[guest4091]

For David and those who are interested, I'm actually participating to a discussion at Physics Forum entitled «Does acceleration slow time», where I try to introduce the notion that, when known, acceleration automatically determines motion.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-acceleration-slow-time.919565/page-2#post-5801139

If you examine the gamma/Lorentz factor, you find (1) and (v/c). That factor is used to calculate time dilation, and it does not contain a term for acceleration.

[Le Repteux]

... So, just measuring the force experienced is not enough.

I know it's not enough, but I think I can still prove that not knowing the direction and the rate of acceleration prevents us from calculating the dilation.

Dale complicated the problem with a third observer. The two clocks are moving with regard to the observer, the observer is at rest, one clock accelerates away from the other, what is the time dilation with regard to the observer suffered from the clock that has accelerated a second time? I said there was no solution without knowing first if it is the two clocks or the observer that is moving, he said the solution was
.

[Le Repteux]

For David and those who are interested, I'm actually participating to a discussion at Physics Forum entitled «Does acceleration slow time», where I try to introduce the notion that, when known, acceleration automatically determines motion.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-acceleration-slow-time.919565/page-2#post-5801139

If you examine the gamma/Lorentz factor, you find (1) and (v/c). That factor is used to calculate time dilation, and it does not contain a term for acceleration.

I know, and that's what I contest. Without knowing which clock is moving, then if we apply this formula to both clocks, both are going to suffer the same time dilation, and it won't work if we add a third observer.

[David Cooper]

An absolute rest frame then becomes meaningless and redundant.

Except that it's required to eliminate the contradictions. Any theory that tolerates mechanistic contradictions is wrong. If the control mechanism of a theory allows clock A to tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A, the theory is broken.

[guest4091]

... So, just measuring the force experienced is not enough.

I know it's not enough, but I think I can still prove that not knowing the direction and the rate of acceleration prevents us from calculating the dilation.

Dale complicated the problem with a third observer. The two clocks are moving with regard to the observer, the observer is at rest, one clock accelerates away from the other, what is the time dilation with regard to the observer suffered from the clock that has accelerated a second time? I said there was no solution without knowing first if it is the two clocks or the observer that is moving, he said the solution was
.

The 3rd observer is usually for the 2nd leg of B returning to A, eliminating the complication of the reversal, i.e. B2 gets a time from B1 as they cross paths.the integral totals the incremental times while accelerating, but a clock does this automatically, so the observer just reads his clock. The curve for acceleration can be approximated with straight line segments, which contribute to time dilation. The bottom line is acceleration is just a means to an end, being to change speed.
SR eliminates the need to know which one is moving, only the difference or relative speed.

[guest4091]

David Cooper;

There is no unhappening/undoing of events because of changing reference frames. You just get a different description of events. In the real world,  events do happen once but are perceived many times because observers are at different locations. This argues against a block universe.
A simulation is not a real world experience no more than drawing a graph of the history of an object moving in space.

In the case of A and B reuniting, its thought processes that coordinate their motions to achieve that goal. In all cases of humanly directed processes, its thought that coordinates events. In the natural world of inanimate objects, they interact at random.

In examining the light clock, it’s the light that moves in two dimensions, while the clock moves in one dimension. Thus nothing moves in time, it’s only a line on paper. That makes it physically unreal (and magical).
Of course, if you want drama, and the appearance of ‘deep meaning’, and book sales, that’s the path to follow.

 We cannot tell which frame of reference is tied to the fabric of space, so we cannot tell which accounts are true and which are false, but we are allowed to pick whichever frame of reference is the most convenient for us to work with, and then we can use it for our calculations exactly as if it is the special, absolute frame of reference.

So you state we don’t need an absolute reference. Why then say it’s necessary? Whether from Lorentz, Einstein, Poincare, or any others working on a theory of relativity, the significance of it was enabling uniform descriptions of physical processes without having to reference a ‘special’ frame. If you don’t see that then you don’t understand the principle of the  theory. That principle allows for all descriptions to be different yet valid.

As Einstein said in the 1905 paper, it didn’t matter whether the wire moved or the magnet moved, there was an induced current, i.e. which one moves is not relevant.

[David Cooper]

There is no unhappening/undoing of events because of changing reference frames. You just get a different description of events. In the real world,  events do happen once but are perceived many times because observers are at different locations. This argues against a block universe.

The block universe actually avoids the unhappening issue, although it runs into other serious problems which prevents the model working until you add Newtonian time to it.

A simulation is not a real world experience no more than drawing a graph of the history of an object moving in space.

If you have a rational, functional model, a simulation must be able to run it. My 3-mode interactive diagram is a relativity simulation (which has been made as minimal as possible to show the key functionality of the models involved), and it shows up the event-meshing failures (mode 1), events happening and unhappening when you change frame (mode 2), and viable functionality is only found when there is a preferred frame (mode 3) [or in mode 1 if you have a block universe which runs under an additional Newtonian time].

In examining the light clock, it’s the light that moves in two dimensions, while the clock moves in one dimension. Thus nothing moves in time, it’s only a line on paper. That makes it physically unreal (and magical).

The clock and light both move in three dimensions, and without time they cannot move - it is not unreal, and it's no more magical than space or energy (or it's as magical as space and energy).

We cannot tell which frame of reference is tied to the fabric of space, so we cannot tell which accounts are true and which are false, but we are allowed to pick whichever frame of reference is the most convenient for us to work with, and then we can use it for our calculations exactly as if it is the special, absolute frame of reference.

So you state we don’t need an absolute reference.

How do you read that into what I said? We can make useful calculations without knowing which frame is the absolute frame [or which available frame is closest to it - the absolute frame needn't be directly available in our 3D space if that space is contained in the surface of an expanding 4D bubble], but the universe still depends on an absolute frame for its functionality, and by extension, we depend upon that absolute frame too even though we can't identify it.

Why then say it’s necessary?

Because without it, you have to use magic to deal with the contradictions where maths/logic has been carelessly discarded by a defective theory.

Whether from Lorentz, Einstein, Poincare, or any others working on a theory of relativity, the significance of it was enabling uniform descriptions of physical processes without having to reference a ‘special’ frame.

That is not "the" significance, but merely "a" significance - that you can achieve almost everything you want to with your calculations without knowing which is the special frame. But the universe still depends on a preferred frame as the most important part of its relativity mechanism.

If you don’t see that then you don’t understand the principle of the  theory. That principle allows for all descriptions to be different yet valid.

No - they're valid for some of the things that can be computed which don't vary with frame, but they are not valid for the things that do vary by frame unless they happen by luck to have been based on the absolute frame.

As Einstein said in the 1905 paper, it didn’t matter whether the wire moved or the magnet moved, there was an induced current, i.e. which one moves is not relevant.

Clearly many people are happy to tolerate contradictions with this theory even though they don't tolerate them when doing mathematics, but that's something for psychologists to explore.

The reality is that a relativity simulation depends on both a preferred frame and Newtonian time unless it's merely simulating imaginary movement in a static block universe (where no causality is real). The universe depends on a preferred frame and Newtonian time too. See if you can find any physicists who think that relativity can't be simulated. Then see if you can find one of them who can actually write a simulation for relativity which doesn't either cheat by using a preferred frame mechanism to coordinate events (thereby making things happen and unhappen when the frame is changed [which you agree that we can't allow the real universe to do]), or which only applies to a static block universe where causality has no role, or which only applies to a block universe in which event-meshing failures occur. Beyond that there is nowhere else to go other than piling on layers of obfuscation to hide all the cheating.

[Le Repteux]

Thread closed just when it was getting interesting. I think I'm going to open a new one to talk about my conversion from SR unbeliever to LET believer. I bet they won't be as happy as Jorrie seems to be here: http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=325037#p325358

[GoC (OP)]

  All of you are confusing light with a real time view. Lets say there is no light. The collisions would still happen and no collisions would un-happen. What we view and measure is never in the real present while we exist in a section of time needed to recognize as the present. What is time? Time is the energy c given to motion. c is the fixed frame but it definitely is not a rest frame. It is the frame of motion that moves electrons. Energy of space moves the electrons and energy is conserved in SR by distance of space traversed included in the cycle to slow electron cycle duration (tick rate). We are caught in a catch 22. Our reaction time in our present is always equal to our tick rate. With velocity we can not determine another's tick rate in their frame relative to c. Duration of ones signal is affected by velocity. There is no frame at rest.

[guest4091]

Thread closed just when it was getting interesting. I think I'm going to open a new one to talk about my conversion from SR unbeliever to LET believer. I bet they won't be as happy as Jorrie seems to be here: http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=325037#p325358

There is no difference between SR and LET in application.  The authors of the various 'relativity' theories were working on the same issues within the same time period. Poincare even corrected some of Lorentz's errors, i.e. they communicated among themselves. Any form of 'ether' was not necessary, and SR removed any special frame which made its acceptance easier in terms of simplicity.

[guest4091]

An absolute rest frame then becomes meaningless and redundant.

Except that it's required to eliminate the contradictions. Any theory that tolerates mechanistic contradictions is wrong. If the control mechanism of a theory allows clock A to tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A, the theory is broken.

That's why it's called 'relativity', each one sees the same phenomena based on their relative speed. It would be a contradiction (and puzzling) if A saw something different from what B sees! What you fail to get is the clock phenomena is their perception and not the behavior of the clocks.
I've read and reread the paper at 'Magic' to have a better understanding of what it says. Where did these ideas about event meshing originate?

[GoC (OP)]

If the control mechanism of a theory allows clock A to tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A, the theory is broken.

That is not a relativity claim at all. With two synchronized clocks and two observers each observer can view the other's clock as being behind their own. That is just simultaneity of relativity.

If you have a ship moving away from the Earth at 0.87c relative and you had a magic telescope Earths clock would appear to run slower than their own. This is because the images are traveling at 0.13c relative. Even though the clocks on Earth are ticking much faster the view is much slower to reach the ship in the increasing distances. The ships magic telescope would view the ships clock even slower than the earths view of the ships clock. The view and the reality are always two different issues.

All views are equally valid. This is only the truth because no view is valid.

[Le Repteux]

Any form of 'ether' was not necessary, and SR removed any special frame which made its acceptance easier in terms of simplicity.

I can't figure out the simplicity. I've been on the net for ten years without anybody being able to help me understand SR, and a simple simulation did the job in two days. Maybe Einstein would have changed his mind about simplicity if he had seen what I saw. It is one thing to imagine the motion of light through the moving interferometer, but it is another one to see it, especially when it is moving along the moving telescope laser. The other possibility is that I am completely dumb, and it aches. :0)

[David Cooper]

What you fail to get is the clock phenomena is their perception and not the behavior of the clocks.

I get absolutely all of it. What you're failing to get is that the universe has to do something specific to coordinate the unfolding of events, and it can't have clock A ticking faster than clock B while at the same time having clock B ticking faster than clock A. If it does one of those, it cannot be doing both.

If we have a planet with a rocket repeatedly leaving it and returning such that the (equally spaced) reunion points can be shown running up a Spacetime diagram and labelled N, O, P, Q, R, S, etc., then we have a universe which is unfolding events in the order N, O, P, Q, R, S. Once each of those events has happened, it doesn't get undone. If we have another planet which is moving relative to the first planet and we again have a rocket repeatedly leaving it and returning to it, again we have a series of reunion points which we could label on the diagram as N', O', P', Q', R', S', etc., and again these events can't be undone once they've happened.

If points N and N' are the same Spacetime location, we have an unfolding of events in which events N and N' must happen simultaneously. What happens after that though? The other events must unfold, and the progression of events along those two lines is never undone. If you freeze the process for a moment and change frame, you will appear to undo some of the events on one line and cause others to happen on the other line that hadn't happened before, but the real universe can't change in such a way. Mode 3 of my diagram shows a universe that doesn't change when you change frame (because it has a preferred frame), while mode 2 shows a universe which does change. Mode 2 changes the frame it uses to do all the calculations and has to run time forwards for some events and backwards for others in order to resynchronise events for the new frame. The real universe can't behave that way as it is not allowed to make happened events unhappen. So, what mechanism is the universe using to control the unfolding of events? Is it using a preferred frame? If so, it has a preferred frame. Mode 2 is banned, and you reject mode 3 because it has a preferred frame, so what are you left with? Mode 1 is your only other option, and it leads to event-meshing failures, as the interactive diagram shows. It is possible though with a block universe to brush the construction phase of the block under the carpet and just have the whole thing exist eternally such that changing frame makes no change to the block, but the cost of that is that the block was never constructed in order of causation and the apparent patterns of causation written all through it are therefore fake. For the causation to be real, you have to allow the block to be generated in order of causation, at which point it has to be built with the help not only of an added Newtonian time, but with a preferred frame of reference. [Even when event-meshing failures occur, there has to be a preferred frame to decide which paths provide shortcuts into the future - this isn't obvious because the same events appear to happen at the same time with mode 1 of the interactive diagram regardless of which frame you select, but the distances through the space dimension vary and they are crucial to the mechanism needed to coordinate events.]

I've read and reread the paper at 'Magic' to have a better understanding of what it says. Where did these ideas about event meshing originate?

They come directly out of the idea that time never runs slow on any path (because time can't really run slower on one path than any other unless you have a preferred frame) - if you run the model on that basis, you get event-meshing failures all over the place. [The diagram still has to apply a preferred frame as a mechanism though - if you remove that too, you hit another contradiction issue where all paths have to be taking greater shortcuts into the future than all other paths, and that simply won't compute.]

I've issued a challenge to all the world's experts in relativity, but they just run away from it - all I've asked them to do is explain how SR can be simulated without cheating (by using a preferred frame). There is only one way of doing it, but it only works with a block universe where you create the block under different rules, then brush that construction phase under the carpet and assert that the block is eternal, and then the SR model appears to work perfectly within that eternal block, but this simply shifts the problem to the construction phase. Without the construction phase, the model has no role for causation in it because it only accounts for a universe which exists fully formed by magic without ever having been created in order of causation, so any model which seeks to describe the real universe needs to cover that construction phase. There's a very limited range of possible ways of doing it, and I've covered them all in my three modes - anything else is just a variation on one of those modes with extra complications added to it for the sake of obfuscation.

[David Cooper]

If the control mechanism of a theory allows clock A to tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A, the theory is broken.

That is not a relativity claim at all. With two synchronized clocks and two observers each observer can view the other's clock as being behind their own. That is just simultaneity of relativity.

I'm not talking about what people see, but about what the universe actually does to the clocks. In a case where clock A is ticking twice as fast as clock B because clock A is not moving, astronaut A calculates that clock B is ticking half as often as clock A (and happens to be right because he not only thinks he is stationary, but actually is stationary), but if astronaut B decides that he's stationary and calculates that clock A is ticking half as often as clock B, his calculation is based on an error because he is not stationary.

All views are equally valid. This is only the truth because no view is valid.

No - only one view is correct, but no one can know which one it is because the universe keeps it a secret.

[David Cooper]

I can't figure out the simplicity. I've been on the net for ten years without anybody being able to help me understand SR, and a simple simulation did the job in two days. Maybe Einstein would have changed his mind about simplicity if he had seen what I saw. It is one thing to imagine the motion of light through the moving interferometer, but it is another one to see it, especially when it is moving along the moving telescope. The other possibility is that I am completely dumb, and it aches. :0)

I'm quite sure that Einstein would not have shifted position at all because he would already have understood everything that my interactive MM diagrams show. There's clearly something else going on which makes most people tolerate contradictions which they ought to be pouncing on and using to reject SR, but they are fault-blind. You'd think the interactive diagram which simulates three Spacetime models would have a powerful impact on them, but no - they just feel puzzled and walk away from it, failing to understand that they've just seen the full range of what's possible and the faults that occur in the first two modes. You'd think the interactive exam would then help them pin things down so that they can work out why they object to what they've been shown, but no - again they just feel puzzled and walk away. You can rarely force people to understand things, and because they don't understand it, they simply assume it's wrong on the basis that it goes against their teaching. None of them can write a simulation of it that isn't based squarely on the methods of one of my three modes, but armies of people (both qualified and unqualified) who have failed to understand the issue insist that they are right and assert that I don't understand relativity. However, the real qualifications don't come on paper, but from having a genuine understanding of the issue, and that can be determined for those who care about truth by looking at who is able to program simulations that explore how far you have to deviate from the model if you're ever going to be able to run it (and get it to behave rationally), and that's something very few people have even stopped to think about. No one who believes time never runs slower on one path than any other should be able to look at mode 1 and not immediately see that there's a serious problem for them with event-meshing failure. No one who looks at mode 2 should be left in any doubt that it leads to events happening and unhappening whenever they change frame and that this can only be tolerated in the real universe by people who believe in magic. And anyone who disagrees with my conclusions and who thinks he knows better is logically required to explain where the interactive "exam" claimed he has failed it, but they aren't prepared to do this because to fail on any of those questions would make them look ridiculous. I really thought they'd finally see the light and start accepting the argument as the proof that it is, but they just slink away in silence instead, clinging fast to their religious belief.

[GoC (OP)]

No one who believes time never runs slower on one path than any other should be able to look at mode 1 and not immediately see that there's a serious problem for them with event-meshing failure. No one who looks at mode 2 should be left in any doubt that it leads to events happening and unhappening whenever they change frame and that this can only be tolerated in the real universe by people who believe in magic. And anyone who disagrees with my conclusions and who thinks he knows better is logically required to explain where the interactive "exam" claimed he has failed it, but they aren't prepared to do this because to fail on any of those questions would make them look ridiculous. I really thought they'd finally see the light and start accepting the argument as the proof that it is, but they just slink away in silence instead, clinging fast to their religious belief.

Your definition of time for relativity might be at fault. Your claims that time has a past and future in classic relativity is an opinion I do not share. This would be necessary for event meshing problems in relativity. Speeds and distances change in measurements. You are not going to measure the same distance at 0.87c as you would with 0.5c. Your measuring sticks increase with velocity when you are on board the ship. It's not just time that slows. The distance of the measuring stick increases to match the extra time of your slowed down clock. Everything is magnified visually. This is the issue you might not consider in SR. Everything resides in the same present.....

[Le Repteux]

You can rarely force people to understand things, and because they don't understand it, they simply assume it's wrong on the basis that it goes against their teaching.

I think I know why people resist to change, but you don't believe I'm right, so you don't understand what I mean (just teasing you a bit :0). Facing change, we're all believers, and it must be so if the world is to keep going ahead. Only two principles govern things: change and resistance to change. It is so from particles to mind. Species could not evolve, thus change, if they did not resist to the changes in their environment. Atoms could not accelerate, thus get speed, if they had no mass, thus no resistance to change. Neurons could not get more information if they did not resist to change the ones they already have. And finally, we could not change our own ideas if we did not resist to others' ideas.

It's the general idea that pops out of my small steps' theory, and it may even be more important than the steps themselves if it is right, because it is more universal. Apart not applying to information itself, it applies to everything that changes, so to everything that exists. The reason? The limited speed the information can travel to keep things going on at the smallest scale. Mass is a virus that transmits constantly from particles to bodies to species to minds, and only chance can overcome it. It's only by chance that species evolve, and it's also only by chance that our ideas evolve. You had your intuition by chance, and I was lucky I found you. If people ever change their mind about LET, it will be by chance, because nothing can change without being favored by chance. That was my birthday sermon, so I'm allowed to say anything: 71 and still tempting my chance every second! :0)

[David Cooper]

Your definition of time for relativity might be at fault. Your claims that time has a past and future in classic relativity is an opinion I do not share.

Time is tied tightly to causality, and causality is based on a process in which the state of caused things is determined by the causes. There is an order of such events which runs, and it runs in one direction only. The causes come first, before their effects. When an event happens, all the events that fed into it causally are necessarily previous events which happened in the past, while all the events which have yet to happen are in the future.

Everything resides in the same present

If you deny the existence of the past of an event by calling all the causation that fed into that event "present", you are inadvertently throwing out the order of events and thereby destroying the causality. It may be possible to throw out the word "time" though and just use the word "causality" instead, although that would lead to confusion when the cause-and-effect aspect isn't being referred to, but it may still be a good exercise in thinking when trying to understand the constraints of time. So, when you say that everything resides in the same present, that would need to be translated into the following: everything happens at the same point in the order of events. That destroys the order of causation, so basing a theory on that claim is clearly not going to get you very far.

[guest4091]

David Cooper

What you're failing to get is that the universe has to do something specific to coordinate the unfolding of events,

This is your personal interpretation, no currently accepted theory requires this. Is this part of a predestination world?

and it can't have clock A ticking faster than clock B while at the same time having clock B ticking faster than clock A. If it does one of those, it cannot be doing both.

Then you truly don't understand SR based on your replies. The relativistic expressions are the classical expressions modified by the effects of time dilation for both mutual observers, and are therefore reciprocal or symmetrical.
A observes the B-clock moving past at v, and B observes the A-clock moving past at v, i.e. both in the same initial conditions, so why shouldn't each see the same clock behavior.
Each observer perceives a changed frequency of the other clock, increase or decrease, depending on approaching or receding, but perception (look up the word) is reality confined to the mind. The A and B clock rates have not changed.
In addition, time does not cause anything, that's why it's recorded AFTER the event occurs.
If a falling object is filmed next to a pole with elevation marks, with a high speed camera, which notes the time on each frame, the film is analyzed to determine the relation of height to time, to calculate rate of fall. This does not imply time caused the object to fall, since we know gravity does that. Time is only a gage/tool to record an order to the sequence of events and predict future results. If you analyze how humans use 'time' it explains itself.

If points N and N' are the same Spacetime location, we have an unfolding of events in which events N and N' must happen simultaneously. What happens after that though? The other events must unfold, and the progression of events along those two lines is never undone. If you freeze the process for a moment and change frame,

With no teleportation, you could communicate with the primed frame via light, and find its  description of events is different, the same sequence of events happen but with different times and locations.
Ten people in a circle around a house, with cameras. Each picture is a different perspective of the house, since no two people can be in the same location. Each picture is a real and valid representation of the one house.

The events you described are all humanly directed, planned and executed and dependent on consistent behavior of the elements of the universal, i.e. the 'laws'. Animal and plant life depend on the genetic programs and the 'laws', The remaining inanimate matter depends only on  the 'laws'. At this level there is no evidence of coordination or purpose beyond the 'laws'. There is randomness like thermal energy and quantum probabilities, which are welcome, by providing diversity vs monotony. Imagine if all mountains looked the same, and all lakes were the same, etc.

They come directly out of the idea that time never runs slow on any path (because time can't really run slower on one path than any other unless you have a preferred frame)

You believe in a universal independent  time, where SR requires a subjective time..
In a real world experiment, muons moving in a storage ring at .999c experienced time dilation compared to muons at rest in the lab. The results;
1. an example of the 'twin' scenario, an aging difference,
2. confirmation of the 'clock hypothesis', the tick rate depends on speed and not on acceleration (10^19 g in the storage ring).
3. no event meshing issues, both batches of muons were always present in the lab.

See if you can find any physicists who think that relativity can't be simulated.

I didn't say it can't. A pilot can practice flying in a simulator, but he doesn't go anywhere.

(thereby making things happen and unhappen when the frame is changed [which you agree that we can't allow the real universe to do]),

I have never seen this issue mentioned anywhere, and why I questioned its origin.