[guest39538]

Members think they are getting annoyed , you could not imagine how annoyed I feel that nobody actually listens.  It is as if people want to just show off how much present knowledge they have, they do not seem to be able to think other than this.

It is very very simple, Anybodies next now is right away, there is no space between now and now, all of time dilation theory becomes frivolous litigation with this single logical axiom. 

So come on David, explain where you are getting a length from that contracts or time that is a variant?

My next now, your next now, even the cat in the box next now, is right away .  There is no uncertainty whether my sentence is dead or alive. It is alive and kicking.

added - Below is a graph of time. I have placed a dot to represent every moment of now into the future.


now.jpg (13.4 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4695 times)

''But it looks like an unbroken line Mr Box''

Exactly, the dots are all adjoined with no space between now's.

Everything's now is continuous into the future.


added- See David, our now's can never be out of synchronisation. I explained this earlier in the thread with a present diagram where two presents move apart . 

Do you realise that a lightyear is a distance and not a time?

A light year is the distance light travels in a year, a year is an amount of time.  Light is constant and tends to give a constant amount of time to travel a distance.  Light makes a good clock.

The incompleteness is in your thinking. Here's an illustration of why moving clocks run slow and why there must be length contraction if perpendicular co-moving clocks are to tick in sync:-

http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/Lorentz.htm

I am sick of showing this imaginary piece of type  work to be incorrect.

Why would they bother when you ignore any proof that's set before you

Because the proof you are offering is the ''crime''.

The only thing they're at a loss for an answer to is how you can fail to see things that are put in front of your eyes

I see things  put before my eyes very well thank you, do you mean I do not accept these things to be the absolute truth?

People rarely answer so they must be at a loss for an answer. 

[Bored chemist]

I am sick of showing this imaginary piece of type  work to be incorrect.

How can you be sick of doing something you have never done?

[David Cooper]

I can only assert that you do not have the mental capability to understand the notion.  Quite clearly you are not listening to anything but what you were taught. You can not comprehend that what you were taught may be incorrect.

I wasn't taught it - I worked it out independently, just as you try to work things out for yourself, and I like that about you.
 

You are what I call a ''god'' scientists, you believe present theories to be absolute fact and will not sway from your belief.

When something is demonstrably wrong, that is the time to abandon it. That is the way to rule out ideas that don't add up, leaving the ones that are still potentially viable.

Answer me one question without referring to present information,

When is your next chronological position, how far/long away is it from now?

End of argument, you lose.

I can't lose an argument by not knowing the answer. I don't know if time is digital or contains an infinite number of time slices per second. I suspect it's digital because an infinite series of cause-and-effect processes in a second would never terminate, but I have no way to telling how small a smallest time unit might be.

This is what you are doing,

I am reporting a ''crime''

You are putting in a defence of the ''crime''

The ''crime'' itself is not a defence.

I can't work out how your analogy relates to anything, and it doesn't even appear to add up within itself.

You would like the world and readers to think I am in some way stupid, I could explain the present information easy, however it would still be incorrect. I am correcting the error but the ignorance is on your part.

I have no desire to suggest that you're stupid because I don't think you are, just as Einstein wasn't stupid. Like most people though, you are so determined to believe in what you already believe in that you cannot see the proof that you're wrong about anything no matter how clearly it's presented to you. You are not some kind of freak in that regard, but very much the norm. The big thing in your favour though is that you think for yourself instead of swallowing the establishment line.

Members think they are getting annoyed , you could not imagine how annoyed I feel that nobody actually listens.  It is as if people want to just show off how much present knowledge they have, they do not seem to be able to think other than this.

Sharing knowledge is not about showing off, but represents a belief that other people are capable of taking things in and getting past the things that are blocking their progress to a proper understanding.

It is very very simple, Anybodies next now is right away, there is no space between now and now, all of time dilation theory becomes frivolous litigation with this single logical axiom.

I linked to something that shows you the workings of light clocks, one pair of perpendicular clocks which are stationary and another pair which are moving. There is no possibility of the moving clocks ticking at the same rate as the stationary ones, and no possibility of the uncontracted one aligned the same way as it is moving from ticking as quickly as the perpendicular one moving with it. You object to the idea of time dilation, and so do I - it is not time that's dilating, but moving clocks being unable to record all the time that has passed for them because their movement slows their functionality.

So come on David, explain where you are getting a length from that contracts or time that is a variant?

The MMX null result shows that the length of the arm aligned with its direction of travel must be contracting, but time is not affected by movement - the light is still running about in the clock at c, completely unslowed, and that light is part of the clock. The rest of the clock is moving along at high speed too, and it is completely unslowed in its movement through space - the only thing that is slowed is its functionality because the cycle length has increased. It is the interaction between all the components that is slowed, but all of them have to go through the same amount of time.

My next now, your next now, even the cat in the box next now, is right away .  There is no uncertainty whether my sentence is dead or alive. It is alive and kicking.

You can't know that it's right away. You could be frozen in time for a million years of an external time in between each of the shortest moments that you might imagine are passing for you. Alternatively, a billion years of action could run through in a single second of some external time - that a year feels like a long time to us tells us nothing about how long any kind of time really takes to run through. But it cannot all happen in zero time because there are cause-and-effect processes tied up in everything which have to run through in order. We can never really know anything about how quickly those processes run, except that it cannot be instantaneous.

added - Below is a graph of time. I have placed a dot to represent every moment of now into the future.

''But it looks like an unbroken line Mr Box''

Exactly, the dots are all adjoined with no space between now's.

Everything's now is continuous into the future.

Lovely.

added- See David, our now's can never be out of synchronisation. I explained this earlier in the thread with a present diagram where two presents move apart .

I haven't seen any viable theory that suggests otherwise - those that do so depend on magic.

A light year is the distance light travels in a year, a year is an amount of time.  Light is constant and tends to give a constant amount of time to travel a distance.  Light makes a good clock.

Great, so why did you describe a stationary observer as experiencing 8 lightyears?

I am sick of showing this imaginary piece of type  work to be incorrect.

That's because you can't show it to be correct. You want to believe that light can complete cycles in moving light clocks in some magical way where it covers less distance than it actually has to, and so long as you believe that it can do this impossible thing, you'll continue to be plain wrong.

Why would they bother when you ignore any proof that's set before you

Because the proof you are offering is the ''crime''.

So you see it as a crime when you're shown how reality works?

I see things  put before my eyes very well thank you, do you mean I do not accept these things to be the absolute truth?

I mean that you don't accept things that have been demonstrated to be correct. Moving clocks run slow, and without length contraction they would perform differently from clocks in the real universe. You seem to imagine that light in a light clock can complete a cycle at a speed that would either require it to go faster than the speed of light or force it to turn back before it reaches a mirror that it's required to bounce off, but that's where you become a magical thinker rather than a rationalist.

People rarely answer so they must be at a loss for an answer.

That's another mistake you keep making in your thinking. People have plenty of answers, but if you aren't able to accept anything that they prove to you, they decide that there is no point in going on speaking with you, and then they leave you to talk to yourself.

[guest39538]

I can only assert that you do not have the mental capability to understand the notion.  Quite clearly you are not listening to anything but what you were taught. You can not comprehend that what you were taught may be incorrect.

I wasn't taught it - I worked it out independently, just as you try to work things out for yourself, and I like that about you.
 

You are what I call a ''god'' scientists, you believe present theories to be absolute fact and will not sway from your belief.

When something is demonstrably wrong, that is the time to abandon it. That is the way to rule out ideas that don't add up, leaving the ones that are still potentially viable.

Answer me one question without referring to present information,

When is your next chronological position, how far/long away is it from now?

End of argument, you lose.

I can't lose an argument by not knowing the answer. I don't know if time is digital or contains an infinite number of time slices per second. I suspect it's digital because an infinite series of cause-and-effect processes in a second would never terminate, but I have no way to telling how small a smallest time unit might be.

This is what you are doing,

I am reporting a ''crime''

You are putting in a defence of the ''crime''

The ''crime'' itself is not a defence.

I can't work out how your analogy relates to anything, and it doesn't even appear to add up within itself.

You would like the world and readers to think I am in some way stupid, I could explain the present information easy, however it would still be incorrect. I am correcting the error but the ignorance is on your part.

I have no desire to suggest that you're stupid because I don't think you are, just as Einstein wasn't stupid. Like most people though, you are so determined to believe in what you already believe in that you cannot see the proof that you're wrong about anything no matter how clearly it's presented to you. You are not some kind of freak in that regard, but very much the norm. The big thing in your favour though is that you think for yourself instead of swallowing the establishment line.

Members think they are getting annoyed , you could not imagine how annoyed I feel that nobody actually listens.  It is as if people want to just show off how much present knowledge they have, they do not seem to be able to think other than this.

Sharing knowledge is not about showing off, but represents a belief that other people are capable of taking things in and getting past the things that are blocking their progress to a proper understanding.

It is very very simple, Anybodies next now is right away, there is no space between now and now, all of time dilation theory becomes frivolous litigation with this single logical axiom.

I linked to something that shows you the workings of light clocks, one pair of perpendicular clocks which are stationary and another pair which are moving. There is no possibility of the moving clocks ticking at the same rate as the stationary ones, and no possibility of the uncontracted one aligned the same way as it is moving from ticking as quickly as the perpendicular one moving with it. You object to the idea of time dilation, and so do I - it is not time that's dilating, but moving clocks being unable to record all the time that has passed for them because their movement slows their functionality.

So come on David, explain where you are getting a length from that contracts or time that is a variant?

The MMX null result shows that the length of the arm aligned with its direction of travel must be contracting, but time is not affected by movement - the light is still running about in the clock at c, completely unslowed, and that light is part of the clock. The rest of the clock is moving along at high speed too, and it is completely unslowed in its movement through space - the only thing that is slowed is its functionality because the cycle length has increased. It is the interaction between all the components that is slowed, but all of them have to go through the same amount of time.

My next now, your next now, even the cat in the box next now, is right away .  There is no uncertainty whether my sentence is dead or alive. It is alive and kicking.

You can't know that it's right away. You could be frozen in time for a million years of an external time in between each of the shortest moments that you might imagine are passing for you. Alternatively, a billion years of action could run through in a single second of some external time - that a year feels like a long time to us tells us nothing about how long any kind of time really takes to run through. But it cannot all happen in zero time because there are cause-and-effect processes tied up in everything which have to run through in order. We can never really know anything about how quickly those processes run, except that it cannot be instantaneous.

added - Below is a graph of time. I have placed a dot to represent every moment of now into the future.

''But it looks like an unbroken line Mr Box''

Exactly, the dots are all adjoined with no space between now's.

Everything's now is continuous into the future.

Lovely.

added- See David, our now's can never be out of synchronisation. I explained this earlier in the thread with a present diagram where two presents move apart .

I haven't seen any viable theory that suggests otherwise - those that do so depend on magic.

A light year is the distance light travels in a year, a year is an amount of time.  Light is constant and tends to give a constant amount of time to travel a distance.  Light makes a good clock.

Great, so why did you describe a stationary observer as experiencing 8 lightyears?

I am sick of showing this imaginary piece of type  work to be incorrect.

That's because you can't show it to be correct. You want to believe that light can complete cycles in moving light clocks in some magical way where it covers less distance than it actually has to, and so long as you believe that it can do this impossible thing, you'll continue to be plain wrong.

Why would they bother when you ignore any proof that's set before you

Because the proof you are offering is the ''crime''.

So you see it as a crime when you're shown how reality works?

I see things  put before my eyes very well thank you, do you mean I do not accept these things to be the absolute truth?

I mean that you don't accept things that have been demonstrated to be correct. Moving clocks run slow, and without length contraction they would perform differently from clocks in the real universe. You seem to imagine that light in a light clock can complete a cycle at a speed that would either require it to go faster than the speed of light or force it to turn back before it reaches a mirror that it's required to bounce off, but that's where you become a magical thinker rather than a rationalist.

People rarely answer so they must be at a loss for an answer.

That's another mistake you keep making in your thinking. People have plenty of answers, but if you aren't able to accept anything that they prove to you, they decide that there is no point in going on speaking with you, and then they leave you to talk to yourself.

Perhaps my judgement of you was wrong, I apologise.   I have this feeling that for some reason nobody is understanding the notion to my understanding of the notion.  I suppose this is because we think as individuals and can read things and interpret these things wrongly, even if they are wrote correctly. 
So in consideration to this perhaps I should  change my approach...I feel we  have drifted off topic slightly so shall try to return to the title topic.

Ok, I am quite sure David that you would know a little something about vectors, so if you do not mind I would like to discuss a simple vector.

If we have a vector David  that we shall call  v(x)  which you know is vector x . a straight horizontal line.

Then  we define this vector is L=300,000km

Then  light was travelling v+(x)  at the speed of c, do you agree it takes the light  1.s to  arrive at the end point of the journey?

Then in a return trip the light travelled v-(x) at the speed of c, do you agree that the light takes 1.s to arrive at the end point of the journey?

If you agree with both, do you agree that t₁=t₂?

[David Cooper]

Yes - it takes one second to cover the distance in each direction.

[guest39538]

Yes - it takes one second to cover the distance in each direction.

Thank you, so we are in agreement with this relative simple vector.  So we can agree on things if we both ''see'' them things to be correct on what we know about the present  information of the Universe.

Well David even at this early stage in our proper conversation, I can tell you by the end of this discussion you will understand me and understand why I suggest there is no actual time dilation.  Your already agreement of the first question is telling me I am correct. However before moving onto any sort of time dilation , I would please like to continue synchronisation.

So David if by the power of thought we can now imagine our v(x) is a constant L and absolute stationary, I would like to discuss the synchronisation of light between two observers. In doing this David can we please ignore any relativistic affects of different rates of time for each observer.
I would like us to imagine observer (A) and observer (B)  who is L away both simultaneous releasing light at 00:00:00. Now we already know that the light is going to take 1.s to travel v(x) in either direction.

Do you agree that Observer (A) observes (B) and Observer (B) observes (A) at the same time?

The time being 00:00:01


di1.jpg (18.36 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4573 times)

[David Cooper]

Well David even at this early stage in our proper conversation, I can tell you by the end of this discussion you will understand me and understand why I suggest there is no actual time dilation.

We both agree that there is no actual time dilation. I told you a while ago that your rebranding it as "timing dilation" is a good move - it emphasises that clocks run slow but makes it clear that time does not, and that is a description of reality.

In doing this David can we please ignore any relativistic affects of different rates of time for each observer.

As they're not moving, that won't be a problem anyway - their clocks are ticking close to the maximum possible tick rate, slowed only an infinitesimal amount by their own gravity (an amount that is so irrelevant that it can simply be ignored).

I would like us to imagine observer (A) and observer (B)  who is L away both simultaneous releasing light at 00:00:00. Now we already know that the light is going to take 1.s to travel v(x) in either direction.

Do you agree that Observer (A) observes (B) and Observer (B) observes (A) at the same time?

The time being 00:00:01

Absolutely - with an absolute frame, there is simultaneity at a distance. Theories without an absolute frame fall apart when you explore them properly, so this is a place where you are more rational than the mainstream.

[guest39538]

Well David even at this early stage in our proper conversation, I can tell you by the end of this discussion you will understand me and understand why I suggest there is no actual time dilation.

We both agree that there is no actual time dilation. I told you a while ago that your rebranding it as "timing dilation" is a good move - it emphasises that clocks run slow but makes it clear that time does not, and that is a description of reality.

In doing this David can we please ignore any relativistic affects of different rates of time for each observer.

As they're not moving, that won't be a problem anyway - their clocks are ticking close to the maximum possible tick rate, slowed only an infinitesimal amount by their own gravity (an amount that is so irrelevant that it can simply be ignored).

I would like us to imagine observer (A) and observer (B)  who is L away both simultaneous releasing light at 00:00:00. Now we already know that the light is going to take 1.s to travel v(x) in either direction.

Do you agree that Observer (A) observes (B) and Observer (B) observes (A) at the same time?

The time being 00:00:01

Absolutely - with an absolute frame, there is simultaneity at a distance. Theories without an absolute frame fall apart when you explore them properly, so this is a place where you are more rational than the mainstream.

We are in agreement that there is no actual time dilation will be beneficial to our discussion.  It will make the next part of my our discussion much easier.   

A space ship is going to travel from observer (A) to observer (B), we shall define the spaceships velocity 0.5c.

The spaceship will launch from (A) simultaneous to the emitted light from (A) at 00:00:00

At exactly one second of the event by the power of thought we are going to freeze time . 

Observer (A) as experienced 1 second gone by

Observer (B) as experienced 1 second gone by

The rocket ship as experienced 1 second gone by

The identical triplet on the rocket ship as experienced 1 second gone by


d3.jpg (24.12 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4497 times)



Do you agree with this ?

[guest39538]

BUT there is no actual dilation of time.

Every experiment that has looked for it has found it.
Time dilation is real.
If your opinion doesn't agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.

Looking back over the thread I came across and thought of a new reply for this. 

Read What David said:

We both agree that there is no actual time dilation. I told you a while ago that your rebranding it as "timing dilation" is a good move - it emphasises that clocks run slow but makes it clear that time does not, and that is a description of reality.

Now  do you understand?

[David Cooper]

The rocket ship as experienced 1 second gone by

The identical triplet on the rocket ship as experienced 1 second gone by

The rocket and person inside it have spent one second travelling, but their experience is of 0.866 of a second passing rather than a whole second - that's the timing dilation due to their clocks failing to record all the time that has passed for them (because of the increased travel distances for all moving components to complete cycles). Every atom in the rocket and its contents has also suffered from slowed functionality for the same reason as the clock has been slowed, and every component of every atom has likewise had its functionality slowed - all functionality depends on moving components cycling and all cycle distances have been increased due to the movement of the rocket through space. In every case though, this has nothing to do with time slowing - time was running at full speed throughout for every atom in the rocket, but every atom in the rocket was incapable of recognising that its functionality was slowed.

[guest39538]

The rocket ship as experienced 1 second gone by

The identical triplet on the rocket ship as experienced 1 second gone by

The rocket and person inside it have spent one second travelling, but their experience is of 0.866 of a second passing rather than a whole second - that's the timing dilation due to their clocks failing to record all the time that has passed for them (because of the increased travel distances for all moving components to complete cycles). Every atom in the rocket and its contents has also suffered from slowed functionality for the same reason as the clock has been slowed, and every component of every atom has likewise had its functionality slowed - all functionality depends on moving components cycling and all cycle distances have been increased due to the movement of the rocket through space. In every case though, this has nothing to do with time slowing - time was running at full speed throughout for every atom in the rocket, but every atom in the rocket was incapable of recognising that its functionality was slowed.

In the scenario David at this time a clock was not mentioned.   You have jumped the gun slightly there , but never mind I shall take the jump with you.
You say :

but their experience is of 0.866 of a second passing rather than a whole second

Is it not,  their experience is of 1 second of time passed but their measurement of time is not quite a whole second?

Their clock tick functioning slower than the speed of light ''tick'' between A and B points.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something here.  The distant the light travels is directly proportional to the amount of time passed by all observers.  What I mean by this is if all observers in my scenario have observed the light travelling between A and B points, all observers in the scenario  have experienced the time it takes for light to travel 300,000km?

Because =1.s and is constant in this scenario , the absolute frame allowing no Length contraction between A and B points.

The triplet on the rocket ship could not claim that it only took  0.866 of a second  for light to travel from A to B or from B to A.

added- After thinking further more, my conclusion would be that 0.866 of a second measured by the triplet aboard the rocket ship, would still be equal to 1.s of time passed.  The constant of light between the A and B points confirming this. 
To me science is seemingly measuring :

0.866 /1.s  and 1.s/1.s

,

[David Cooper]

In the scenario David at this time a clock was not mentioned.

The rocket and the person in it are clocks. Every atom is a clock.

You say :

but their experience is of 0.866 of a second passing rather than a whole second

Is it not,  their experience is of 1 second of time passed but their measurement of time is not quite a whole second?

Their experience is of 0.866s passing - that is how much time they perceive passing for them. That is what they will tell you because it is what they experienced. There are two different meanings of the word "experienced" though, one of them for things that can measure the apparent passing of time (such as a person and the computers running a rocket ship), and a different meaning which is found in descriptions such as "the rock experienced an acceleration force" - the rock doesn't experience anything in the first sense of the word because it is incapable of processing any kind of thought or of feeling anything, so the second meaning applies instead, and this is really a metaphorical use of the word. It would be better to say that a rock undergoes an acceleration rather than that it experiences one.

Their clock tick functioning slower than the speed of light ''tick'' between A and B points.

All clocks have components that interact with each other using speed-of-light communications or forces, so the slowing is entirely down to them having to work over increased distances due to the shifting goalposts with the destinations moving.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something here.  The distant the light travels is directly proportional to the amount of time passed by all observers.  What I mean by this is if all observers in my scenario have observed the light travelling between A and B points, all observers in the scenario  have experienced the time it takes for light to travel 300,000km?

All the observers have been exposed to the same amount of time passing, but the experience of the moving observer is of that time being shorter than for the stationary observers. This happens because he is a clock, and his clock is running slow because it is moving fast through space. His entire functionality is running slow, so like any moving clock, he under-records the passage of time.

Because =1.s and is constant in this scenario , the absolute frame allowing no Length contraction between A and B points.

There is indeed no length contraction on AB, though the moving observer will perceive it to be contracting a bit while he is moving.

The triplet on the rocket ship could not claim that it only took  0.866 of a second  for light to travel from A to B or from B to A.

He would measure his journey from A to B as taking 2 x 0.866s, but everyone else would tell him it took him 2 seconds to make the trip and that he shouldn't believe his own clock as it was running slow.

added- After thinking further more, my conclusion would be that 0.866 of a second measured by the triplet aboard the rocket ship, would still be equal to 1.s of time passed.  The constant of light between the A and B points confirming this. 
To me science is seemingly measuring :

0.866 /1.s  and 1.s/1.s

0.866es = 1s. We could say that a clock moving at 0.5c measures time in extended seconds rather than seconds, and extended seconds have to be converted into seconds to work out the actual passage of time. An extended second is a variable time unit though, so the conversion depends on the speed of travel used.

The complication with all of this though is that we can never tell in the real universe whether A and B are stationary or moving. They may actually be moving at 0.5c, and when the rocket travels at what it thinks is 0.5c, it may actually be stationary, which means its clock might now be ticking more quickly than the moving clocks at A and B, and in such a situation, A and B will also be physically closer together. This means that the rocket really could travel from A to B in 2 x 0.866s in such a situation, but the observers at A and B would still insist that it took 2 seconds to make the trip - they would be fooled by their own timings which are based on clocks that have been synchronised in such a way that A's clocks always tick later than B's. The reverse journey for the rocket would take longer than 2 seconds, but the rocket's clocks would still record it as taking 2 x 0.866s (they would be ticking more slowly than the clocks at A and B this time), and the observers at A and B would still measure the trip as taking 2 seconds.

[guest39538]

In the scenario David at this time a clock was not mentioned.

The rocket and the person in it are clocks. Every atom is a clock.

You say :

but their experience is of 0.866 of a second passing rather than a whole second

Is it not,  their experience is of 1 second of time passed but their measurement of time is not quite a whole second?

Their experience is of 0.866s passing - that is how much time they perceive passing for them. That is what they will tell you because it is what they experienced. There are two different meanings of the word "experienced" though, one of them for things that can measure the apparent passing of time (such as a person and the computers running a rocket ship), and a different meaning which is found in descriptions such as "the rock experienced an acceleration force" - the rock doesn't experience anything in the first sense of the word because it is incapable of processing any kind of thought or of feeling anything, so the second meaning applies instead, and this is really a metaphorical use of the word. It would be better to say that a rock undergoes an acceleration rather than that it experiences one.

Their clock tick functioning slower than the speed of light ''tick'' between A and B points.

All clocks have components that interact with each other using speed-of-light communications or forces, so the slowing is entirely down to them having to work over increased distances due to the shifting goalposts with the destinations moving.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something here.  The distant the light travels is directly proportional to the amount of time passed by all observers.  What I mean by this is if all observers in my scenario have observed the light travelling between A and B points, all observers in the scenario  have experienced the time it takes for light to travel 300,000km?

All the observers have been exposed to the same amount of time passing, but the experience of the moving observer is of that time being shorter than for the stationary observers. This happens because he is a clock, and his clock is running slow because it is moving fast through space. His entire functionality is running slow, so like any moving clock, he under-records the passage of time.

Because =1.s and is constant in this scenario , the absolute frame allowing no Length contraction between A and B points.

There is indeed no length contraction on AB, though the moving observer will perceive it to be contracting a bit while he is moving.

The triplet on the rocket ship could not claim that it only took  0.866 of a second  for light to travel from A to B or from B to A.

He would measure his journey from A to B as taking 2 x 0.866s, but everyone else would tell him it took him 2 seconds to make the trip and that he shouldn't believe his own clock as it was running slow.

added- After thinking further more, my conclusion would be that 0.866 of a second measured by the triplet aboard the rocket ship, would still be equal to 1.s of time passed.  The constant of light between the A and B points confirming this. 
To me science is seemingly measuring :

0.866 /1.s  and 1.s/1.s

0.866es = 1s. We could say that a clock moving at 0.5c measures time in extended seconds rather than seconds, and extended seconds have to be converted into seconds to work out the actual passage of time. An extended second is a variable time unit though, so the conversion depends on the speed of travel used.

The complication with all of this though is that we can never tell in the real universe whether A and B are stationary or moving. They may actually be moving at 0.5c, and when the rocket travels at what it thinks is 0.5c, it may actually be stationary, which means its clock might now be ticking more quickly than the moving clocks at A and B, and in such a situation, A and B will also be physically closer together. This means that the rocket really could travel from A to B in 2 x 0.866s in such a situation, but the observers at A and B would still insist that it took 2 seconds to make the trip - they would be fooled by their own timings which are based on clocks that have been synchronised in such a way that A's clocks always tick later than B's. The reverse journey for the rocket would take longer than 2 seconds, but the rocket's clocks would still record it as taking 2 x 0.866s (they would be ticking more slowly than the clocks at A and B this time), and the observers at A and B would still measure the trip as taking 2 seconds.

Ok, I understand what you are saying but I don't really agree with the summation.

Just to recap you have agreed that the amount of time from A to B and B to A is equal because of the constant of c. 

Now I would like to discuss speed.   If our rocket ship is travelling at 0.5c how far as it travelled in 1.s?  I am sure you will agree 150,000 km. 
I am also sure you will agree a constant speed will travel a distance in the same amount of time , every time.
So are you saying that the rocket ship as not travelled 150,000 km because according to the clock aboard the rocket ship, it hasn't been travelling for a second so would not have travelled 150,000 km or at a speed of 0.5c.

Because is speed over a distance not equal to the time it takes?

[David Cooper]

Now I would like to discuss speed.   If our rocket ship is travelling at 0.5c how far as it travelled in 1.s?  I am sure you will agree 150,000 km.

Indeed (as we're doing this for the absolute frame with A and B stationary).

I am also sure you will agree a constant speed will travel a distance in the same amount of time , every time.

No problem there either.

So are you saying that the rocket ship as not travelled 150,000 km because according to the clock aboard the rocket ship, it hasn't been travelling for a second so would not have travelled 150,000 km or at a speed of 0.5c.

The rocket has travelled the full 150,000km, and it will calculate that too if it bases its calculations on the same frame of reference in which A and B are stationary, in addition to calculating that its clocks will not record all the time that has passed for them. If it calculates on a different basis, using the frame of reference in which it is at rest during the trip from A to B, it will determine at the halfway point that A has moved away from it at 0.5c for 0.866s and that it is by this time 130,000km away.

Because is speed over a distance not equal to the time it takes?

The time is less and the distance is less to match. Importantly, when this other frame of reference is used as the base for the calculations, the rocket has travelled zero distance - it's A and B that are moving at 0.5c instead, and they have moved less far than 150,000km because only 0.866s has gone by.

We have two sets of figures documenting the action based on these two different frames, and they make claims which contradict each other, but in this case we know which ones are true because we know which frame is the absolute frame, so we can rule out the account of events generated by the frame of reference in which the moving rocket is at rest. Inside the real universe though, we don't know which is the absolute frame, so we can't identify which accounts of the action are the true ones. We do know though that there will be an account of the action that is true and that all the other accounts that contradict it must be false - we just can't tell which is the true one because it could be any of them.

[guest39538]

Now I would like to discuss speed.   If our rocket ship is travelling at 0.5c how far as it travelled in 1.s?  I am sure you will agree 150,000 km.

Indeed (as we're doing this for the absolute frame with A and B stationary).

I am also sure you will agree a constant speed will travel a distance in the same amount of time , every time.

No problem there either.

So are you saying that the rocket ship as not travelled 150,000 km because according to the clock aboard the rocket ship, it hasn't been travelling for a second so would not have travelled 150,000 km or at a speed of 0.5c.

The rocket has travelled the full 150,000km, and it will calculate that too if it bases its calculations on the same frame of reference in which A and B are stationary, in addition to calculating that its clocks will not record all the time that has passed for them. If it calculates on a different basis, using the frame of reference in which it is at rest during the trip from A to B, it will determine at the halfway point that A has moved away from it at 0.5c for 0.866s and that it is by this time 130,000km away.

Because is speed over a distance not equal to the time it takes?

The time is less and the distance is less to match. Importantly, when this other frame of reference is used as the base for the calculations, the rocket has travelled zero distance - it's A and B that are moving at 0.5c instead, and they have moved less far than 150,000km because only 0.866s has gone by.

We have two sets of figures documenting the action based on these two different frames, and they make claims which contradict each other, but in this case we know which ones are true because we know which frame is the absolute frame, so we can rule out the account of events generated by the frame of reference in which the moving rocket is at rest. Inside the real universe though, we don't know which is the absolute frame, so we can't identify which accounts of the action are the true ones. We do know though that there will be an account of the action that is true and that all the other accounts that contradict it must be false - we just can't tell which is the true one because it could be any of them.

Thank you David for explaining that. If you noticed in my diagram , at the A and B points I have not placed any bodies.    My reason for this is that the absolute frame I am using is  a length of space.   My rocket ship is travelling a length of space from A to B points of space. My bodies of inertia reference frames are none existence in my diagram.  Space is relatively an absolute frame of rest .
In my scenario the observer on the rocket ship is also not using a clock aboard the rocket ship, the observer is using the time outside of the rocket ship, i.e the light between points. 
Correct me if I am wrong, the travelling light outside of the rocket ship still measures constant in speed regardless of the observers reference frame.
Anyway moving on , I am quite sure you aware of that we see things in their past.  The absolute diagram shows that the observers see each other at the same time but are observing each other as they were 1.s ago.   However this breaks down if we look at our scenario differently.

In this scenario we will keep all the parameters of the thought, except this time our vector length is   L=0

Now do we agree that observer A and observer B who are nose to nose, see each other at the same time? 

They both occupy the same present/now?

[GoC]

  There is no absolute frame unless of course we are discussing c being total photon energy for distance as a constant. The rest is just timing which is different for different frames. When David claims time  as an absolute without regard to timing and reaction rate differences that is not within the realm of relativity. Thebox is correct at t=0 the distance between two objects is defined but cannot be measured accurately using light or any spectrum waves. We only have orthogonal measurements of a ping for two way and reflected light for one way when we look at an object.

There is a fractal change in perception. Your measuring stick increases while your clock decreases tick rate with speed. You measure a smaller universe with slower timing. So your clock measures the distance by time the same in all frames. This also auto corrects for the speed of light to be measured the same in a vacuum. Distance and timing are always confounded. Time itself is directly related to c. You cannot measure something that is part of what is being measured. Timing either by the electron or photon is based on c. So you cannot really measure c using c. So looking for an absolute frame is meaningless.

[guest39538]

  There is no absolute frame unless of course we are discussing c being total photon energy for distance as a constant. The rest is just timing which is different for different frames. When David claims time  as an absolute without regard to timing and reaction rate differences that is not within the realm of relativity. Thebox is correct at t=0 the distance between two objects is defined but cannot be measured accurately using light or any spectrum waves. We only have orthogonal measurements of a ping for two way and reflected light for one way when we look at an object.

There is a fractal change in perception. Your measuring stick increases while your clock decreases tick rate with speed. You measure a smaller universe with slower timing. So your clock measures the distance by time the same in all frames. This also auto corrects for the speed of light to be measured the same in a vacuum. Distance and timing are always confounded. Time itself is directly related to c. You cannot measure something that is part of what is being measured. Timing either by the electron or photon is based on c. So you cannot really measure c using c. So looking for an absolute frame is meaningless.

But the absolute reference frame of space is itself an absolute ,  space is not observed to be moving, it is relative stationary, things move within this frame and relative to this frame.. If we observed space moving as well, we would feel rather sick from all the chaos of observation.
L=0 will show why we do not see things in the past.

Now expanding from a point to another point remains now because of the constant of light between spacial points.

Let us look at the twin Paradox , twin two leaves twin one now. they start their journey at 00:00:00 and travel at 0.5c for 1.s.

Twin ones time is now 00:00:01

Twins two time is now 00:00:01

The light  between observers is constant and retains synchronisation of sight always. 

The light from A to B in this situation takes 0.5 s to reach from A to B.

The light from B to A takes 0.5s to reach from B to A .

Both observers see each other at the same time and the synchronisation of sight remains constant by the light between the observers. 


now1.jpg (17.26 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4426 times)

added- In some way the time it takes for the light to travel from different positions in the length of journey should add up to 1.s

v(twin) + v(c) =1.s

I am unsure how to calculate this , I can only give a pointer in the right direction.


vc.jpg (17.41 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4423 times)

1/2 v(c) = t*2

added- If we start with a length and interpret this as seeing things in the past, because of light and how sight works, this works and is true.

However if we start within and work our way out, this becomes untrue and we don't see things in the past.

So which way is correct?

[David Cooper]

Thank you David for explaining that. If you noticed in my diagram , at the A and B points I have not placed any bodies.    My reason for this is that the absolute frame I am using is  a length of space.   My rocket ship is travelling a length of space from A to B points of space. My bodies of inertia reference frames are none existence in my diagram.  Space is relatively an absolute frame of rest .

You have an infinite number of frames of reference there whether you want them or not, and as soon as you decide that A and B are definitively stationary, you are using the absolute frame.

In my scenario the observer on the rocket ship is also not using a clock aboard the rocket ship, the observer is using the time outside of the rocket ship, i.e the light between points.

The observer on the ship is a clock - we can count seconds accurately enough to tell when they don't match up to other clocks ticking at different rates. He knows that his functionality will run slow while he's moving at high speed though, so he can easily go by the time of the absolute frame instead and not be surprised by its higher tick rate.

Correct me if I am wrong, the travelling light outside of the rocket ship still measures constant in speed regardless of the observers reference frame.

It does indeed (while for any other frame it is misrepresented, warped to make out that it's moving at the same speed in all directions relative to that frame).

Anyway moving on , I am quite sure you aware of that we see things in their past.  The absolute diagram shows that the observers see each other at the same time but are observing each other as they were 1.s ago.   However this breaks down if we look at our scenario differently.

In this scenario we will keep all the parameters of the thought, except this time our vector length is   L=0

Now do we agree that observer A and observer B who are nose to nose, see each other at the same time? 

They both occupy the same present/now?

And the same location, so no delays in what they see of each other (apart from the time taken to process the data, but we can ignore that complication and just say it's instant).

[David Cooper]

There is no absolute frame unless of course we are discussing c being total photon energy for distance as a constant. The rest is just timing which is different for different frames. When David claims time  as an absolute without regard to timing and reaction rate differences that is not within the realm of relativity.

The absolute frame is the one in which light travels in opposite directions at the same speed relative to that frame. If you want to describe it in some obfuscated way, that's your choice, but it doesn't provide any improvement over the clearest way of looking at it, and the absolute frame has a fundamental role in real relativity.

...So looking for an absolute frame is meaningless.

It's essential that there be one, and we even have an experiment that proves that there is one - we just can't pin down which frame it is. We know that light takes longer to do a circuit round the Earth eastwards than westwards when the start/finish line is a point that tied to the moving surface of the rotating Earth, and we also know that if you use a start/finish line which doesn't rotate with the planet, light takes the same time to go round each way, so this tells us that on average at points along the circuit, the light is most certainly moving at different speeds relative to the surface of the planet in opposite directions, something which destroys a key assertion of SR.

[Incidentally, we also have improved versions of MMX which work to such high precision (many magnitudes better than the original experiment) that they would fail to produce a null result if there wasn't length contraction acting on it, and this just from the Earth's rotation even if the Earth was always stationary in space - it no longer depends on the Earth changing speed as it orbits the sun because the rotation should be sufficient on its own to produce a positive result if there was no contraction of one of the arms.]

[David Cooper]

Let us look at the twin Paradox , twin two leaves twin one now. they start their journey at 00:00:00 and travel at 0.5c for 1.s.

By "they start their journey", I hope you mean "they" in the singular.

added- In some way the time it takes for the light to travel from different positions in the length of journey should add up to 1.s

You have placed the twins half a lightsecond apart (I assume that the moving twin has stopped there), so the journey time for light to travel between them is 0.5s.

added- If we start with a length and interpret this as seeing things in the past, because of light and how sight works, this works and is true.

They will see each other as they were 0.5s back in the past.

However if we start within and work our way out, this becomes untrue and we don't see things in the past.

So which way is correct?

Hard to tell until you translate that into a form that makes sense.