Unanswered Problem With Time Dilation

[marcospolo]

This problem was originally embedded deep within another topic, and only one person attemped to answer it.

That attempt failed to address the issues. Circular reasoning was the approach used, which is not acceptable in Physics.

 

THE DILATION OF TIME CONUNDRUM
Two unmoving spaceships: A & B are the same distance from an observation point C.
The observer at point C sends a signal in both directions which will reach A & B after the same
amount of time. This signal thus starts both spaceships moving simultaneously.
Both spaceships accelerate identically and reach the same high velocity on their way to point C.
This velocity is close enough to the velocity of light so that they should apparently be
significantly affected by time dilation according to the principles of Special Relativity.

 

 

At the precise point that they pass by C, both spaceships send a signal which is the measurement
of the time on their own clocks to reach point C. These signals are marked AT & BT in the
second diagram.
Both spaceships are in a state of perfect symmetry from the perspective of C.
It is therefore clear regardless of the exact value of AT & BT, that these measurements of their
respective times (including any time dilation) will be equal to one another at the point of passing
C, from the observation point of C.
Thus AT = BT when perceived from the observer at C.
However the signals sent out are also both received by the other ship!
So A receives the signal BT, and B receives AT. There will be a very small delay in the time
that it takes the signals to pass between the ships. Seeing as the measurement is taken before the
signal is sent (as they both symmetrically pass by point C) this will not affect the actual
measurement, and thus the signals sent will be identical.
Both ships each will therefore be able to see that the times of their flight are such that BT = AT
when they arrive at point C.
We do not need to specify any values to see that despite a large effective velocity between A &
B, that there can be absolutely no effective time dilation between A & B!
This proves that time dilation due to relative velocity as specified in the Special Theory of
Relativity can only be a logical and empirical impossibility!!
 (clipped from www.flight-light-and-spin.com)

 

Relativists need to step up and show how SR still can work.

[ralfcis]

See answer on page 45 of Relativity and simple algebra and judge for yourself if the question hasn't been answered.

[marcospolo]

See answer on page 45 of Relativity and simple algebra and judge for yourself if the question hasn't been answered.

You are the person I was refeering to, when I said that the explanation was inadequate.  You are using several irrational theories to come up with an impossible result.

 

At the end of the day, SR time dilation allows two people to each claim that they are experiencing slower time than the other guy, and there is no way for that to be correct.

End of the story.

[marcospolo]

See answer on page 45 of Relativity and simple algebra and judge for yourself if the question hasn't been answered.

Ok, here is an extract from your post, that illustrates why I can't accept your hypothesis.

 

"Instead of using a light signal to start two ships 3ly from earth coming towards each other from opposite sides at .6c, we're going to send out two ships from earth at .6c to personally start the other two ships. Relativity is a stickler for spacetime paths starting and ending co-located and although it recognizes light signals to sync clocks, it does not recognize light signals to begin time durations at a distance."

 

Explain why your Relativity Physics cant work UNLESS you send 2 physical ships out to personally start the other 2 ships?  Sounds like you are trying to set up a deception of logic here.  There can be no valid reason to require this condition, that a simple flash of light from E can't have more easily provided.

 

Who cares what you STD paths prefer? (co-located start points etc... )  The reality is that the 2 ships began their trip towards E, at the same instant. That ALL you need to know, so now please explain given ONLY these circumstances, which are reasonable, and physically plausible.

 

And please explain WHY Relativity does NOT recognize that a pulse of light CAN'T be used as a signal to commence two equally distant events?

Seems to the rational mind, that light signal would be the very best method.  You can't be saying that sending two rockets to personally deliver the same start signal to two distant other ships is superior to a laser pulse of light?

 

What are you saying?

IF Einstein says that a light pulse can't be relied on to send simultaneous signals across identical distances, then all is lost. May as well toss all of Physics in the trash.

[ralfcis]

Ok, close your eyes, you have made the entire universe cease to exist. No need to learn anything now. Go back to screaming at the neighborhood kids to stay off your lawn.

[sluggo]

 

Relativists need to step up and show how SR still can work.

A needs to make 2 measurements to determine the speed of another object (B in this case). When he does, he divides the round trip time in half, per the SR convention. The reason being at constant speed, A can assume a rest frame in which the outbound and inbound times are equal (by definition). In the real (with no human involvement) process, times are not equal. this affects the observer's conclusion that the other clock appears slower than his. Understand this occurs while in motion with a delay in communication. When they meet, the delay is gone and both clocks read the same. Another example of apparent illogical reasoning, only if perception is not considered.

[Vmedvil2]

Well, basically the universe follows an equation which you all know for time dilation which you reject thus like moronium you go into the crank category. The Universe does have slower rates of time for objects that are moving more quickly through space anyone who denies this is a crank and its hopeless for you ever to learn "Real Physics".

 

 

Here is the equation for gravitational time dilation again proving that time physically slows down for objects in strong gravitational fields as well due to the physical warping of space-time.

 

 

The Physical proof that time dilation even slows the decay rate of particles moving at fast velocities.

 

 

 

Secondary proof, The Atomic Clock Experiment that proves Time dilation.(https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331184-900-atomic-clocks-make-best-measurement-yet-of-relativity-of-time/) 

Edited June 10, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

Try this Sluggo, maybe you can gain some insight using this example.

 

A light signal races from earth with two messenger ships from earth at .6c to points 3ly away from opposite sides of earth. Either one can intercept the two incoming ships at the 3 ly mark. If the two incoming ships use the light signal to sync their clocks, when they meet on earth, both their clocks will have the same reading as the earth clock.  If the two incoming ships use the two messenger ships to sync their clocks, both their clocks will have the same reading when they meet on earth but the earth clock won't agree. Similarly, if the two incoming ships have zero velocity wrt earth and each other and sync on the light signal reaching them at the 3 ly mark, they can verify with light signals back to earth that their clocks all read the same even though there's a delay to earth. But if they're just sitting out there and use the two messenger ships to sync their clocks, they will lag the earth clock by 1 yr. Can you verify what I'm saying and explain why it's true? Hint, think of the difference between time dilation and age difference. As a bonus question, will the incoming ships see earth's clock reciprocally slow at 80% or reciprocally speed up to 200%. Hint, think of the difference between time dilation and doppler shift ratio. You won't answer because you can't. You'll just slink away as usual and come back with mindless repetition of what you've always been saying.

[ralfcis]

So here's a trick question for you Victor. A factor of 10 time dilation for the muon allows it to barely cover the distance from the upper atmosphere to the surface of the earth. But relativity also says the muon will see that distance contract by a factor of 10. So why does this not mean the muon can easily cover 10 atmospheres of distance before it decays? 

[Vmedvil2]

So here's a trick question for you Victor. A factor of 10 time dilation for the muon allows it to barely cover the distance from the upper atmosphere to the surface of the earth. But relativity also says the muon will see that distance contract by a factor of 10. So why does this not mean the muon can easily cover 10 atmospheres of distance before it decays? 

 

Well that is simple because it is because time dilation and length contraction are the same effect that would be like measuring the same effect twice, if it covered 10 atmospheres, it would be like trying to take 2 * 4 = 8, but instead you are taking it twice so it is 2 * 4 * 4 = 32. Length Contraction and Time dilation are different views of the same effect on matter. If you did take the same effect twice it wouldn't be 2x but rather x² anyways ralfcis but having the same root cause you only take the effect of relativistic motion once.

 

This equation is why

Edited June 10, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

That's right. So in every example of relativity you can either use time dilation or length contraction but not both. Correct? So why would you need to consider length contraction if time dilation is equivalent and can stand in for it? But  the constancy of the speed of light depends on both time dilation and length contraction occurring concurrently. How is that different from every other example? I've shown length contraction is never needed for the same reason you gave even when you consider c constancy. So why does Einstein's relativity need it? 

[Vmedvil2]

That's right. So in every example of relativity you can either use time dilation or length contraction but not both. Correct? So why would you need to consider length contraction if time dilation is equivalent and can stand in for it? But  the constancy of the speed of light depends on both time dilation and length contraction occurring concurrently. How is that different from every other example? I've shown length contraction is never needed for the same reason you gave even when you consider c constancy. So why does Einstein's relativity need it? 

 

It is still a process that needs to be measured so you will know the exact length and time but they happen simultaneously It could be said why would you need to know relativistic mass increase either but it is just so you know all the properties effected by relativistic motion.

[ralfcis]

So, again, why does a muon get the choice of either applying time dilation or length contraction but  the constancy of the speed of light needs both concurrently?

[Amplituhedron]

So here's a trick question for you Victor. A factor of 10 time dilation for the muon allows it to barely cover the distance from the upper atmosphere to the surface of the earth. But relativity also says the muon will see that distance contract by a factor of 10. So why does this not mean the muon can easily cover 10 atmospheres of distance before it decays? 

 

I have already answered this question for you, but apparently you have me on ignore, which is great! 

 

It's unbelievable you would even ask this. 

[ralfcis]

You're so stupid Dave. Can't you read? Do you know what a trick question is? It's when I know the answer and am checking to see if the person I'm asking knows as well so he falls into the trap of the next question. Now you've fallen into the same trap. Can you answer the follow up question. I know the answer but do you. No, no you don't and neither does Victor. 

[marcospolo]

A needs to make 2 measurements to determine the speed of another object (B in this case). When he does, he divides the round trip time in half, per the SR convention. The reason being at constant speed, A can assume a rest frame in which the outbound and inbound times are equal (by definition). In the real (with no human involvement) process, times are not equal. this affects the observer's conclusion that the other clock appears slower than his. Understand this occurs while in motion with a delay in communication. When they meet, the delay is gone and both clocks read the same. Another example of apparent illogical reasoning, only if perception is not considered.

One: There is no round trip. You need to restate your explanation without using a round trip.

Two: the ship's occupants are not interested in measuring anything about the other ship.  They are only comparing their time with the others time when they are all located at point E

Three: Why would the occupant want to use the SR convention? At this stage, you are still explaining how that convention could possibly be true.

Four: Why would the "delay" of any time comparison have any effect of the physics of this experiment? The two ships are first, not interested in comparing their clocks until they are at the position E. They knew that that started off on equal footings. So any "delay" is going to be identical for each ship, the time comparison is going to be exactly the same from the beginning of the experiment to the end, i.e, there will be no observed discrepancy for any observer.

Five:  even though we are not interested in the outbound and inbound times, why do you say that "the outbound and inbound times process, times are not equal."   Einstein's postulate says that the time for a two way trip A to B and return must have equal times, and its also claimed in Galilean relativity. So now for some reason, you are claiming that this is NOT true?

Six: So you seem to be saying that somehow, during the trip, the clocks on the ships differ, but then by magic, when that pass each other, there is now no difference?  This is also counter to SR theory, which says that there is a real, lasting time dilation, remember the two ships meet at point E, BUT they are still both moving at the same velocity as they were throughout the entire trip.  Point E is NOT THE DESTINATION, its a position they both pass at the same time.

 

Please address these 6 points.

[Amplituhedron]

So, again, why does a muon get the choice of either applying time dilation or length contraction but  the constancy of the speed of light needs both concurrently?

 

Oh, I see. That's your "trick question"?

 

:lol:

 

Since the muon does not "get the choice" of  either time dilation OR length contraction, your "trick question" fails before it gets to the question mark! For the muon, everything is normal!