From T. Garcia

To absolutely Nobody

Your 3-clock reply does not refer to the question.

Your absolute-time reply requires a link to support it.

Your time-must-slow reply argues clocks can be at rest, yet you do not say how or why. Sure, anything is possible, in Philosophy, but in theoretical physics, some supporting remarks must be given to take ideas from fantasy to physical reality.

Clocks cannot be "at-rest" because everything in the universe is in motion. Objects cannot be observed to be in a state of absolute rest, thus we cannot see what time one would hold.

I see you agree a slower-moving clock runs faster time than a faster-moving clock, which is the point of my essay. Thanks so much for your comments. I am hoping Chris will respond to my last inquiry to him, and I too apologize to you, Chris, for using up your space here.

    Thomas,

    I don't mind at all since your conversation with Nobody is relevant to my essay. I will have to reread the beginning of your back and forth and get an understanding of how Nobody is syncing A and B and get back to you.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #71

      Okay, thanks Chris.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #72

      The 't' problem with relativity theory:

      The 't' in physics equations never referred to the property of time. It referred to a number of cycles of activity with respect to an accepted standard cycle of something else. The true unwritten units of the physics' 't' are cycles(B)/cycle(A). The standard cycle (A) is certainly not time itself. We must use a recurring reliable effect for our standard and effects are always about a change of distance and/or direction with respect to a cycle of something or other.

      From a message above of mine:

      "The subject matter is time dilation. Without proof of it, relativists are faced with justifying their theory's basis. Since time is not revealed to relativists or anyone else in empirical evidence, there is nothing that theorists can say about time that is not pure theory."

      This statement stands as fact. Relativity theory unadmittedly uses cycles(A)/cycle(B) for its 't'. Both A and B refer to activities of objects.

      The unraveling of relativity theory begins with its slight of mind substitution of the word time for cycles(A)/cycle(B), and, space in place of length variation as measured by one object compared to another object. The key point to understand is that cycles(A)/cycle(B) is referring to the speeds at which one activity is occurring with respect to another activity.

      The importance of this to theoretical physicists must be that it is the cause of the activity that is changing its potency and, thereby, the rate of the activity varies. Time is not a cause. No one knows what cause is. All knowledge of physics involves effects. All conjecturing about cause are theoretical with no possible empirical verification. Effects cannot explain what is cause.

      It is time to put relativity theory aside and develop theory that is empirically based. All empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocity of objects. All velocities are measured as distance per second. Seconds are the name assigned to cycle(A)/cycle(B). There is no empirical justification for claiming that seconds define a property that is not limited to identifying it as cycle(A). Cycle (A) refers to activity of an object.

      All activity occurs in time. Seconds are a measure of activity with respect to activity. Seconds occur in time and are not time itself. Theoretical conjecture aside, neither space nor time are verified as parts of any physics equations.

      James Putnam

      • [deleted]

      • Post #73

      Garcia wrote to Nobody:

      >Your 3-clock reply does not refer to the question.

      Here was the question:

      >>>Your reply re: your diagram - If all 3 clocks are moving at the

      >>>same speed, how can one pass one then reach the other?

      >>>Seems you may have left out something?

      Here was my reply:

      >>The part that I omitted in my three-clock diagram was simply

      >>the left arrow for the 2-clock frame.

      My reply answers both questions because it tell what I left out (and why), and it tells you that the 2-clock frame was moving to the left at the same speed through space as was the 1-clock frame. (For example, both frames could be moving through space at half the speed of light. I honestly do not see why this is in any way confusing.)

      I decided to focus on only your first objection first. Let's clear it up for sure before going on.

      Shawn,

      I assume you are referring to experiments with particles accelerating in a ring at high velocity. The calculations appear to indicate (according to the experts) that any time dilation of the circulating particles as seen from say - the center of the circle, when all is said and done will be attributed to velocity and nothing extra from acceleration assuming we are talking about acceleration produced centripetally. That appears to be somewhat consistent with Einstein's philosophy on relativity in rotating frames. He transfers his gravitational potential argument that originated as a linear example from 1911 (the one I mention in my essay) and assigns a gravitational potential value as a result of the simulated gravity from the centripetal acceleration using this equation: grav pot = -1/2 w2r2 (that's omega squared x radius squared divided by two). This is used from the perspective of the particle in rotation only. It justifies using simulated gravity so the fast rotating particle can view the stationary observer in the center of the circle (for example) as being in the "higher" gravitational position, compared to its own "lower" position because it is at the actual location where gravity is being felt and therefore will see the stationary clock as running faster. Simulated gravity is not considered a factor from the opposite view: When the center stationary clock views the accelerating particle in the ring, it considers the velocity from the rotating particle only, and uses the standard SR equation to calculate the clock slowing effect. This is a nice equal-but-opposite effect that for relativists, explains everything. In his Theory of Relativity book, Wolfgang Pauli does a complete mathematical treatment showing how the two equate by showing that if you convert the w2r2 to tangential velocity (v2) and put the gravitational potential over c2 to calculate time dilation - it will equal the often used approximation from a binomial expansion of the SR equation so that both equal v2/2c2 (v squared /2 times c squared). This is also used in the Mossbauer experiments in the early 1960's. Of course I have some consistency problems with that and argue that you can have alternate explanations for the same physical outcome, but more importantly - the Einstein/Pauli reasoning won't work for the GPS system anyway.

      The test particle at the center of the Earth is an excellent mini topic. Would the proximity of all of that mass slow the particle's time or since gravity is pulling equally in all directions, would it experience a net field cancel that would allow the clock to run faster as if it were in space, nowhere near gravity?

      It appears, based on physical evidence that there are at least two methods of slowing time: velocity and gravity. I don't think we know for sure if we can assign acceleration as third yet? I don't believe Einstein's explanation is correct but it's possible acceleration could in fact exhibit an additional local clock slowing effect? I wish more people would get involved in dissecting this!

      James,

      You are right - It doesn't refer to the property of time as long as you think those measured cycles exist "in" time. But I have argued, and still do: what if the cycles actually "are" time and our macro perception of all of these fundamental observable behaviors become the emergent property that we consider to be time? I have written about this before but not this essay because I kept the focus on what is fundamentally wrong and not on what I think it should be replaced with. You also said "Seconds occur in time and are not time itself." I agree and disagree at the same time. Our perceptual measurements of seconds are what we psychologically perceive as time but are not time. But the fundamental behaviors in the atoms in the clock displaying those seconds, I argue - really could be time.

      If you accept time dilation then the question becomes: what is it that is really causing these clocks to slow? If you endorse relativity according to Einstein - then good luck finding an answer. But if you look at the possibility that every atom is not only keeping its own time with its cycles (that can be measured with other observing cycles) but the cycles (behaviors) actually "are" time and things like gravity and increased velocity place a local stress that could slow the rate of these cycles compared to cycles that are not in gravity or do not accelerate to a higher velocity.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #76

      Chris,

      I did feel that my message might be moving too far from your essay's point. But I also thought that maybe it would help to emphasize that we know only about effects on objects. There are no known effects about time. The effects upon objects are recorded as patterns in changes of velocity. There is no empirical evidence to conclude that time has velocity or experiences changes of velocity.

      "... But if you look at the possibility that every atom is not only keeping its own time with its cycles (that can be measured with other observing cycles) but the cycles (behaviors) actually "are" time and things like gravity and increased velocity place a local stress that could slow the rate of these cycles compared to cycles that are not in gravity or do not accelerate to a higher velocity."

      I admit that I firmly resist the substitution of the word time for cycles of activity so long as that use of the word time is put forward as representing the property of time. Objects do what they do in time. Now the cause of their activities is important to know and it surely is not time. The cause is affected by both gravity and velocity, but, not pure velocity. It must be velocity with respect to the gravitational field. At least that is what I think and have extensive work done to support it.

      What I do see clearly is that you are pointing to a contradiction in the relativity explanation. That is a difficult enough chore without mixing my story into it. I was thinking about writing a followup message about the twin 'paradox' and what I see happening by viewing it without mixing time into it nor giving credence to special relativity. I will not write it and rather will wait. Maybe it will sometime become useful and maybe not. For now I think not.

      Physicsts like to ignore your kind of argument because they has been so successful with the mathematical models derived for relativity theory. However, I think it cannot be successfully ignored because the models don't make sense and lack empirical support for relativity's fundamental assumptions such as time dilates. Again, that is just what I think.

      James

      From: Thomas Garcia 09/10/12

      To: Nobody

      Dear Nobody, I may have understood your points better now. I am not always as bright as I like to think I am, heh.

      You and I, sitting at our desks, are observing 3 objects, 2 of which are moving at constant velocity wrt each other. The 3rd object is moving toward the first 2, at the same speed as they are moving toward object 3. In this case, I state in my essay that they all have the same time rate because they are moving at the same speed. I state also that all objects moving at the same speed will have the same time rate regardless of their location and the distance between them.

      You state that in my train example (one I did not invent), my two observers are not moving at different speeds in space, but instead it is a reciprocal illusion of time dilation that causes each observer to see the other's clock "running slow." The only illusion, however, is that each observer can see the other's clock. I do not see how that is possible, and besides that, it is not relevant to the experiment. The experiment succeeds well enough in presenting relativity's case of so-called time "dilation" as fact without that illusory observation. It serves only as a distraction, I think.

      You state that your Triplet Example shows acceleration has nothing to do with time dilations. I agree, but your example cannot be used to show the time differences incurred in the Twin Paradox because they are not the same experiments. One has acceleration in it while the other does not. The whole point of the TP is acceleration, which requires the spaceship to accelerate in order to return to earth. I will wait on our other points too so we can be clear about them.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #78

      My intention here is to learn that which I don't know. Several posts above refer to a multiplicity of frames in ways I don't clearly understand. I think science - physics for sure - uses words that are ambiguous by design at times, perhaps to hide some naked emperor's confusion.

      Frames of reference are made up to illustrate a particular scenario. To me, the Twin Paradox is a single ref. frame which has in it the earth and a location in space where one twin goes to from earth and then returns to earth and upon meeting again, he sees that the stay-at-home twin is notably older than s/he, the space-traveler twin.

      Now, all of that happens in a single frame, as I understand relativity. If that's wrong, please explain why.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #79

        Nobody to Garcia:

        Garcia wrote re the Twin Paradox:

        >Now, all of that happens in a single frame, as I understand relativity. If that's wrong, please explain why.

        Well, now I see why we are having communication problems. There are at least 2 primary frames in the Twin Paradox, and most likely 3. Anyone moving at a different velocity from you is in a different frame. ("Primary" means that we are ignoring all the frames involved in the acceleration periods.)

        2-frame case:

        Only if Earth is at absolute rest in space, and only if the traveling twin moves at the same speed through space during both trips (outward and return) will there be only 2 frames.

        3-frame case:

        But the odds are against the Earth being at absolute rest in space, so this means that the "traveling" twin (the one who leaves Earth) must travel faster or slower when he returns than when he left, so this makes 3 frames.

        Look at the last sentence on this page (the *very* last sentence):

        http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm

        Why would anyone want to involve acceleration when talking about special relativity? And acceleration makes things much more complicated.

        Garcia wrote:

        >The whole point of the TP is acceleration, which requires the spaceship to accelerate in order to return to earth.

        No, the whole point of the TP is the age difference, and this is the whole point because acceleration has no effect upon aging or intrinsic clock rates.

        http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html

        "... it has been verified experimentally up to extraordinarily high accelerations, as much as 1018 g in fact ...."

        • [deleted]

        • Post #80

        Thank you for your response, Nobody.

        It took me awhile to find where I went wrong, but I found it. It was my error in mixing up my notes and not noticing they did not match. I had just finished a long explanation why your Triplet example is a - wait for it - single frame of reference. I typed up my response, sent it, and went to bed. I am often wrong about things, unfortunately for me, so I try hard not to mess up, but this was a doozy! I could not be more embarrassed.

        One thing I need to clear up. You said "anyone moving at a different velocity than you is in a different frame." I may be wrong again, but I think it is not that simple. For one thing, we are usually observers of frames and not participants of one. Observers set the coordinates of a frame in order to measure the position, velocity, and acceleration of objects. I would say instead that any acceleration in a ref. frame creates a new frame of reference.

        You asked, "Why would anyone...involve acceleration when talking about special relativity? And acceleration makes things much more complicated."

        I would answer that it cannot be avoided. You avoid using that term by using "...a different velocity from you...." But that means the same thing, does it not? An inertial RF can have objects at rest or in motion, and an object's velocity is changed by any acceleration, as you said so yourself.

          from Thomas Garcia to Nobody

          I must disagree that the point of the TP is the age difference. To me, the whole point is Einstein's claim showing us there are time rate differences that occur between bodies when they move at different speeds. Two or more bodies moving at the same speed will accrue the same time rate.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #82

          Garcia wrote:

          --------------------

          One thing I need to clear up. You said 'anyone moving at a different velocity than you is in a different frame.' I may be wrong again, but I think it is not that simple. For one thing, we are usually observers of frames and not participants of one. Observers set the coordinates of a frame in order to measure the position, velocity, and acceleration of objects. I would say instead that any acceleration in a ref. frame creates a new frame of reference.

          --------------------

          Hello, Garcia, you are correct of course when you say that acceleration creates a new inertial frame, but, as I tried to get across, acceleration is not the important thing when talking about inertial frames. Indeed, one definition of an inertial frame is that it contains no acceleration, i.e., its observers and its objects feel no acceleration forces.

          Garcia also wrote:

          --------------------

          You asked, 'Why would anyone involve acceleration when talking about special relativity? And acceleration makes things much more complicated.'

          I would answer that it cannot be avoided. You avoid using that term by using 'a different velocity from you' But that means the same thing, does it not? An inertial RF can have objects at rest or in motion, and an objects velocity is changed by any acceleration, as you said so yourself.

          --------------------

          Garcia, did you not look at the cited web site? The whole point of using triplets was to avoid accelerations.

          http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm

          Note that this website was fully endorsed by relativity experts; it is not my site. Even these SR experts fully agree that acceleration can indeed be avoided, even in the Twin Paradox case (by simply adding another person, making it Triplets).

          Dear Criss

          I really enjoyed your essay. I have nothing more to say that I agree with your view. Right now I am having a discussion with Daniel Wagner who supports relational motion, you may be interested in reading our discussion in my essay and his. From my part I hold that there is a preferred system of reference (PSR) which obviously eliminates all paradoxes of relativity. I am sure you will find my work interesting. By reintroducing the aether and the PSR I endeavor to build a stronger model and explain most physical phenomena (see also my discussion with Jaryl Danzen about the physical interpretation of the red shift in my entry and his). I would be glad if you could make some comments in my entry. Actually, my reference 17 in my essay implies a new paradox in relation to the isotropy of the one-way speed of light according to two observers. Please feel free to take a look at the discussion with Daniel Wagner in his entry and mine where we treat these topics. I will recommend your essay to him, so he gets a deeper feeling of how paradoxical SR is.

          Congratulations for your work and best luck in the contest

          best regards

          Israel

            • [deleted]

            • Post #84

            Chris,

            JM: Like I said, if you analyze it in any given inertial frame, you get the same result for the age difference.

            CK: I'm not even sure what that means, since from the traveler's perspective, he is not in an inertial frame for the entire journey.

            Pick *any* inertial frame. It doesn't have to be a frame ever used by either twin, though it could be. For instance you could use the frame initially comoving with the twin who accelerates; after he accelerates he won't be at zero velocity in that frame any more. Analyze the situation. Solve for the difference in proper time between the twins. You will get the standard answer, if you do the math correctly.

            Or, pick any non-inertial coordinate system. Analyze it using the methods of GR like Einstein did to see things from the viewpoint of the accelerated twin. Once again you will get the same result. The wikipedia page I linked you to explains what Einstein did, which was correct and a good demonstration of the fancy methods of GR. Just as you can choose different coordinate systems in non-relativistic mechanics and get the same result, in GR you can use even non-inertial coordinate systems and still get the *same* result though you will then attribute that result to gravitational fields that don't exist in an inertial coordinate system describing the same situation. GR is like that. But you don't even understand SR so you'd better stay away from thinking too hard about GR right now.

            Well, I have tried to help you. I doubt it will do you any good. It will not be worth my time to try to help you any further because you are not open minded. Ironic but not surprising that you accuse the establishment your own failings; it happens with all crackpots.

            Regards,

            Jack

              Nobody, I searched 5 pages looking for the site, to no avail. Now this time I found it right away. It is completely different than your first one, though.

              The gist of your citation seems to be "A lot of [TP] explanations,,have claimed it is necessary to include a treatent of accelerations,or involve [GR]. Not so." In their example, they, like you, also change the TP into a different experiment by saying SR "seems" to imply that either twin can be seen as being "at rest. Then they say yes and no,and that SR's implication is the reason it is a paradox.

              Then they say "Bob must change his inertial frame" in order to avoid restating "the problem with [only] the names changed." They do not understand that is what SR says, that either twin can be at rest while the other leaves then returns! Wayne et al seems confused at this point since when they change Bob's frame on the planet, they accelerate him! But Ann is never accelerated wrt to Bob in SR's TP! Clearly, theirs is no longer the same TP experiment, and that invalidates their claims against SR's time dilation effect.

              Let's say Bob stays home. The coordinates include earth, Bob, the spaceship, and Ann. All are at rest rest relative to each other. Primary I.F. 2 shows Ann accelerating as she takes off on the ship. P.I.F. 3 shows her return trip to earth. Yes paradox.

                • [deleted]

                • Post #86

                A question like "does acceleration affect light clocks?" would definitely make for an interesting discussion, but I don't know if I can quantify anything simple right now to give a yes/no answer. I've come close, by trying a few times to visualize what it would be like for a light clock to travel through a gravitational field, and the one thing that I notice that always automatically pops up is acceleration. I'll try to fiddle around with it some more to see if this acceleration would have a secondary effect.

                I've attached a couple of pictures to illustrate the acceleration effect. The top image shows a light clock where the photon makes a 90 degree change in direction at every tick. The bottom image increases this angle based on height, and so the lower the photon goes, the closer this angle gets to 180 degrees, and the slower time runs. Just following this simple rule, one automatically gets acceleration.Attachment #1: accel.jpg

                Israel,

                Thank you. My hope is to get a discussion going on what all of the existing evidence means and what can be implied by the results of the time dilation experiments to date. I have already read Darly's essay and plan on commenting soon. I have a list of essays to read over the weekend and have added yours and Wagner's to the list.

                Jack,

                Is there something getting lost in translation here? I am still not sure what your issue is with me? A fundamental assumption that I think is wrong is Einstein's explanation for how/why time slows down (and speeds up). I outline what his twin paradox resolution proposes and show what concerns I have with his resolution.

                You appear to be offering solutions that vary from Einstein's resolution and then proceed to call me a crackpot (which I don't mind, I'm used to it).

                So - just so I am clear - are you saying that my account of Einstein's resolution is inaccurate? If so - please elaborate.

                Or are you saying that my specific criticism of Einstein's resolution is inaccurate? If so, please explain what you have an issue with.

                Or do you think I am completely missing your repeated point that there are a number of ways to solve the paradox and since they all arrive at the same mathematical result showing how much the clocks are out of sync, then they are all equally valid?

                I do not question the experimental evidence that time dilation is real. What I am interested in specifically is what the cause or mechanism is for this interesting effect. The more we learn, the more we will learn what "time" really is.

                But the problem with multiple mathematical methods to get the same result is that they can't all be what is truly, physically happening. For example, if I want to find out how the human body synthesizes dopamine from tyrosine using tyrosine hydroxylase and DOPA decarboxylase enzymes, I am specifically interested in which atoms are added, removed or rearranged on the molecules. Sure - I could put some tyrosine in a beaker and show a dozen different ways to synthesize dopamine from it, and they would all be valid obviously, but if my goal is to find out what is happening with this specific enzymatic pathway - then I am looking for a specific step by step explanation. A simpler example would be the police investigating an incident involving a suspect. The lying suspect provides a mathematical timeline that insists he drove 40 mph the long way home and explains a plausible route that puts him nowhere near the scene of the crime. Another more direct route is also mathematically possible where he would have arrived after driving 30 mph - this route would have put him at the scene of the crime. His problem however is that his tire tracks put him at the scene of the crime. When it comes to relativity Jack, I'm interested in the what the tire tracks indicate.