to A saying "Clock B reads t' seconds."

Then I get stuck, because I don't really understanding this part:

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.

I need to know exactly when the counter is started. It would be easiest to assume constant relative speed of both clocks throughout the test, so we don't get into issues of acceleration. Is is ok to assume the clocks moving at a relative speed of 0.9c at time t=t'=0, and that they are both at the same location at that time?

I also need to know the exact procedure used to track the other clock's accumulated time. Please set out in a series of numbered steps for me exactly how this is to be done.

In the last part, you say:

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.

This is prejudging the result of the test, isn't it? You are assuming, without checking, that A and B both reach 36000 seconds simultaneously. That is yet to be determined.

Do you wish to alter the conditions which stop the test, or specify them in more detail?

Again, I would find a step-by-step description of the details of how the clocks are stopped very useful.

I hope you will respond to these questions so we can make some progress here.

 

[MacM]

Persol,

Call me shortsighted, but such a clock will never exist. Without processes you have no reason to define 'time'.

HeHe. Now that does seem to be a problem doesn't it. Your only out to support your views is to declare an "absolute" process of time. And we just know you don't like absolutes. Otherwise time dilation becomes a simple case of locally altered process, not any change in a universal time sense.

James R,

MacM,

Essentially, what you are asking for is for me to evaluate a thought
experiment in physics, but without referring to any of the known laws of
physics.

What you are asking is no different from asking a question like: "Without
using Newton's laws of motion, calculate the acceleration of a 3 kilogram
object when a force of 24 Newton acts on it." It can't be done.

If you ask a question which requires the theory of relativity for its
correct solution, you can't at the same time demand that the theory of
relativity not be used. Without using it, you get a wrong solution, if you
get a solution at all.

So, I'm afraid I am going to have to decline to answer any of your questions
unless I am allowed to refer to laws of physics which have been tried and
tested in real experiments. If and when you give the go-ahead to use these
known laws of physics, I will answer all your questions.

I also need to check that I am quite clear on the details of your procedure,
because I do not want any misunderstandings to arise about the experimental
setup later on. Here is your statement:

I am more than cautious here. You seem to have already set the stage by
claiming it is impossible for you to answer without relying on stated
principles of relativity. That is you cannot justify relativity physically.
Is that what you are saying?

But I'll play along and see if any progress can be made. I clearly have my
doubts here.

Now, I will set out my understanding of the test, in my own words. I
need you to tell me if my description is correct. If I have made any errors
in my description, please let me know. Once we are agreed on all the
details, then we can proceed.

Here's my understanding of the first part of your procedure:

1. A and B are sychronised at time zero, when the clocks are side-by-side at
the same location, to read zero time.

False. We didn't even get out of the gate. No clocks are running. The
only thing done here is to insure the light beams are tuned to the same
frequency and all equipment is ready to go into service at the appropriate
time by virtue of automatic programming.

Now I truely hope that you aren't going to come back and claim it don't work
because programs do not function instantly hence nothing can be
instananeous. Since my only option would be to argue we were using quantum computers and we just know you wouldn't like that.

But in all seriousness, to reduce this issue to that level would really be
meaningless. I could extend the test for 100 years and the computing
program and response time would mean I would only be off a few microseconds while your relativity would still be off by ions. But the best premptive arguement would be that each system is identical and had identical processing time to calibrate and turn on all systems. So lets not go there.

2. Clock B travels at speed 0.9c relative to A, in the positive x
direction (which also means A travels at 0.9c relative to B in the negative
x direction).

True if you swap views on who is at rest. the only difference is that only
one clock goes through the acceleration and has the associated force. But
we are not timing during that period and the relative acceleration is the
same from either view via the changing red shifted light beam.

3. At each tick of clock A, A sends a signal to B saying "Clock A
reads t seconds."

False. Once acceleration stops. The doppler shift stops shifting and
stabilizes. That point signals a linear velocity. The programs sensing
constant velocity begins to modulate the carrier beam encompassing some
number of carrier waves per modulation envelope which is representative of a
figure specifying that clocks proper time tick rate. If we assume the data
to be in ticks per second, the the information contained could be 10 waves
or 10,000 waves per packet of modulated information. This only needs to be
sent once.

4. At each tick of clock B, B sends a signal to A saying "Clock B
reads t' seconds."

False. Upon receipt of the modulated packet of information each clock
(having equal processing time) processes the data and calibrates an on board
oscillator driving an on board counter. That is the monitor of the other
clocks accumulated time. The on board clock is started at the same instant
as the on board monitor starts counting.

Then I get stuck, because I don't really understanding this part:

I need to know exactly when the counter is started. It would be easiest to
assume constant relative speed of both clocks throughout the test, so we
don't get into issues of acceleration. Is is ok to assume the clocks moving
at a relative speed of 0.9c at time t=t'=0, and that they are both at the
same location at that time?

It would seem so. If you have calibrated systems and have one clock pass
the other and at t=t'=0 the all the above actions would occur at t=0. that
is on board counters are calibrated by the other clock and are started and
both clocks would start.

The information delay has been eliminated and each clock has its own local
proper tick rate and each clock has a monitor which is ticking at the
calibrated tick rate of the other clock based on it proper local time. The
results should be the same and eliminates the need to remain in contact by
the two communication beams.

I used the remote beam system to show that the information delay does not
affect the systems performance. Delay is eliminated but doing it all at t=0
seems acceptable.

I also need to know the exact procedure used to track the other
clock's accumulated time. Please set out in a series of numbered steps for
me exactly how this is to be done.

Stated above but I'll do it step by step.

1 - The only reason for the light beams was to allow knowledge of a specific
velocity between clocks via doppler shift for future comparison of
Relativistic calculation comparison or clock data and to allow a means of
remote signaling of achieving constant velocity. Both of which can be
stipulated as long as you agree that at t=0 both clocks are started and both
remote monitors of the other clock become calibrated to the remote clocks
proper tick rate and also start counting such that all read t = 0
simultaneously.

2 - In the system as proposed the clocks are calibrated to function in relation to an undoppler shifted frequency of the cummunication beamsand non-shifting of doppler readings indicated contant velocity had been achieved.

3 - When #2 occurred each clock produces and transmits via a modulation
packet, information about its clock tick rate.

4 - Each clock upon receipt of the other clocks information packet
calibrates and starts its on board oscillator/counter so that it accumulates
time at the stipulated tick rate of the remote clock's local proper time
and at the same time starts it's own on board clock.

This is prejudging the result of the test, isn't it? You are
assuming,
without checking, that A and B both reach 36000 seconds simultaneously. That
is yet to be determined.

Do you wish to alter the conditions which stop the test, or specify them in
more detail?

Again, I would find a step-by-step description of the details of how the
clocks are stopped very useful.

Fine.

1 - Clock "A" stops when its clock reaches 36,000 seconds.

2 - Clock "B" stops when it's monitor of clock "A" reads 36,000 seconds.

That way I have not prejudged the results.

I hope you will respond to these questions so we can make some
progress
here.

Anymore question feel free to ask.

 

[James R]

MacM,

I'm still not 100% clear on how the monitors are set.

You say it is done by measuring the doppler shift of a light beam. Let me give you an example, and you can tell me if I am correct or not.

Suppose clock A emits a beam with a frequency of 1 cycle per second (1 Hertz). Then, if clock B is receding from A at 0.9c, then I would say that when B receives the beam, B will measure the frequency to be:

f = sqrt[(1-0.9)/(1+0.9)] = 0.229 cycles per second.

Therefore, I would say that for every 1 second that ticks off on B's local clock, B's monitor of clock A should tick off 0.229 seconds. I would then say that clock B and clock B's monitor of clock A are correctly calibrated.

Do you agree with this?

I will be up front about my concern here. My calculation of f, above is based on the relativistic Doppler shift formula. Since I don't know any other way to correctly calculate the Doppler shift in this situation, I must appeal to you to correct my result if you believe it to be wrong. You will also need to explain how you derive your alternative result, or whether you wish to rely, for example, on a Newtonian result instead.

I look forward to your response to this question.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

I'm still not 100% clear on how the monitors are set.

Let me stop here. No. The monitors are not set by the doppler shift.

The doppler shift merely provides the means of determining velocity for Relativity calculation comparison purposes. In my system I am suggesting that time is invariant of velocity.

The monitors consist of a tuneable oscillator which is set by the information contained in the modulation envelope of the carrier beam from the remote clock. That constitutes a digital form of information which is not distorted by doppler shift at any speed, hence light frequency. i.e. - The modulated data pack contains 10 carrier beam waves. It will contain 10 carrier beam waves at any doppler shift of the carrier beam (relative velocity).

In that manner the proper time tick rate is communicated to the measuring clock without distortion of any kind to the data. That data sets the on board oscillator such that the associated counter accumulates counts at the same tick rate as the remote clock that sent the message about its time accumulation tick rate.

Do you agree with this?

No. See above.

Perhaps you should start to realize that doppler nor Relativity alter digital data. If they are started synchronized they remain synchronized even with velocity changes in the system.

The reason for such an elobrate system is to show that velocity is not changing time. It is changing our view of analog processes - i.e. doppler shift, etc. Doppler shift is just another form of time dilation. If we count pulses against our local proper time doppler shifted data suggests time has changed (i.e frequency changes).

 

[James R]

Thankyou for your response.

Let me stop here. No. The monitors are not set by the doppler shift.

Ok. That has certainly helped clear up one misconception of mine. Thanks.

The doppler shift merely provides the means of determining velocity for Relativity calculation comparison purposes.

Please tell me how this is done.

Suppose A and B agree in advance that A will send out a 1 Hz signal continuously. When B detects this signal, could he use the formula I quoted above to measure the frequency of the signal he receives and thereby calculate backwards to determine his speed relative to A?

In other words, if B received a signal which had a measured frequency of 0.229 Hz, could B validly conclude that he was travelling at 0.9c relative to A?

If not, please explain how B would determine his relative speed using the Doppler shift, in your setup.

The monitors consist of a tuneable oscillator which is set by the information contained in the modulation envelope of the carrier beam from the remote clock. That constitutes a digital form of information which is not distorted by doppler shift at any speed, hence light frequency. i.e. - The modulated data pack contains 10 carrier beam waves. It will contain 10 carrier beam waves at any doppler shift of the carrier beam (relative velocity).

I still don't understand how this works. Please specify.

A sends 10 "carrier beam waves" which contain what digital information?
How is this information used to sychronise B's monitor?

In that manner the proper time tick rate is communicated to the measuring clock without distortion of any kind to the data. That data sets the on board oscillator such that the associated counter accumulates counts at the same tick rate as the remote clock that sent the message about its time accumulation tick rate.

What is the nature of the data? How is the data used to set the on board oscillator?

I'm not just trying to be difficult here, believe me. I honestly can't understand your procedure as you've expressed it, yet.

Perhaps you should start to realize that doppler nor Relativity alter digital data.

I agree with that. I just don't know what digital data you're sending and how it is used to sychronise the monitors. I will wait until you specify that.

If they are started synchronized they remain synchronized even with velocity changes in the system.

That is what we're trying to test with this experiment, aren't we? Let's not jump to conclusions prematurely.

The reason for such an elobrate system is to show that velocity is not changing time. It is changing our view of analog processes - i.e. doppler shift, etc. Doppler shift is just another form of time dilation. If we count pulses against our local proper time doppler shifted data suggests time has changed (i.e frequency changes).

I'm not sure how this is relevant, so I'll leave it for now and wait for your further clarification.

 

[MacM]

Please tell me how this is done.

V = Vo(1-Vs^2/c^2)^.5/(1-Vs/c)

V is Observed Frequency
Vo is Source frequency
Vs is Source Velocity
c is velocity of light in a vacuum

Now you have the standard frequency of the initial beam when viewed at rest (Vo). You have the observed frequency (V).

You now rewrite the equation and solve for Velocity of the source (Vs).

But I know you already know all that so it is a bit disengenious for you to be asking such a question other than in hopes that I couldn't give you an answer so you could use that as a point of contention as to the proposed test since I would clearly not have any basis for suggesting it.

Suppose you actually follow the process I have described and stop trying to find out if I actually know something about the issue. If my process results in my claims or fails you wouldn't need to ask those questions. Your only purpose therefore for such questions is to see if you can terminate this analysis without actually being complelled to follow it through to its conclusion. That is my impression in any case. Because I simply find it incredable that you would not know how doppler shift is related to velocity.

Now if you want to ask me how to extract Vs term algebraically, then let me tell you I solve these types of problems quick and easy by writting a FOR/NEXT or WHILE/WEND loop and let my computer do the hard stuff. It resolves Vs until the calculation matches both V and Vo.

Suppose A and B agree in advance that A will send out a 1 Hz signal
continuously. When B detects this signal, could he use the formula I quoted
above to measure the frequency of the signal he receives and thereby
calculate backwards to determine his speed relative to A?

Yes. Answered above.

In other words, if B received a signal which had a measured frequency of
0.229 Hz, could B validly conclude that he was travelling at 0.9c relative
to A?

Are these meant to be trick questions based on incomplete data? You would need to also know Vo.

If not, please explain how B would determine his relative speed using the
Doppler shift, in your setup.

I really do believe you are being deliberately obtuse and aren't trying to move forward on this.

I still don't understand how this works. Please specify.

I really am finding all this a bit much. If you think for a moment that I can't actually design such a system then you know nothing about me or my capabilities. I simply do not understand what it is that you claim to not understand. So how should I re-write such straight forward instructions? Perhaps you can try to explain what it is you think you understand or be more specfic about what you do not understand and I can respond. But to simply say a third or fourth time "I don't understand" doesn't give one much to work from.

A sends 10 "carrier beam waves" which contain what digital information?
How is this information used to sychronise B's monitor?

Modulated component of the carrier is 10 waves. Clock tick rate is 1 per second.

Modulated component of the carrier is 100 waves. Clock tick rate is 10 per second.

etc, etc.

What is the nature of the data? How is the data used to set the on board
oscillator?

Look. If you don't want to do this just say so. Your questions are absolutely irrelavant, unless you want to actually physically design and build the system being proposed. This is a thought experiment. Take it for what it is worth.

I'm not just trying to be difficult here, believe me. I honestly can't
understand your procedure as you've expressed it, yet.

I do find that unbelievable. What possible signifigance is it how one uses digital data to tune (calibrate) an oscillator? The test stipulates it is calibrated. But if you must you would receive the pulses store that number in binary form, convert that binary number into and through logic gates to trigger an oscillator via i.e. and RLC circuit.

Result if the data pack says clock "A" is opertaing at 1 tick per sec then the oscillator outputs 1 pulse per second. Each second passing at clock "A" correspond to a count of "1" at "B".

I agree with that. I just don't know what digital data you're sending and
how it is used to sychronise the monitors. I will wait until you specify
that.

If you really want me to design an actual digital frequency converter I can but it would be a lot easier just to go to an electronics supply store and buy one. This is not unavailable technology.

That is what we're trying to test with this experiment, aren't we? Let's not
jump to conclusions prematurely.

HeHeHe. Indeed. Now that you agree velocity is not going to alter the clocks digital performance, lets see you show us it does.

I'm not sure how this is relevant, so I'll leave it for now and wait for
your further clarification.

I hope this suffices. But if not I will try again but don't play with me. You are giving me a superority complex thinking you don't actual understand what is being done here. I have made it about as simple as I can and I think I expressed it clearly in english. But let me know.

 

[James R]

MacM,

I know you think my enquiries are a waste of time.

I assure you they are not. I have just ceased taking anything for granted, because whenever I make what I consider to be a reasonable assumption about your scenarios it turns out that it later becomes a major point of contention. This time, I am trying to avoid that in advance.

V = Vo(1-Vs^2/c^2)^.5/(1-Vs/c)

V is Observed Frequency
Vo is Source frequency
Vs is Source Velocity
c is velocity of light in a vacuum

Now you have the standard frequency of the initial beam when viewed at rest (Vo). You have the observed frequency (V).

You now rewrite the equation and solve for Velocity of the source (Vs).

If I put

Vo = 1 Hz
Vs = 0.9c

into your formula, I get:

V = 1(1-(0.9c)^2/c^2)^.5/(1-(0.9c)/c)
V = (1-0.81)^.5/(1-0.9)
V = 0.436/0.1 = 4.36 Hz.

So, according to this formula, if B is moving away from A at 0.9c, then signals emitted by A at 1 Hz will be shifted to a higher frequency of 4.36 Hz.

On the other hand, the formula I think is correct is as follows:

V = Vo sqrt[(1-Vs/c)/(1+Vs/c)]

When I plug in Vs = 0.9c and Vo = 1 Hz I get

V = 1 sqrt[ (1-0.9)/(1+0.9)]
V = sqrt [0.1/1.9] = 0.229 Hz

So, as I understand it, B perceives a lower frequency than was emitted by A.

Before we can progress any further on this point, we will need to clear up which formula is being used, and why. Where does your formula come from? Mine is the standard relativistic one for Doppler shift, which you can look up in any textbook.

You write:

But I know you already know all that so it is a bit disengenious for you to be asking such a question other than in hopes that I couldn't give you an answer so you could use that as a point of contention as to the proposed test since I would clearly not have any basis for suggesting it.

As I have shown, I do not know all that. You are showing me something new here, and I need an explanation from you.

Suppose you actually follow the process I have described and stop trying to find out if I actually know something about the issue.

I'm just trying to ensure we have mutual agreement on the parameters of the test you're trying to set up here.

Your only purpose therefore for such questions is to see if you can terminate this analysis without actually being complelled to follow it through to its conclusion. That is my impression in any case. Because I simply find it incredable that you would not know how doppler shift is related to velocity.

Well, it appears I don't know how Doppler shift is related to velocity, since my formula for the Doppler shift differs from yours. Educate me.

I asked above:

Suppose A and B agree in advance that A will send out a 1 Hz signal
continuously. When B detects this signal, could he use the formula I quoted
above to measure the frequency of the signal he receives and thereby
calculate backwards to determine his speed relative to A?

You answered:

Yes. Answered above.

I was very specific. I asked:

In other words, if B received a signal which had a measured frequency of 0.229 Hz, could B validly conclude that he was travelling at 0.9c relative
to A?

Your response:

Are these meant to be trick questions based on incomplete data? You would need to also know Vo.

I'm sorry if that was not clear. Vo = 1 Hz.

So, on the one hand you appear to agree with me, but then you quote a formula which does not give the same answer as I get.

I hope you can see why I am concerned.

 

[James R]

I hope I can explain my issues with the next part of your post, too.

I asked:

A sends 10 "carrier beam waves" which contain what digital information? How is this information used to sychronise B's monitor?

Your only response was:

Modulated component of the carrier is 10 waves. Clock tick rate is 1 per second.
Modulated component of the carrier is 100 waves. Clock tick rate is 10 per second.

etc, etc.

That is not an explanation which answers my question.

Sure, if clock A jams 10 waves into the modulated component of its carrier wave in 1 second, as measured by A's clock, then we can establish that, according to A, A's clock has 1 tick for every 10 waves. But how does B use that information when he receives it?

When B receives 10 waves in a carrier wave from A, B does not have a copy of A's clock to know how long it took to put those 10 waves into the carrier. B only has his own clock, which may or may not run at a different rate (that is one thing the test aims to determine, right?) As far as I can tell, all B can do is measure how long it takes to receive those 10 waves according to his own clock, and that tells him nothing about the actual rate of A's clock.

Now, maybe I am completely wrong and am missing some vital point. I'm quite happy to be corrected, but I hope you can understand why I am having problems with this. I am honestly asking you to explain. I'm not just doing this to delay further discussion.

I do find that unbelievable. What possible signifigance is it how one uses digital data to tune (calibrate) an oscillator? The test stipulates it is calibrated.

But how that calibration occurs may be very important to the results obtained. Note: I'm not talking about the details of electronic circuitry involved, or anything like that.

Result if the data pack says clock "A" is opertaing at 1 tick per sec then the oscillator outputs 1 pulse per second. Each second passing at clock "A" correspond to a count of "1" at "B".

Won't the data always say that A ticks at 1 tick per second, as measured by A? I don't understand how it could say anything different.

I hope this suffices. But if not I will try again but don't play with me. You are giving me a superority complex thinking you don't actual understand what is being done here. I have made it about as simple as I can and I think I expressed it clearly in english. But let me know.

I'm sorry, but I still don't have answers I consider to be clear and unambiguous.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

I know you think my enquiries are a waste of time.

Indeed they are. This is not unlike me, when you post a thought experiment saying that

You :"I will have a rocket going 0.9c...blah, blah"
Me: "How do you get a rocket to produce enough thrust to reach 0.9c?.
You: "It isn't the amount of thrust it is force times time, I use a standard rocket but do so for a longer time"
Me: "How long must you apply such thrust to reach 0.9c?"
You: "2,000 years"
Me:"How do you propose to insure inhabitants aboard the rocket can reproduce and maintain an intelligence aboard the rocket"

Blah, Blah, Blah. None of which has any bearing on the stipulations of the thought experiment. This sort of diversionary enquiry has been standard with you. Yet I can say with little hesitation. that if I were to make such enquiries as above, you would be the first to object pointing out these details are assumed by virtue it is a thought experiment. Your technique is a methodology of digging to a depth until you find something unanswered or unanserable then declare victory since you have shown it can't be done or the person doesn't know how to do it.

I assure you they are not. I have just ceased taking anything for granted,
because whenever I make what I consider to be a reasonable assumption about
your scenarios it turns out that it later becomes a major point of
contention. This time, I am trying to avoid that in advance.

I don't know why you would say this time. You have done it in every discussion I have been involved with and further you do it not just in discussions with me but anyone that is challenging your position. Yet you have often let let bizzar and even false statements stand uncorrected if they are in support of your arguement. (example the arguements back in the "Merry-Go-Round" Pi debate). We are not blind here James R. This is a discussion forum, not a debate forum. Or at least I thought it was.

" V = Vo(1-Vs^2/c^2)^.5/(1-Vs/c)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop3.html

Now I happen to agree with your formula. It is indeed just below the one I posted but both are posted in the above link which I reference quite often. Mine is shown being expanded to reduce it for calculating low frequency doppler. Frankly I don't see where it comes from.

But two things:

1 - Your formula may be correct but would be considered overkill rather than assuming the expanded version of my formula for low frequency.

2 - Why in the hell or we talking about 1 KHz when we are talking about light? I would love to see a 1KHz light beam. Why are you picking such radically assinine numbers?

So, as I understand it, B perceives a lower frequency than was emitted by A.

Yes and A receives a lower frequency than emitted by B. Both Vo's are equal, both V's are equal and both V's calculate equal. That is the only thing that is relavant here, not the absolute value used in the test. It can be any value. The principle is accepted conventional physics.

Why waste time actually calculating such detail.? The only valid question would be does doppler shift indirectly reflect relative velocity between observer and a light source. I would think you would say "Yes" without hesitation but that is not what you choose to do. Why?

Before we can progress any further on this point, we will need to clear up
which formula is being used, and why. Where does your formula come from?
Mine is the standard relativistic one for Doppler shift, which you can look
up in any textbook.

I did and as I have agreed above your version seems the correct one to use. However, mine is not an invalid doppler formula. I am just not sure why it is even shown. But as also pointed out this issue has no business even being raised since doppler shift is known to function as described in the thought experiment.

I'm just trying to ensure we have mutual agreement on the parameters of the
test you're trying to set up here.

You either agree that I can calculate relative velocity between A and B using the doppler shifted communication light beams or you do not. That is the extent of information required at this juncture. Yes or No?

I posted my formula since I assumed you were going to next try and require me to extract Vs from the compound formula. Which is why I pointed out exactly how I would and have in simular cases calculated a Vs type terms.

For example the same algebraic loop exists in computing torque capacity of a hollow shaft where "tau" = 16Td/Pi(do^4 -di^4) where do is outer diameter, di is inner diameterT is torque applied and tau is shear strength in psi of the specific material and do is both in the numerator and denominator to different levels of power.

Well, it appears I don't know how Doppler shift is related to velocity,
since my formula for the Doppler shift differs from yours. Educate me.

Nice try but no diversions allowed. Do you agree that doppler shift can be used by the respective clock observers to determine the relative velocity between them? Yes or No.

So, on the one hand you appear to agree with me, but then you quote a
formula which does not give the same answer as I get.

Moot point that has been cleared up. Move on.

I hope you can see why I am concerned.

I think I know why you are concerned but it hasn't anything to do with details which you are trying to enter into the example. This habit of your has made every post excessively lengthy and renders arriving at a conclusion of the basic question asked impossible.

 

[dristam]

To MacM:

Albert Einstein is head-and-shoulders a more celebrated scientist than any other... he is a legend extraordinaire. So how can you seriously believe his Theory of Relativity to be feeble or flawed? Mind you though, I would ONLY say this about a practitioner in a 100% completely objective scientific field... I would never venerate a politician, psychologist, theologian, jurist, pundit or the like, and defend them being celebrated in such a fashion as I've just defended Einstein. I mean only that Relativity stands GOLDEN as a pure scientific discovery, with perfect invincible validity. The discoverer may be incidental, but just take a deep deep breath, MacM, and realize that NO... you are not the individual who will succeed in putting Einstein's formulations into serious question!

Maybe you just don't understand Relativity correctly -- many do not. Were it not for Relativity, we would live in a world where an object could conceivably crash into you with devastating impact before you could even see it coming... and hey, that ain't right!

We know that many of the most distant galaxies are speeding away from us at enormous speeds, even approaching lightspeed. Were it not for Relativity, the sentient beings that might hypothetically inhabit such galaxies would see images from one direction all intense and blue-shifted and rushing headlong to their eyes; yet if they simply turn their heads, images from the opposite direction would be all dulled and red-shifted and take a near eternity to reach them -- and THAT ain't right!

Relativity is only simple righteousness... see that for once; and accept it forever.

 

[MacM]

I hope I can explain my issues with the next part of your post, too.

I asked:

“ A sends 10 "carrier beam waves" which contain what digital information? How is this information used to sychronise B's monitor? ”


Your only response was:

“ Modulated component of the carrier is 10 waves. Clock tick rate is 1 per second.
Modulated component of the carrier is 100 waves. Clock tick rate is 10 per second.

etc, etc. ”


That is not an explanation which answers my question.

Sure, if clock A jams 10 waves into the modulated component of its carrier wave in 1 second, as measured by A's clock, then we can establish that, according to A, A's clock has 1 tick for every 10 waves. But how does B use that information when he receives it?

When B receives 10 waves in a carrier wave from A, B does not have a copy of A's clock to know how long it took to put those 10 waves into the carrier. B only has his own clock, which may or may not run at a different rate (that is one thing the test aims to determine, right?) As far as I can tell, all B can do is measure how long it takes to receive those 10 waves according to his own clock, and that tells him nothing about the actual rate of A's clock.

Simply false. A and B are initially calibrated to the same frequency carrier beams. Local operation by both clocks have no proper time shift or doppler shift in their beam transmitter. Both clocks hence have the standard on board to convert the data to a real clock rate.

Now, maybe I am completely wrong and am missing some vital point. I'm quite happy to be corrected, but I hope you can understand why I am having problems with this. I am honestly asking you to explain. I'm not just doing this to delay further discussion.

“ I do find that unbelievable. What possible signifigance is it how one uses digital data to tune (calibrate) an oscillator? The test stipulates it is calibrated. ”


But how that calibration occurs may be very important to the results obtained. Note: I'm not talking about the details of electronic circuitry involved, or anything like that.

Lets try this. Do you agree that I can pick up a Motorola catalog and purchase a frequency to digital converter?. Do you agree I can also purchase a digital to frequency converter?. Do you agree that I can purchase today (if they are in stock) a frequency to digital counter and display? Yes or No?

This is technology available off the shelf today, not some hypothetical particle entangled simulator. (although I have assembled components in a system here that can simulate such technology).

Won't the data always say that A ticks at 1 tick per second, as measured by A? I don't understand how it could say anything different.

Yep and so does B using the same frequency standard of A and that is the point. We do not want to see conventional data tampering via Relativistic mathematics.

I'm sorry, but I still don't have answers I consider to be clear and unambiguous.

If this hasn't done it then express your conceerns further. We have in fact made jprogress in that you now recognize that Relativity is not ging to shift my reading by clock "B" of clock "A's" local proper recorded time. Both clocks are going to remain synchronized and agree on 36,000 seconds at the end of the test. Time dilation did not occur in absence of a delayed information system.

There is no on going Relativity of Simultaniety once information delay is removed. Your light cones view is a product of data tampering via pure mathematical means and not real.

 

[MacM]

To MacM:

Albert Einstein is head-and-shoulders a more celebrated scientist than any other... he is a legend extraordinaire. So how can you seriously believe his Theory of Relativity to be feeble or flawed? Mind you though, I would ONLY say this about a practitioner in a 100% completely objective scientific field... I would never venerate a politician, psychologist, theologian, jurist, pundit or the like, and defend them being celebrated in such a fashion as I've just defended Einstein.

In a general sense I agree fully. He is celabrated indeed. To much so in my opinion in that the overwhelming bulk of relativity was developed by others well in advance of his compilation of such works. Now he did add some key component to make it all fit. I do not there for call him a fraud. But relativity was not some inventors vision all exclusive to his intellect.

I mean only that Relativity stands GOLDEN as a pure scientific discovery, with perfect invincible validity. The discoverer may be incidental, but just take a deep deep breath, MacM, and realize that NO... you are not the individual who will succeed in putting Einstein's formulations into serious question!

You seem to be developing the same false illusion. I am not on a quest of one upping Einstein. I am on a quest of further exploring what we consider truth. Indeed much of my own work results in relavistic principles mathematically (i.e. - produces simular or equal mathematical results) but is based on mechanical, physical causes.

So in that regard I am more qualifying Relativity than objecting to it. It just happens the bottom line seems to suggest that Relativity is a perception and not the reality currently claimed by modern physics. That does not detract from its practical utility mathematically. But a more useful version of Relativity emerges once you have the underlying physics behind it identified.

Maybe you just don't understand Relativity correctly -- many do not. Were it not for Relativity, we would live in a world where an object could conceivably crash into you with devastating impact before you could even see it coming... and hey, that ain't right!

You would mean of course like the Tunguska Comet in Russia early 1900's or the SL impact on Jupiter or the impact that killed of 2/3 of all living creatures in the dinosaur era?

We know that many of the most distant galaxies are speeding away from us at enormous speeds, even approaching lightspeed. Were it not for Relativity, the sentient beings that might hypothetically inhabit such galaxies would see images from one direction all intense and blue-shifted and rushing headlong to their eyes; yet if they simply turn their heads, images from the opposite direction would be all dulled and red-shifted and take a near eternity to reach them -- and THAT ain't right!

But indeed that is what actually occurs. We observe just such shifts in the motion of objects moving relative to us in the universe.

Relativity is only simple righteousness... see that for once; and accept it forever.

Relativity is a mathematical contrivance, albeit a good one, but purely mathematical none the less. It is not a theory of the physics of the universe that defines reality. It defines (reasonably well) observered relationships but does not explain them in a causuality sense.

 

[dristam]

... It just happens the bottom line seems to suggest that Relativity is a perception and not the reality currently claimed by modern physics.

Baloney. If a space craft speeds away from Earth at .75c (relative to Earth)while another craft speeds away from Earth at .75c in the opposite direction, those two crafts can still communicate with one another via light or radio signals. That's no illusion, no mere perception phenomenon... that is cold hard reality!

You would mean of course like the Tunguska Comet in Russia early 1900's or the SL impact on Jupiter or the impact that killed of 2/3 of all living creatures in the dinosaur era?

NO! That is not at all what I meant when I said that were it not for Relativity, you could be impacted with devastating result before you could even see the impending projectile coming. What I actually had in mind was this: the Hubble telescope spots a rogue asteroid 10 light-weeks distant and heading directly toward Earth. Doesn't Earth have at least ten weeks to prepare?? BOOM! No! it impacts Earth seconds later. That's not the same analogy you're making. My scenario is outright unrighteous.

But indeed that is what actually occurs. We observe just such shifts in the motion of objects moving relative to us in the universe.

No! you fail to savvy; read my passage over again! If light propagation occurred relative to an absolute medium/aether, then every image -- not just celestial ones -- would appear distorted and delayed/advanced to those hapless distant aliens. Reread my post and think carefully: if not for Relativity, those aliens would see their next door neighbor on one side all blue-shifted, but their neighbor in the house on the opposite side all red-shifted and their images interminably delayed!

Yeah, Einstein is just the circumstantial discoverer and a bit more, and I don't venerate the icon -- but the PRINCIPLE called Relativity I DO venerate; for it is essential righteousness, yea verily!

 

[MacM]

Baloney. If a space craft speeds away from Earth at .75c (relative to Earth)while another craft speeds away from Earth at .75c in the opposite direction, those two crafts can still communicate with one another via light or radio signals. That's no illusion, no mere perception phenomenon... that is cold hard reality!

there seems to be some disconnect here. Where has it been suggested they cannot communicate? What I said is the ones crafts view of the other crafts clock in no fashion alters the other clocks real time. the concept of time dialation is one of perception of the other clock and I do not age slower because your view of my clock. I age according to my clock which still functions, just as yours functions in an unaltered proper time. Proper time is absolute. time dilation of such clocks is perception.

NO! That is not at all what I meant when I said that were it not for Relativity, you could be impacted with devastating result before you could even see the impending projectile coming. What I actually had in mind was this: the Hubble telescope spots a rogue asteroid 10 light-weeks distant and heading directly toward Earth. Doesn't Earth have at least ten weeks to prepare?? BOOM! No! it impacts Earth seconds later. That's not the same analogy you're making. My scenario is outright unrighteous.

I would have to believe you are mis-interpreting Relativity here. According to current physics would already include lorentz contractionof distance and any time variables in the observed system. If you observe 10 light weeks you would have 10 light weeks in accordance with Relativity.

I'm missing your distinction here.

No! you fail to savvy; read my passage over again! If light propagation occurred relative to an absolute medium/aether, then every image -- not just celestial ones -- would appear distorted and delayed/advanced to those hapless distant aliens. Reread my post and think carefully: if not for Relativity, those aliens would see their next door neighbor on one side all blue-shifted, but their neighbor in the house on the opposite side all red-shifted and their images interminably delayed!

Nobody has suggested an ether model here. Where is this coming from?

Yeah, Einstein is just the circumstantial discoverer and a bit more, and I don't venerate the icon -- but the PRINCIPLE called Relativity I DO venerate; for it is essential righteousness, yea verily!

We agree as to Einstein but not the infalibility of Relativity and its interpretations.

 

[dristam]

there seems to be some disconnect here. Where has it been suggested they cannot communicate?

Do I have to spell everything out for you?? .75+.75=1.50 Without Relativity, one would conclude that the two crafts are separating from one another at more than lightspeed and so no signals could be interchanged. 'Got it now, sir??

I would have to believe you are mis-interpreting Relativity here. According to current physics would already include lorentz contractionof distance and any time variables in the observed system. If you observe 10 light weeks you would have 10 light weeks in accordance with Relativity. I'm missing your distinction here.

Again, do I have to spell everything out for you?? Without Relativity and its c=cosmic speed limit, then the meteor/asteroid could impact seconds after it is perceived to be a trillion miles away!! 'Got it now, sir??

Nobody has suggested an ether model here. Where is this coming from?

Without Relativity, what would light propagate relative to? Under relativity it always propagates at speed c relative to each and every observer. Without Relativity, it propagates relative to an absolute space/grid, another name for which is "aether".