Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby ralfcis on August 30th, 2017, 10:14 am 

Relativity is about a set of assumptions that made predictions that supported the assumptions. A lot of science works with these "circular" arguments and other theories stand by their assumptions without having to revisit them every time. Relativity is always hedging its bets and saying well we're not really sure if the results do support the assumptions but it looks pretty good. That's all my comment is about. I want more definitive, out on a limb type answers without all the legal semantics that have to cover every possible scenario. I understand way more than you give me credit for, enough to not accept certain parts.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 618
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby BurtJordaan on August 30th, 2017, 10:59 am 

ralfcis » 30 Aug 2017, 16:14 wrote:I understand way more than you give me credit for, enough to not accept certain parts.

I sincerely hope you understand more than what I gave you credit for. :)
It does however confirm that there are parts you don't understand, which in itself is not a crime against science. But to get stuck while still in special relativity is sad, because it blocks you from a whole universe of science out there.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby BurtJordaan on August 30th, 2017, 1:13 pm 

ralfcis » 30 Aug 2017, 16:14 wrote:Relativity is always hedging its bets and saying well we're not really sure if the results do support the assumptions but it looks pretty good.

Where on earth did you get this bizarre idea from?

Relativity don't 'bet'. Its predicts and is then either falsified or confirmed by observation. So far, only the latter has happened.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby Dave_Oblad on August 30th, 2017, 1:19 pm 

Hi all,

Einstein Cheat: Put two clocks inside a moving spaceship together in the center and sync them with each other. Now separate them with one clock to the front and the other towards the rear. Attach a photon detector to both clocks. A photon will then be measured to take the same time to transit front to rear as rear to front by these synced clocks.

Obviously the clock moving forward is moving slightly faster than the ship and the clock moving towards the rear is moving slightly slower than the ship.. for the duration of the clocks transit times. Thus the forward clock will lose a bit of time and rearwards clock will gain a bit of time. This calibrates the clocks to measure the one-way speed of light in both directions as being identical.

This proves nothing. It has been suggested many times that if you move the clocks SLOWLY enough apart, it will have no effect on their being synced with each other. That is absolute nonsense. It will make absolutely no difference if you separated them in 5 milliseconds or 5 days. You can't cheat the Universe. Moving the clocks apart calibrates them to measure one-way speed c as being identical in both directions. It's extremely logical and obvious why this works as such.

The primary fallacy here is that if one moves the clocks apart SLOWLY enough.. it doesn't affect their synchronization! This is what Ralfcis is referring to. It's as pure a BS statement as one can make, but I have seen this many times as an accepted concept to prove the one-way speed of light is always the same as the two-way speed of light cut in half.

I likened it to the idea of proving that "All dogs run at the same speed" in any race to a finish line... (if you give the slower dog an appropriate head start).. lol.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Photon's puzzle (non-mainstream)

Postby BurtJordaan on August 30th, 2017, 3:20 pm 

Hi Dave.

You of all people here should know better than to post such an unscientific view on the physics sub-forum! Anyway, this part is now in "personal", so you are free to express your 'absolute framer' views. ;)

Dave_Oblad » 30 Aug 2017, 19:19 wrote:The primary fallacy here is that if one moves the clocks apart SLOWLY enough.. it doesn't affect their synchronization! This is what Ralfcis is referring to. It's as pure a BS statement as one can make, but I have seen this many times as an accepted concept to prove the one-way speed of light is always the same as the two-way speed of light cut in half.

The scientific view is that if you move both clocks at the same speed relative to the inertially moving spaceship (one to the front and one to the rear), they will remain in perfect sync, irrespective of how fast you do the moving.

If you move only one clock, the 'moved clock' will end up slightly behind the 'unmoved clock' in time (when you recheck their sync), irrespective of into which direction you have made the move. If you do this move slowly enough, you will not be able to measure any difference in sync. I think this is what Ralf referred to.

This has been done and confirmed in experiments here on earth.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby bangstrom on August 31st, 2017, 2:03 am 

Dave_Oblad » August 30th, 2017, 12:19 pm wrote:
Obviously the clock moving forward is moving slightly faster than the ship and the clock moving towards the rear is moving slightly slower than the ship.. for the duration of the clocks transit times.

The difference in speeds is only obvious to a stationary observer but not to an observer moving with the ship and the perspective of the observer on the ship is the only one that matters. The rest of what you say about the speed at which you move the clocks making no difference makes sense.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 317
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby ralfcis on August 31st, 2017, 4:22 am 

OMG! I'm just going to continue on my own merry way.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 618
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby ralfcis on August 31st, 2017, 4:35 am 

Nope I just can't walk away. Inside the moving ship IS the stationary frame relative to the moving clocks. If you separate the clocks at the same speed, there will be no twin paradox induced age difference between the two clocks but they will have both aged slower by the same amount relative to a clock bolted to the chassis of the moving ship which is the same thing as moving only 1 of the clocks.

Relative velocity and a stop induces age difference which is manifest as a permanent time difference between clocks. Relative velocity is different if clocks are moving toward, away or with each other but if they're moving the same distance in the same time, all 3 relative velocities will yield 0 age difference. You can rage against and argue all you want about this fact or you can draw the STD's for yourself.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 618
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby BurtJordaan on August 31st, 2017, 10:47 am 

Ralf, this is your big chance. Convince these guys of the utility of their clinging to some form of absolute frame.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby ralfcis on September 1st, 2017, 7:09 am 

Did you mean futility? I think that would be futile until there was some understanding of what relative velocity means and that would take a whole contentious thread to explain it (and I'd be booted before I'd get to the punch line anyway). Even if I got to the end there would still remain understanding the difference between an absolute reference frame and a common stationary reference frame between 2 participants.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 618
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby BurtJordaan on September 1st, 2017, 12:35 pm 

Yea, I meant to write 'futility', thanks for correcting.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 10th, 2017, 5:16 am 

Hi Jorrie,

Jorrie wrote:The scientific view is that if you move both clocks at the same speed relative to the inertially moving spaceship (one to the front and one to the rear), they will remain in perfect sync, irrespective of how fast you do the moving.

Sorry, I am going to have to disagree with this assessment stated in the quote above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

Wiki wrote:According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation, has been confirmed in many tests of special relativity, such as the Ives–Stilwell experiment and time dilation of moving particles. Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground.

Case in point: Two super clocks in center of spaceship. Using the spaceship floor, mark a grid for distance. Using this grid.. move both clocks in opposite directions at the same exact speed relative to the floor grid. Both clocks will reach the target of say 50 grid units apart simultaneously.. right? You claim that they will remain in sync.

This is inconsistent with the Hafele–Keating experiment. Take the distance between (say) Seattle and New York and find the exact center point between them. Now fly two jets, each with super clocks, towards each target city at exactly the same ground speed (the grid in the spaceship reference). When both jets reach their destination.. simultaneously.. their clocks will NOT be in sync because the one going West had a shorter space-time path than the jet going East.

For this proven concept.. the actual reality is that on the spaceship version: the clock moving towards the front will be subject to a slightly longer space-time path than the clock moved towards the rear and thus.. the clocks can NOT remain in sync. And the speed used to separate them has no consequence, of course.

You can't fool the Universe!

Think about it! You cannot move one clock forward and the other clock backwards, even at an exact perfect matching velocity for both.. and still make the statement that both have traveled the exact same space-time path.. distance wise.. and that's the whole point behind the Twin Paradox.

Right?

Or..

Imagine a Bus 40 feet long parked dead center on the 0 yard line. Imagine Jack and Jill are standing dead center in the bus, right over the 0 yard line. Now the bus drives to the other end and parks directly dead center over the 100 yard line. During the trip.. both Jack and Jill walked to the ends of the bus such that both arrived at the ends at the same time the bus arrived dead center at the 100 yard line. Jack waked towards the front and Jill walked towards the rear. When the bus stopped, Jack had traveled 120 yards while Jill had traveled 80 yards. Get it? Their space-time paths were not equal.. even if their distance and speed traveled inside and relative to the bus.. was exactly the same.

Note: The same would be true.. even if the bus never changed speed.. just start Jack and Jill on their separate trips forward and rearwards when the bus center was at the zero yard line and the experiment was photographed when the bus center line passed over the 100 yard line. The bus was inertial for the duration of the experiment.

Clock dilation is a direct response to space-time path differentials. Thus the clocks can NOT remain in sync because of the differential in their respective space-time paths.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby BurtJordaan on September 10th, 2017, 10:58 am 

Hi Dave, I think we had this before, but I could not readily find it.

Dave_Oblad » 10 Sep 2017, 11:16 wrote:Case in point: Two super clocks in center of spaceship. Using the spaceship floor, mark a grid for distance. Using this grid.. move both clocks in opposite directions at the same exact speed relative to the floor grid. Both clocks will reach the target of say 50 grid units apart simultaneously.. right? You claim that they will remain in sync.

Yes - absolutely. ;)

This is inconsistent with the Hafele–Keating experiment.

That it is consistent, seems to be one of the more difficult relativistic concepts to get over to non-relativists. It probably warrants a complete thread in physics, but I will give you the (really) short version here.

The spaceship that we were talking about sits motionless in an inertial frame. The two clocks being identically moved from the center to the front and rear respectively, follow equivalent spacetime paths, because they had to be identically accelerated, just with opposite signs. This means that they would have recorded identical proper times for the whole movement. So, once they are 'parked' in the nose and in the tail respectively, how can they not be in sync?

The two Hafele–Keating aircraft-clocks did not follow equivalent spacetime paths relative to the inertial frame of the center of Earth, which now takes the place of the ship's center. Earth's surface is neither inertial, nor stationary in any inertial frame and the two aircraft were not moving equivalently in Earth's inertial frame, for obvious reasons.[a]

Two satellites orbiting in equal, but exactly opposite directions, do not show any difference in clock readings each time when they pass each other. They can't care less about Earth's rotation below them, or in which direction they are moving relative to the universe at large. If the orbits are perfect, they stay in sync. We depend on this very fact every time that we use GPS.

-=-

[a] The two aircraft, after correcting for any altitude, speed and speed-change differences, suffered nonequivalent proper accelerations (as would have been measured by on-board g-meters), because they would have experienced different centrifugal forces in steady flight. This causes a nonequivalence in spacetime paths and hence unequal elapsed proper time for circumnavigating the Earth. If Earth was not rotating, the difference would have disappeared.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)
Braininvat liked this post


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 10th, 2017, 10:27 pm 

Hi Jorrie,

Jorrie wrote:Two satellites orbiting in equal, but exactly opposite directions, do not show any difference in clock readings each time when they pass each other. They can't care less about Earth's rotation below them, or in which direction they are moving relative to the universe at large.

In fact.. absolutely not true. You are describing an ideal situation, but because the gravity field around the Earth is very warped and asymmetrical.. then it is impossible to maintain perfect clocks without continuous adjustments.. which follow a schedule.. that is uploaded to the satellites periodically.

But back on point.. as with the Bus analogy:

The clocks are both following a shared space-time path when co-located in the center of the spaceship.. and except in the singular case of a ship standing still relative to local space.. once the clocks are moved apart.. they no longer can share the exact same space-time path and therefore.. can not possibly remain in sync. It's a miniature version of the Twin Paradox.

Let's exaggerate this analogy a bit to prove my point:

Imagine the ship is a million miles long with both clocks sitting dead center. The ship is rapidly approaching another ship with Alice on board. As the center of the ship passes Alice, she sends her time to both clocks and a huge explosion blows the clocks in opposite directions at identical velocities down the shaft of the ship. The explosion is calculated to accelerate the rearward clock to remain locally stationary with Alice.

Therefore.. we will note that the rearward clock is keeping exact time with Alice's clock just outside the ship.

Just milliseconds before both clocks hit their respective end stops.. their clocks are recorded by the ship for eventual comparison.

You (Jorrie) would have us believe both clocks will read the same time and be in sync.

But this is the Twin Paradox Experiment which will predict the forward going Clock will have been running slower than Alice's clock and Alice's clock has been running at the same rate as the rearward moving clock, since the distance between Alice's clock and the rearward moving clock is unchanging.

Thus, either the Twin Paradox Experiment (predicted by Relativity) is incorrect.. or.. you are wrong ;)

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby BurtJordaan on September 11th, 2017, 5:36 am 

Dave_Oblad » 11 Sep 2017, 04:27 wrote:You are describing an ideal situation, but because the gravity field around the Earth is very warped and asymmetrical.. then it is impossible to maintain perfect clocks without continuous adjustments.. which follow a schedule.. that is uploaded to the satellites periodically.

This is irrelevant for the case, firstly because two satellites following equal and opposite equatorial orbits, suffer the same irregularities of the gravitational field. And secondly, if not equatorial, like in the case of the two aircraft, it is easy to compensate for those irregularities and then compare whatever differential is left - for all practical purposes, zero.

The two clocks that you have "blasted" apart in the spaceship will give exactly the same result in the spaceship frame (identical elapsed times). They will show less elapsed time than the ship's master clocks though. Just like standard (non-rate compensated) LEO satellite clocks show less elapsed time than NASA's master clocks on the ground.

Your attempt to equate the two 'blasted' spaceship clocks to the classical twin paradox thought experiment is flawed. To be equivalent, you would have to 'blast' only one clock to the far end of the ship, where you would have found it has recorded less proper time than the clock still sitting at the center, irrespective of which one you blasted (meaning in which direction the acceleration was).

If the 'classical' Alice and Bob twins started in the same inertial frame and then they were both identically accelerated away from each other, the situation would be just like both your clocks being "blasted". If only Alice was accelerated, then she will end up younger at the end of whatever test is devised. I know that this has always bothered you Dave_O, so I will try to give you some 'crutch'.

The difficult thing to get over is that once Alice and Bob have spent time together (for long enough[a]), there exists a "common inertial frame" for them. In this inertial frame, differences in spacetime paths can be directly measured and hence differences in elapsed times are known in some "absolute way". Why? Because inertial frames are all equivalent, as many, many experiments have confirmed.[b]

If Alice and Bob have spent only an instant together (like when passing each other), this common inertial frame is not established, because an unlimited number of other observers, all stationary in different inertial frames, could also have been present at that instant. So the two of them sticking together for some time is a key ingredient for a common inertial frame. In a way, that "common inertial frame" takes over the role of "absolute inertial frame" of your view. Once you have 'made the switch', you will never have to look back. I promise. ;)

As this argument shows, the "single absolute frame for all" view leads you to conclusions that are against SR/GR (GR includes SR fully), which have stood a century of observation remarkably well.

-=-

[a] Each inertial frame has a hyperbolic spacetime structure that keeps the spacetime interval between two events common (the same) for all frames. When a frame is suddenly accelerated, it distorts the spacetime structure of the accelerated observer and the distortion essentially propagates at 'c' as viewed by any inertial frame. If an observer accelerates to become stationary in the inertial frame of another observer, their spacetime structures will line up everywhere, but that takes time, for the same reason.

[b] Relativity alone does not quite tell us why this is so. Maybe there is quantum-gravitational view that gives a "why", but I don't know about it and if there is one, I will probably not understand it. I only got fully convinced of the futility of searching for an 'absolute frame' after I have studied cosmology. I then realized why the "inertial frame of the universe at large", i.e. the frame in which the CMB has the same temperature in all directions, is nothing more than just another inertial frame. But that's a longish story, so I'll leave it for now.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 11th, 2017, 1:55 pm 

Hi Jorrie,

Jorrie wrote:This is irrelevant for the case, firstly because two satellites following equal and opposite equatorial orbits, suffer the same irregularities of the gravitational field. And secondly, if not equatorial, like in the case of the two aircraft, it is easy to compensate for those irregularities and then compare whatever differential is left - for all practical purposes, zero.

Seriously? Only if the Ground coordinates below is exactly the same each time they pass each other. Otherwise.. as they pass.. one could be just coming from an extended gravity intensity field while the other is just coming from a weaker gravity field. Because of this FACT.. all GPS satellites do not transmit their exact current clock. Their Transmitted Time is regulated/adjusted from their actual Clock Time.. on a continuously sliding schedule.. to make up for issues with the Earths Gravitation Field and orbital irregularities.

You should know this.

Jorrie wrote:The difficult thing to get over is that once Alice and Bob have spent time together (for long enough[a]), there exists a "common inertial frame" for them.

Again.. are you kidding me? Just how long.. is long enough? That is pure BS. The very Instant Two Movers join locally at zero differential velocity, they are Instantly in the SAME Frame, and all the hand waving in the world can't dispute that simple fact.

As far as the Twin Paradox:

Acceleration is just a means to an end. You have taught me that if the away Twin could accelerate instantly, it would make no difference. The only thing that matters is the space-time path difference between them. To make the point.. you offered a scenario of using three players (Alice, Bob, Charlie) with clock hand offs such that no one changes speed and the age differential still manifests. So.. as soon as the rearward clock matches position with Alice and both clocks are synced to Alice's time on passing the ships center starting point.. then we have the first leg representation of the Triple version of the Twin Paradox.

And you also Know this.

When Both clocks are blasted apart and synced to Alice's clock.. and both clocks are sampled and recorded just before they reach their end stops.. This forward moving clock would be the exact same time Charlie would have recorded from Bob at the hand off in the Triple Version of the Twin Paradox (given the clock separation velocity matches the same as Bob Vs Alice in the Triple play Version). And you know perfectly well.. the forward moving clock will not read the same as Alice's clock.. which has read the same as the rearward Clock since the clocks separated.

This is a perfectly sound and logical argument based on your teachings.. and again.. you know it. You are not debating me.. you are debating yourself. You have taken two simultaneous positions that exclude each other as being true.

Please explain how you can adopt two opposing views simultaneously.. that's a neat trick :P

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby BurtJordaan on September 11th, 2017, 4:57 pm 

Hi Dave, I'm not sure what the problem is: either you do not properly read what I wrote, or you don't comprehend. I think it is the former. And you should perhaps read up a bit on how the GPS system functions...

I said just like Hafele and Keating could compensate for the known parameters of their respective flights, it is trivial to compensate for satellite clock discrepancies after the measurement due to orbital differences. Obviously, two satellites can't be in exactly equal, but opposing orbits...

BTW, GPS satellites do transmit their real clock time to our GPS receivers. Once every two orbits, each one is synchronized with the master clock at Colorado springs, due to orbits that are not precise and can cause a small drift in clock sync's over time. The drift during one orbit is rather negligible.

Dave_O wrote:
Jorrie wrote:The difficult thing to get over is that once Alice and Bob have spent time together (for long enough[a]), there exists a "common inertial frame" for them.

Again.. are you kidding me? Just how long.. is long enough?

I thought I have explained that sufficiently in endnote [a], but it was obviously not the case. Since the change in Alice's inertial state can only spread (become known to the rest of the universe) at the speed of light, you need to give enough time to cover the spatial span of the test. E.g. if Alice traveled one light year away from Bob before she "jumped" back into Bob's inertial frame, Bob can only know about her changed status (and their resulting age difference) one year later.

He would still not know if Alice did not perhaps sped away again soon thereafter, so the only absolute way for them to know age differences, is if she would return to him.

Dave_O wrote:To make the point.. you offered a scenario of using three players (Alice, Bob, Charlie) with clock hand offs such that no one changes speed and the age differential still manifests.

In that case we had to wait for Charlie to arrive at Bob. Even a longer time delay. In any case, there was nothing said about "aging" at that 'time handoff point'. All that could be determined is that at the end of the 'test', the elapsed time on Bob's clock was more than and the sum of the two elapsed times of Alice and Charlie for their respective legs. Because in Bob's inertial frame, the other two did a "frame jump", which constitutes a spacetime path that differs from Bob's in a defined way, translating into less elapsed proper time.

After all the unnecessary red herrings, let's get back to your original scenario. Say at a small distance before each of the "kicked" clocks come to a crunching halt against the front and rear bulkheads respectively, they signal their clock readings to an observer sitting in the center of the inertial ship. The two two signals will arrive simultaneously and they will both state the same time.

I know that any full-blooded 'absolute framer' will firstly argue that the two signals will not arrive simultaneously and if they perhaps do, that they will not state the same time. All that I can say to that, is good luck to them, because "nature can't be fooled".

-J
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 12th, 2017, 12:00 am 

Thanks Jorrie,

Jorrie wrote:I thought I have explained that sufficiently in endnote [a], but it was obviously not the case. Since the change in Alice's inertial state can only spread (become known to the rest of the universe) at the speed of light, you need to give enough time to cover the spatial span of the test. E.g. if Alice traveled one light year away from Bob before she "jumped" back into Bob's inertial frame, Bob can only know about her changed status (and their resulting age difference) one year later.

He would still not know if Alice did not perhaps sped away again soon thereafter, so the only absolute way for them to know age differences, is if she would return to him.

That is pretty obvious, but we are talking mere feet and not light years as the separation between Alice and the Rearward clock. And for the sake of this discussion, it is assumed the rearward clock and Alice share the same frame and their clocks have been shared/synced. Now all we have to consider is the Forward moving clock has distance increasing from Alice/RearClock. Thus Alice/RearClock and the forward moving clock do not share the same frame as distance is increasing between them at a specific rate.

This obviously represents the Triple Player version of the Twin Paradox where our focus is just on the outbound trip of Bob/ForwardClock. It is obvious, due to a non-shared space-time path length, that the two clocks cannot remain in sync. For all intents and purposes, the ship and it's history are dismissed leaving two clocks as Alice and the Forward moving clock. This is the first leg of the Twin Paradox. Unfortunately, the only solution you may adopt in defense involves resorting to Absolutism. Traditional Relativity is not on your side here, as it requires a round trip on Bob's part (forward moving clock).. as if nothing counts until the round trip is completed.

Also..

You must know that the Atomic Clock on a GPS satellite Varies all over the map due to variations in the Local Gravity Potential, Velocity and Orbital irregularities. Thus, that Atomic Clock is used to access a correction Table to transmit an idealize timestamp, with the irregularities removed. The GPS satellite Atomic Clock is never adjusted or altered or ever transmitted.. as it stands. It is subject to all the influences that Relativity throws at it. The ideal GPS did not work out of the proverbial box.. it had to be kludged into working. And that was/is most easily done in software.. rather that trying to adjust the physics of an atomic clock. In fact, in retrospect, it was a complete waste of time to try to make the Atomic Clock operate at an ideal frequency.. all it had to be was: as stable as physics allows.

Now.. I am just as guilty as many others in using the GPS system as a shining example of Relativity in action.. But Truth be known.. it is one of the most complicated systems man has devised.. and it works.. not because of the ideals it represents.. but because it was heavily kludged into working.

Anyway, I always thought Relativity only needed to know the Relative Velocity between two movers.. this is not true (hence the Twin Paradox) and when I asked you how this fact was covered in a Physics Exam.. You told me that the common solution is to: "Split the Difference". That made me cringe.. because it obviously has no bearing on Reality.

This "split the difference" is exactly what you are doing when you contend that separating two moving clocks still allows them to remain in sync. If this was even possible.. then the Twin Paradox wouldn't exist. It's that simple.

Now, I am sorry to put you in a position to defend Traditional Relativity.. but any theory that contains a Paradox is simply flawed. If I am traveling at 0.86c then my clocks will be ticking at a very specific rate.. regardless of any other movers. If I know the exact velocity, relative to light speed, of another mover.. then I also know the exact rate of their clock. Knowing the exact Rate of both clocks allows me to define the differential between them.. very simple (excluding gravity of course).

This makes me an Absolute Relativist. I'm fine with that because, as such, there are no Paradoxes in this approach. No.. splitting the difference.. so to speak. The Logic presented above is valid. Anyone with a modicum of understanding should see my logic and no amount of hand waving, misdirection or personal sleights will help.

Again.. you are not debating me.. you are debating yourself. I am merely pointing out that you are trying to embrace two contradictory principles you have held over time. That doesn't work for me.

Anyway, I've made my case with perfect logic. If you want to disengage then feel free to do so.. as I tire of repeating my perfectly logical position.

If you want to continue.. then let's wait until I have access to my computer because it has notes and quotes of importance from many contributors, especially you. Meanwhile.. I am using my friends computer to login here as mine is still in storage.. until escrow closes on my new house here in Tucson Arizona.

Highest Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby BurtJordaan on September 12th, 2017, 6:46 am 

Hi Dave, I have a commitment that will take some time, but I'll give you brief answer. More later.

Dave_Oblad » 12 Sep 2017, 06:00 wrote:And for the sake of this discussion, it is assumed the rearward clock and Alice share the same frame and their clocks have been shared/synced. Now all we have to consider is the Forward moving clock has distance increasing from Alice/RearClock. Thus Alice/RearClock and the forward moving clock do not share the same frame as distance is increasing between them at a specific rate.

We assumed that the explosion was symmetrical in the spaceship frame and hence the two clocks instantly move away from the center of the ship at speed +-v/c, ship's frame. And the question was asked for the ship's frame. Whatever Alice does, can't influence the results in the ship's frame.

If you do not like the 'extra' central ship observer, let's put static ship observers at the front and rear (with their clocks synchronized in the ship frame). They can directly read the two clocks and then communicated the readings to each other - the readings will be same of course.

If you want to analyze it in Alice's frame, the 'explosion' is no longer symmetrical and it is tougher, but still relativistically straightforward with a Lorentz transformation. While I do not have time now, maybe you can put in a few values and work out what the times of the two end-stop hits will be as observed in Alice's frame.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby BurtJordaan on September 13th, 2017, 3:14 pm 

Hi Dave, I think you know me better than to think I will let a chance to relativistically educate you simply 'fly by'. You are so close to 'seeing the light' that I simply can't give up on you now! ;)

Einstein warned from the start of the so-called 'twin paradox' that people must must look at the wider theory before jumping to conclusions about 'contradictions'. Fact is, there are none in relativity - it is just people fooling themselves.

I'll continue if you can find the time to come up with some concrete calculations - then perhaps we can better discuss the place where things are going wrong.

I'm more or less through the crisis with a sick grandchild - everything turned out OK, so time at the keyboard is a little more available now.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 14th, 2017, 2:27 am 

Hi Jorrie,

Saddened to hear about the Grandchild.. Happy to hear that all's turned out well.

Selling my previous house has turned into a boondoggle of red tape because several outdated liens are still held by the banks for loans long paid off.. but I have learned that banks are very reluctant to absolve such.. especially in a timely fashion. Can't buy my new house until I sell my old house. Both my Buyer (previous house) and Seller (next house) are about to walk away from the table.. if I don't close Escrow soon (no liens). Meanwhile the banks want to do everything by Snail Mail.

Banks should not have any right to hold a Lien after a debt is paid.. but they do.. just in case you die.. they can grab some of your property under some circumstances. Crooked S.O.B.s... I'm so stressed out.

Anyway...

Let me ask a question I believe I already know the answer to..

Two movers are said to share a frame if:
A: Their clocks are running at the same rate.
B: The distance between them is a constant.
C: Both A & B.
D: Other.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby BurtJordaan on September 14th, 2017, 3:28 am 

Hi Dave, yea Banks and the property Laws together can be a tough one to crack. I guess once a loan is fully paid, one should immediately get the "Title Deed" (our system's term) back in your own hands.

Dave_O wrote:Two movers are said to share a frame if:
A: Their clocks are running at the same rate.
B: The distance between them is a constant.
C: Both A & B.
D: Other.

Without the sort of frame specified, this is not answerable. In physics there are many types of 'frames' (more correctly 'coordinate systems') and the answer will differ between them. So not to waste time, what type are you interested in? Inertial frame, rotating frame, accelerated frame, or other?
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby BurtJordaan on September 14th, 2017, 4:35 am 

Dave_Oblad » 12 Sep 2017, 06:00 wrote:The ideal GPS did not work out of the proverbial box.. it had to be kludged into working. And that was/is most easily done in software.. rather that trying to adjust the physics of an atomic clock. In fact, in retrospect, it was a complete waste of time to try to make the Atomic Clock operate at an ideal frequency.. all it had to be was: as stable as physics allows.

On the contrary, it is extremely important that the GPS clocks run at the corrected rates, so that they agree with "GPS time" as closely as possible at all times. And the satellites do send their raw timestamp down to earth, together with correction data for their clock and position. The ground sets apply these corrections in their nav algorithms.

All later Block satellites were rate-adjusted in the factory to compensate for the relativistic effects of their ideal orbits. Data uploads happen only once a day for each satellite, so they have to complete two orbits before getting new correction data (for small orbital errors and very tiny clock drifts). This simply cannot tolerate clocks that were not rate-adjusted prior to launch - huge navigation errors would have build up on the ground.

The main reason for sending data up, is to synchronize all the satellite clocks, because that is the crucial thing that makes GPS work. The latest Blocks (from IIF, I think) have technology built in so that the satellites can communicate with one another in order to remain clock-sync'd (or at least update their own correction data tables). They were designed to operate within tolerance for 180 days without updates from the ground. (Neil Ashby, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.12942%2Flrr-2003-1.pdf.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby BurtJordaan on September 14th, 2017, 12:15 pm 

Dave_Oblad » 12 Sep 2017, 06:00 wrote:Again.. you are not debating me.. you are debating yourself. I am merely pointing out that you are trying to embrace two contradictory principles you have held over time. That doesn't work for me.


Dave, I'm sorry to say, but your habit of quoting a few partial comments here and there, without showing the context in which they were made, does not work for me either. I cannot recall any cases where I have held contradictory principles up as representing relativity. Such may the case in your perception of what I wrote, possibly due to my inability to express true mathematical relativity in words.

Let's face it, relativity is a mathematical theory, which gives us the ability to pre-calculate the outcomes of experiments to much better accuracy than what we can ever measure them. Many equivalents of the experiment for which you argue against the outcome, have been done many times, with better en better precision. Technically they are called tests for 'violation of Lorentz invariance', e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502097.

If your logic was right, your scenario would have been an easy test to demonstrate a violation of Lorentz invariance.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby Positor on September 14th, 2017, 7:42 pm 

Dave,

Can you please address this point (my underlining):

BurtJordaan » September 12th, 2017, 11:46 am wrote:We assumed that the explosion was symmetrical in the spaceship frame and hence the two clocks instantly move away from the center of the ship at speed +-v/c, ship's frame. And the question was asked for the ship's frame. Whatever Alice does, can't influence the results in the ship's frame.
Positor
Member
 
Posts: 998
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby ralfcis on September 15th, 2017, 7:13 am 

Dave asked

Dave_O wrote:
Two movers are said to share a frame if:
A: Their clocks are running at the same rate.
B: The distance between them is a constant.
C: Both A & B.
D: Other.



And Jorrie "answered"



Without the sort of frame specified, this is not answerable. In physics there are many types of 'frames' (more correctly 'coordinate systems') and the answer will differ between them. So not to waste time, what type are you interested in? Inertial frame, rotating frame, accelerated frame, or other?


I don't understand why Jorrie continually uses this tactic to avoid direct answers to specific questions by claiming to be ignorant of the context of the question and it not being specific enough. Maybe in academic circles this precision is a prerequisite but not on a forum discussion which would only be bogged down by relativistic legal jargon. You know very well what he's asking so just answer the question. Even if you're (heaven forbid) mistaken he can clarify later. Thanks though for a perfect example of what I've been facing since 2008.

And Dave, learn some friggin algebra. You claim to be a mathematician and a scientist but, I'm sorry, the boolean and computer varieties just don't mean a hill of beans here. It's obvious to me, and I can't see why no one else calls you out on this, that you have absolutely no idea what relative velocity means. This is just the source of your many problems in comprehension but I'm going to help you out with the first one as soon as I find the time. I'm going to write a whole thread on the meaning of relative velocity. But you're going to have to learn some friggin algebra to follow the STD's as I won't be entertaining any of your wiki quotes or those from your panel of scientists from the future.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 618
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Photon's puzzle - off mainstream replies

Postby BurtJordaan on September 15th, 2017, 12:23 pm 

ralfcis » 15 Sep 2017, 13:13 wrote:I don't understand why Jorrie continually uses this tactic to avoid direct answers to specific questions by claiming to be ignorant of the context of the question and it not being specific enough.

If you were aware of Dave_O's reluctance to recognize the difference between a centrifuge experiment and an inertial frame experiment, you may have understood my reluctance.

I don't think Dave_O has a problem with the algebra - it simply does not solve the problem for him. He is a self-proclaimed 'absolute framer' and I still have hopes of "converting" him. ;)
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)



Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests