I am really glad this site exists. I have unfinished business with one James R. On SciForums the thread ended with
James R's following post.
And this in another thread.Originally Posted by James R
Originally Posted by James R
Now lets set the record straight.
1 - We all know the issue of simultaneity. It is simple and easily understood. It is not the magical holy grail that
James R seems to believe it is.
2 - James R is enept in that he cannot seem to understand.
a - The case presented does not require the observers to "See" the events as simultaneous. All that is required is
that the events are simultaneous at their origin frame.
b - He fails to understand the simple and well known principle that "Absence of Evidence does not equate to
Evidence of Absence". This is in regard to the conclusion that gamma is a function of "Absolute Motion", not
"Relative Motion".
3 - James R has shown he is incapable of teaching anyone anything in that he refuses to talk physics and relies upon
rhetoric, dogma, innuendo, distortions, fabrications, lies, appeal to authority, fiat, etc and not physics or common
sense.
4 - In my presentation clocks "A" and "B" are the equivelent of two lightening strikes occuring simultaneously along
a railroad embankment. Clock "C" in my presentation is the equivelent of an observer standing midway between these
two simultaneous lightening strikes.
Hence as Einstein said the start and stopping of the clocks is physically simultaneous and what a remote observer
"Sees" in no manner alters the physical reality. The only thing that matters in my presentation is the physical
simultaneous starting and stopping of the clocks and observers views have no bearing what-so-ever on the test
nor conclusions.
For those here not familiar with my presentation it follows:
************************************************** **************************************************
ABSOLUTE MOTION:
Relativity of Simultaneity is the most abused concept in relativity. It is a strawman's arguement.
The fact is that simultaneity is quite simple and easy to understand but more importantly it is not some magical holy
graile that precludes simultaneity.
First Einstien in his gendankin to demonstrate non-simultaneity starts by declaring simultaneity of two lightening strikes
on an embankment with an observer midway between the strikes.
As defined these two events are defacto simultaneous in a universal physical sense. It is only the perception of
a remote observer not located at the center of the simultaneous events or an observer in motion where time dilation
has been introduced that do not see the events as being simultaneous.
None of these perceptions alter the physical reality of the simultaneousnous of the events themselves.
For example if you properly compute the time delay affects of seperation and time dilation affects of motion you can
send a signal between clocks and start and stop those clocks simultaneously, even though the observers
would claim the events were not simultaneous.
Consider the following example:
************************************************** ***********************************************
In this scenario the primary observer and controller of the tests is located in a space station in deep space such that GR
doesn't apply; except for periods of acceleration (non-inertial periods).
He decides to run a series of tests of Einstein's relativity using his clock 'C' as the standard and two other
traveling clocks, A & B.
TEST 1:
He launches 'A' eastward with a preplanned schedule of acceleration to reach an inertial velocity of 0.433c. Having
precalculated the amount of time per 'C' for 'A' to become inertial he transmits a signal to arrive at 'A' once 'A' is
inertial relative to him.
Having waited the appropriate amount of time according to his controlling clock he then starts his test clock at t = 0.
This insures that both clocks start simultaneously.
Now before you object claiming 'A' doesn't see it as being simultaneous and that Relativity of Simultaneity prohibits
universal simultaneous events, lets review the issue.
Simultaneity is not some magical holy grail that prohibits simultaneous events. Indeed in the procedure to
demonstrate the lack of simultaneity Einstein declares two simultaneous events (two lighting strikes simultaneous
along the embankment of a train rail to an observer located midway between the events). So physical simultaneity
of two events is already an accepted conclusion as it should be.
The fact that he goes on to show that observers located at positions other than midway between or that time dilation
due to relative motion precludes those observers from perceiving such simultaneous events as being simultaneous
does not alter the physics of those events. They are indeed specified as and are simultaneous in a physical sense.
In this case both clocks 'A' and 'C' do start simultaneous physically even though each observer would not percieve
them as being simultaneous. That has no bearing on the test in that it involves accumulated time during a fixed
concurrent, hence simultaneous test period. 'C' having precalculated the time required for a signal to reach 'A'
transmits a stop clock signal such that the arrival of that control is concurrent (simultaneous with his clock
'C' having reached the test period of 10 hours (36,000 seconds).
Hence both clocks start and stop physically at the same instant even though the perception is that they have not.
After 10 hours 'C' time 'A' transmits a message which states "My clock has accumulated ................seconds".
According to SRT at 0.433c 'A' will only have accumulated 32,447 seconds per 'C' having accumulated 36,000 seconds.
SRT also claims that due to the relative velocity between such clocks that 'A' has the expectation that 'C' will have
only accumulated 29,244 seconds. But that view is not supported by any data.
'C' now decides to run another test.
TEST 2:
In this test he launches clock 'B' using the same plan as for 'A' but sends it westward. The results are that 'B' only
accumulates 32,447 seconds and 'C' accumulates 36,000 seconds.
So far SRT appears to predict a one way view correctly but not both views as advocated by Special Relativity which
involves reciprocity of views. So he decides on further testing.
TEST 3:
In this test 'C' launches both 'A' and 'B' simultaneously, one eastward and one westward using the same pre-programed
flight schedule. In this case the view between 'A' and 'B' is that they achieve a 0.7293c relative velocity due to the
relavistic Velocity Addition Formula (not the Newtonian 0.866c that would be logical). At that relative velocity both 'A'
and 'B' predict that the other clock will only tick at 684 ticks/1,000 ticks of their clock due to a gamma of 1.4619.
However, at the end of the test the transmitted data shows that 'A' and 'B' each accumulated 32,447 seconds
while 'C' accumulated 36,000 seconds.
That is even though 'A' and 'B' had relative velocity it had no impact what-so-ever upon the accumulated time by the
clocks. Reciprocity predicted by SRT is not supported. Now 'C' becomes concerned something is wrong with Einstein's
view of reality, so he decides to run yet another test.
TEST 4:
In this test 'C" launches both 'A' and 'B" in a common vector such that each achieves a 0.433c relative velocity to
'C' but are co-moving to each other and hence they have no relative velocity.
At the end of the test 'C' finds that both 'A' and 'B' have still accumulated the same 32,462 seconds in the same
concurrent test period that 'C" accumulated 36,000 seconds.
He is left with no option but to conclude that time dilation is a function of absolute motion and not relative motion.
To be sure of this fact he schedules yet a final test. In this test he equips all three clocks with precalibrated monitors
of the other clocks. He knows that Einstein claimed that with relative velocity of 0.433c the other clock will be
dilated by a gamma of 1.1094 and at 0.7293c the dilation will be due to a gamma of 1.4619.
So 'A" has a 'B' monitor aboard his craft which will only tick 684 ticks/1,000 ticks of 'A' and a 'C" monitor
which will only tick 902 ticks/1,000 ticks of his (A) on board clock. He arranges simular monitors for 'B' and 'C'.
These monitors are arranged to start and stop concurrent with each local clock and by such technique eliminates the
delayed perception of what the other clocks read.
He now launches 'A' and 'B" under TEST 3 the schedule.
Upon completion of the test the transmitted data follows:
ACTUAL TIMES
ACCUMULATED
------------------------
A = 32,447 seconds
B = 32,447 seconds
C = 36,000 seconds
A =32,447 seconds
PREDICTION
----------------------
B = 22,194 seconds due to gamma = 1.4617
C = 29,244 seconds due to gamma = 1.1094
B = 32,447 seconds
PREDICTION
-----------------------
A = 22,194 seconds due to gamma = 1.4617
C = 29,244 seconds due to a gamma = 1.1094
C = 36,000 seconds
PREDICTION
-------------------------
A = 32,447 seconds due to gamma = 1.1094
B = 32,447 seconds due to gamma = 1.1094
It can be seen from the above that only 'C" has the correct view. All views of reciprocity and other gammas
are false.
'C' now decides to return to earth and look for supporting data for his discovery. He looks at GPS and calculates
the relative velocity between a clock located at the equator (A) and one in orbit (B) and determines that the gamma
and time dilation predicted for the relative velocity affect does not match emperical findings. SRT predicts only
-5.8us/day time loss and the actual velocity induced loss is -7.2us/day.
He then tries to apply what he has learned and assumes a local common preferred rest frame of referance and lables
the center of the earth as frame 'C'. He now recomputes time dilation gammas for each component relative to
'C" and then writes Gamma Effective = Gamma B / Gamma A and finds that the result is not only -7.2us/day but
that this view prohibits claiming the surface clock has all motion and the orbiting clock is at rest.
This view is totally consistant with all data, whereas Einstein's view fails except in very limited cases.
It is shown then that time dilation is based on absolute motion, even though we have no method of detecting such
motion except where there exists a relative velocity.
The conclusion then becomes that the error in Einstien's thoughts stems from the arbitrary and false assumption that
there exists only two frames of refereance from which to judge motion. That indeed all motion has an origin and that
computing gammas in absence of knowledge of the component velocities that make up the total relative velocity is
meaningless and does not produce any meaningful results mathematically.
In such cases emperical data about particles in particle accelerators and cosmic muons compute correctly using only
two of the three frames because for example in the (M)uon, (S)urface and (E)arth center or (P)article, (L)ab, and
(E)arth center frames, 'E' is at rest with the 'L' and 'S' frames such that the relative velocity is contained by only
one frame (P) or (M). But even in these cases the reciprocity advocated by SRT is prohibited.
Reciprocity has not once been observed nor recorded in 100 years of Special Relativity. That is because it
requires two physical clocks to accumulate multiple times to satisfy multiple vews of numerous observers all
moving at different velocities relative to the clock, even with simultaneity considered.
Clocks only tick in their own proper time locally and are totally unaffected by a remote observers view or motion.
These facts dictate a universe that is based on absolute motion and not relative motion.
Relative motion is only an indicator that there is absolute motion but you can only determine component
velocities using three frames of referance.
Only when you know the origin of component velocities can you compute time dilation. Total relative velocity
does not allow that, except where ONE clock is indeed at relative rest.
A more correct view would seem to be that what you refer to as time dilation is nothing more than clock dilation.
That is no clock actually measures something called time. Clocks merely mark the universal time interval at
different frequencies.
Another thing to consider about relativity is this. Given two clocks, one atomic and one grandfather pendulum
clock, calibrated and synchronized at sea level in California. Now move those clocks to Denver, Colorado. What
happens?
The atomic clock speeds up, the grandfather clock slows down. Which clock if either represent any real
change in time?
Is not this nothing more than thinking if my Timex battery gets low that I will live longer?
You can only rightfully disagree if you can show a flaw in the mathematics James R. Otherwise you must refute Einstien and argue that his lightening strikes were not simultaneous. Which is it?
_________________