LAUGHED OUT OF COURT

123...,


They agreed to stipulate instantaneous acceleration theoretically so as to start all clocks at the same instant. They did their calculations and soon realized this was going to be a problem and then stop lthe test because they refused to the stipulation of simultaneous stopping. Since the question was related only to the mathematics of the time dilation affect of linear velocity, I still contend that it can be stipulated. That is in fact the only way one can use the formula to calculate time dilation.

I absolutely agree that using Relativity calculations to stop the clocks actually eliminates detecting any dilation during the test. But the logic is this.

If you consider Relativity valid then you know what the tilation should be so you set those figures as stop times for the clocks.
If Relativity works then the times will correctly stop the clocks at the same instant. If it doesn't would won't know the difference but regardless of the validity of doing so to assume Relativity valid yields the correct stop times. This then allows you as a believer in Relativity to assume yur calculated data is valid and to then test the theory.

Having done so then shows relativity can be possible because the clocks end up with different time losses for each clock. That is physical clocks must posses multiple times when broght back for a side by side comparison.

It clearly defeats proving that the calculated dilation is correct but it assumes Relativity valid, which they shouldn't object and permits the conclusion of the test.

It was my way of forcing the stipulation which I feel could have been made in the first instance.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>But does time dilation and space contraction really happen?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

They really happen in SR. They do not happen in LR. In the latter, only clocks and meter sticks are affected, but not space and time themselves.

So all experiments agree there is a real effect. The interpretation of it is theory-dependent.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>maybe you can agree if I say the effects are effectively non-existent?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't see any useful meaning to "non-existent" here. The "effects" are real enough. Interpreting them is always the problem. If SR is used to interpret them, then time dilation is the cause of the real effects.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>As for internal consistency, ... when two observers are moving relative to one another, can't they both act as the rest frame to each other simultaneously since if they are moving inertially, there's no way for either to know who is moving?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Correct.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If so, aren't they both contracting in length and dilating in time, at the same time?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Not exactly. According to SR, from observer A's frame, time in observer B's frame experiences "slippage" and "dilation". And according to observer B's frame, time is normal in frame B but observer A's frame experiences slippage and dilation. The combination of slippage and dilation allows all clock readings in both frames to be consistent with each observer's predictions.

The theory is highly anti-intuitive, but internally consistent. Those who don't want to have their concept of "time" so fractured should stick with LR, which allows the existence of a universal time.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How do you synchronize the start and stop of the countdowns for the 3 clock experiment? If you send signals from Earth to the spaceships, they would arrive at different times so the countdowns won't be syncrhonized. So whether you use SR or something else, you have to end up adjusting the clocks on board to synchrnoze the start and stop countdown.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In SR, clocks have to be synchronized using "Einstein synchronization". A light signal is sent from A's clock to B's clock and back again. Then the clocks are declared synchronized if the reading on clock B at signal reflection time agrees with the average of the two readings on A's clock at transmission and final reception times.

Note that enforcing this definition of "synchronized" guarantees that the speed of light is constant in both directions, regardless of what "reality" might be.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>But there would be no time dilation or length contraction detected after proper adjustments because SR doesn't effectively predict any (it just goes through a more tedious process in explaining the non-effect).<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't understand. The effect is real, and SR predicts it correctly. If one of two twins takes off on a high-speed round trip, that twin will return younger than the one that stayed behind.

Three-clock effects are likewise predicted, provided that one uses Einstein synchronization between each pair of clocks. -|Tom|-

I deleted a post by accident, oops. Well, I don't think there are any experiments that have been performed outside a gravitational field so SR time dilation effects, as interpreted by SR, has no experimental basis. I think I'll just leave it at that.

I have read many of your articles and find them very interesting,
Dr. Flandern (else I wouldn't have wondered into this forum;))
Your Speed of Gravity arguments though are by far your best work,
imo. The reasoning behind why gravity effects should be considered
faster than light is very effective.

As to the twin's paradox, Einstein himself probably thought it was a paradox since according to him, the principle of inertia is a "circular argument".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: None of these things can be checked by experiment. They are either premises, or flow directly from the premises. It has been shown repeatedly they lead to no contradictions, but often lead to paradoxes because they do violence to our intuitive notion of time.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That means you can't tell the difference between SR and LR by using light-speed or slower experiments of any kind.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: They really happen in SR. They do not happen in LR. In the latter, only clocks and meter sticks are affected, but not space and time themselves. So all experiments agree there is a real effect. The interpretation of it is theory-dependent.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The effects are real. The physical interpretations of the two theories are different.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: Now, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you contradicting yourself? Weren't you in both instances talking about time dilation effects, and SR in general?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I was contrasting SR and LR. The real changes in clocks observed in experiments are interpreted as time dilation in SR, and are interpreted as clock-slowing in LR. Once you grasp what SR really means (and that is not an easy thing to do), you will see that there is no contradiction. But SR always seems paradoxical before one grasps the weirdness of the time concept in SR.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>it's not possible for either Twin to know who had accelerated and should act as the reference frame. Hence, no time dilation.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

My article in the last MRB dealt with explaining precisely this point. For the last 100 years, people have been taught SR basics and have been coming up with exactly the objection you just did, which is what the Twins Paradox is all about. IMO, most textbooks do not truly resolve the paradox, and use lame excuses for declaring the situation asymmetric for the twins. In my article, I grant the basic symmetry of the situation, yet show that the result is differential aging of the twins. This is where "time slippage" comes into play, in addition to "time dilation". However, my argument is a bit long for these messages, and anyway includes a figure and a couple of simple Lorentz transformation equations which would be difficult to reproduce here.

So let me just leave it that I think I was able to explain the paradox in a reasonable way. If you want to see that SR is an internally consistent theory, you might be interested in studying this article. But if your interest does not extend beyond describing reality, then forget you ever heard of SR and just use LR. There is no Twins Paradox in LR. -|Tom|-

tom,

I have thought about your response regarding "Particle Entanglement" for a few days.

I appears to me that you may have been premature in declaring that PE can't be used to transfer information.

Regardless of the state of the particles, suppose that you use two sets of particle pairs.

One particle from each set is installed in clock "C" as the master control clock.

The other particles from the pair sets are distributed one in clock "A" and one in clock "B".

The binary control is preset to stop the clocks if a "Change of State" is detected. It doesn't matter what state the particles are in only that they undergo a change of state.

When clock "C" times out it is designed to induce a change of state, that change of state then causes the pairs in the other clocks to change and they stop the clocks.

While all this would be preferrable to be achieved precisely on time, it isn't really necessary for the purpose of the test. The problem produces an apparent conflict between clocks of over 12 minutes. So if it required clock "C" to take a couple of minutes to cause the change of state, only the accuracy of the failure is affected.

The failure would still be present.