Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 11:54 pmI'm not really interested in discussing this in terms of model numbers.
That's why you keep making mistakes - you fail to separate out the incompatible models that have been mixed together by the establishment in order to pretend they have a working model. They don't have one though - the best they've got is a block that they cannot generate in a rational way and within which there is no action at all.
For clocks C1 and C2 the experiments are identical because in all experiments they move, relative to each other, in the same way. That's a really simple and obvious fact. There are no contradictions in it. I think the underlying reason why you keep on seeing contradictions where none exist is because you simply refuse to accept that physics is an empirical subject, that statements in physics are only meaningful if they can be related to something that can be measured, that the movements of objects are only meaningful relative to another object and that the tick rate of a clock is only meaningful relative to another clock. Your statements fail to take this into account over and over and over again. The most recent posts of yours, to which I am replying here, will demonstrate this apparent blind spot of yours yet again.
You're simply blind to manifest contradictions because you've been done over by a powerful mind virus, just like religious people who lose the ability to reason.
There is no such thing as an event meshing failure in physics. As I said earlier, that stems from your misuse of the concept of a 4D spacetime graph and the concept of a worldline, and your weird notion (on your website) that these 4D spacetime graphs have to be "built" like some kind of Lego model.
A magic block that was never generated in order of causation is not physics, but pure fantasy. If you're going to have a block universe, you need to grow it in order of causation in order for causality to be real. The models in sets 1, 2 and 3 follow proposed means of doing so, and one of those proposals is that time runs, but never runs slow - that automatically gives you the event-meshing failures in set 1, but your lot play games by mixing incompatible models to try to avoid the unavoidable consequences of trying to run time in that way. None of them have the honesty to admit what happens when they try to run a model with running clocks where none run slow - they find the event-meshing failures, and then they delete their code and pretend it never happened. That's why the only simulation you'll find anywhere on the Web that shows event-meshing failures is mine. If you want to show me I'm wrong, you need to write a program to simulate the same simple event that my simulation covers and show how you avoid event-meshing failures while generating the block. You won't manage it because it's impossible.
I don't know for sure what you mean by "the speed of light relative to the arena", but I presume you mean the speed of light from any light source as measured against the starting-line reference frame. That speed is measured to be constant. The speed of light, as measured against any reference frame is constant regardless of the movement of the light source relative to that reference frame.
Whenever you change frame, you change the speed of light relative to the arena and its content. If you start with the arena's frame and an object at rest in it, when you switch to a frame moving at 0.99c relative to the arena, you now assert that the speed of light relative to that same object as 0.01c in one direction and 1.99c in the opposite direction. If you consider both frames to be telling the truth about the reality as to how fast light is moving relative to the object (i.e. the underlying reality), you have the following contradictions: 1 = 0.01, and 1 = 1.99. (By extension, you also have 0.01 = 1.99.) Those are contradictions that any normal person would recognise, but you've been hypnotised into not being capable of seeing them. If you don't consider both frames to be telling the truth about the underlying reality though, then you accept that they are merely telling you how things appear, in which case you should be free to consider the underlying reality and to wonder what's really going on there. You're stuck though in a place where you are governed by dogma (which you've been programmed to deny) because your ability to reason independently has been destroyed. Maybe religious genes are involved too.
Your problem is that you persist in thinking that if clock X measures the tick signals from clock Y as slower than its own, then clock Y must measure the tick signals from clock X as faster than its own. It doesn't. They each measure the other's as slower. This problem seems to me to stem from your apparent inability to get used to the fact that we have to talk about things in terms of how they can be measured, as stated at the beginning of this post.
You're grasping at straws, inventing errors on my part that don't exist. I'm fully aware that both clocks measure each other as running slow while they're moving relative to each other. What matters is that when they're reunited, one of them finds out that its measurements were misleading because it's recorded less time than the other clock. I know you don't like different models being mentioned, but I have to keep mentioning them to try to help you understand that you aren't allowed to mix incompatible models to crate fake "fixes" for problems that have no solution. The static eternal block models don't run time but rely on magical creation. The models that run time without clocks running slow always create event-meshing failures. In this discussion of contradictions though, we are focused solely on models with running time where some clocks run slow, and the clock that makes two legs of a trip to the one leg of another clock where they start together and are reunited at the end always runs slow on average compared to the other clock. That is the starting point for the analysis, and it severely restricts the possibilities as to what happened to enable that clock to run slow.
for all the details of the relative speeds of clocks 1, 2, 3 and 4. The relative tick rates that each pair of clocks measures depends on those 2 clocks' relative speeds. Nothing else. You can add in as many other clocks as you like, and have them moving around as you like. Adding new clocks doesn't suddenly change the relative tick rates measured between existing clocks. Think about the simple logic of that for a moment.
Of course it doesn't, but when you change frame, you often change key hidden details as to which clock is ticking more quickly than which, and that's where you make your error time and time again. You're blind to it though because you've been taught that this illegal move is legal. It is legal in set zero models because there is no running time there, but it is not legal in set 2 and 3 models. Every time you change frame, you fool yourself.
If both of these experiments are identical, then clock 3 is ticking faster than clock 4 and clock 4 is ticking faster than clock 3, but that's a mathematical impossibility.
I think your failure to appreciate that tick rates are things that are actually measured by comparing pairs of clocks stems from your attachment to some form of universal time, and failure to realize that time is what is measured by a clock. That's my theory anyway. It is the only reason I can think of for your statements.
The failure is all yours, and it comes from powerful brainwashing which has left you incapable of judging what's going on. I've never yet encountered anyone in your position who can be deprogrammed though, which means that you're probably never going to understand your error.
Your assertions do not agree with observed reality.
Fact A: the clock that did two legs ran slow. That's an observed reality - it's the best measurement we have. Fact B: it is mathematically impossible for that clock to have run slower than the stay-at-home clock on average without ticking slower than the stay-at-home clock on one or other of those legs. Fact C: This leads to the conditional truth: if Lorentz's clock ran slower than mine on the first leg, then (when the reverse experiment is carried out at the same time in which Einstein's clock accompanies Lorentz's on the first leg but keeps going (when Lorentz turns back) is later caught by yours when you're racing after it after hanging out with me for a while when L and E set out) we know that your clock ticked faster than Einstein's while you were waiting with me. That is for rational people an undeniable asymmetry. This conditional truth means exactly what it says, and no amount of establishment voodoo can override it.
And that means changing the speed of light relative to the system for each leg, leading to a complete misunderstanding of what's going on.
The speed of light is measured to be the same by all observers. There is no contradiction in that.
There's a ruddy great contradiction there every time you change frame, but you've been hypnotised into not seeing that. This is why I see the establishment as a religious cult. You have been rendered incapable of understanding some of the most basic things in real physics.
The apparent speed of light relative to them in each case is c. The actual speed of light relative to them may be different for each.
I don't know what you mean by "the actual speed of light". If you're not talking about something that can be measured you're not doing physics.
No - I'm doing physics, while you're inadvertently doing witchcraft instead. You're allowing yourself to be misled by measurements made using different frames which you naively take at face value. The existence of the underlying reality is revealed by a clock running slow after going on a journey and returning. It runs slow on average, but you switch frame between making measurements and believe that it's always running at full speed while all other clocks are magically running slower unless they're co-moving with yours. You are incapable of recognising the mathematical necessity for your clock to run slower than the stay-at-home clock on at least one of the two legs of your trip, and that's sad. I don't know how so many people are so susceptible to such brainwashing, but it is so common that it is very much the norm. Perhaps it's something genetic that predisposes people to become victims of this, because we've had enormous numbers of people being killed for going against religious authorities for thousands of years - the more rational ones were the ones who were taken out.
They both measure each other to be slower. This is an empirical fact. See above. I'm not playing any games. I'm sticking to what is measured. i.e. doing physics.
You're doing religion - not physics. If you were doing physics you would recognise that the only reliable measurement you make in all this is the one that shows unambiguously that your clock ticked more slowly on average than the stay-at-home clock, but you assert the superiority of the other measurements which conflict with that.
You're playing an irrational game where you change the speed of light relative to the system in order to pretend that experiments 1 and 3 are the same, but they aren't the same.
When you refer to "the system" which observer are you referring to?
I'm referring to the arena in which one of the clocks is at rest throughout all the action.
The speed of light is c as measured by all observers. In all 3 experiments clocks 1 and 2 move at the same speed relative to each other in the first leg and then clock 2 changes reference frames. In all 3 experiments clocks 3 and 4 move at the same speed relative to each other throughout. Throughout it all, all clocks measure the speed of light relative to themselves as c. These are simply the facts.
The fact is that if the speed of light is c in all directions relative to one clock, it cannot be c relative to any clock that is moving relative to that first clock, but you deny this basic fact, and as soon as you do that, you abandon physics in favour of magic.
I don't see the point in adding all these extra people. They're covered by various already existing clocks in the existing 3 experiments. So we've added nothing new. Therefore I see no possibility of any new insights from this. But let's go on and see.
The point is exactly as I stated earlier. If my clock is ticking faster than Lorentz's during the first leg of his trip, your clock is ticking faster than Einstein's on the fist leg of your trip. Alternatively, If your clock is ticking more slowly than Einstein's on the first leg of your trip, then my clock is ticking more slowly than Lorentz's on the first leg of his trip. Either way, its asymmetrical. You are incapable of accepting these mathematical necessities, and that's why you're doing religion rather than physics.
There are five rational possibilities for this when we're testing set 2 and 3 models, as I set out earlier. Those options are:-
(A) My clock ticked more quickly than Lorentz's clock on both legs of his trip.
(B) My clock ticked more quickly than Lorentz's on the first leg and his ticked at the same rate as mine on the second leg.
(C) My clock ticked at the same rate as Lorentz's on the first leg and more quickly than his on the second leg.
(D) My clock ticked more quickly than Lorentz's on the first leg and more slowly than his on the second leg.
(E) My clock ticked more slowly than Lorentz's on the first leg and more quickly than his on the second leg.
None of the above options are valid because none of them refer to what is measured by observers travelling with each clock.
You are simply rejecting logical reasoning (which is part of mathematics). In doing so, you are showing yourself to be plain irrational, just as religious people do when they reject reasoning. All the above options are valid possibilities and they all come from the only reliable measurement made, which is the one that showed a clock has undeniably run slow. You want to reject that measurement in favour of the inferior measurements of apparent relative ticking speeds which we know conflict with the underlying reality.
Ditto.
Again, just flat rejection of reason. That's what it all comes down to - you aren't rational. You're part of an establishment which is really just a church posing as a branch of science.
Einstein's and Lorentz's clocks were ticking at the same rate as each other during the first leg, and my clock and yours were ticking at the same rate as each other during the first leg too. Logic dictates the following asymmetric things:-
If (A) --> not (F), not (G), not (H), not (I).
Therefore if (A) --> (J).
If (B) --> not (F), not (G), not (H), not (I).
Therefore if (B) --> (J).
If (C) --> not (F), not (G), not (I), not (J).
Therefore if (C) --> (H).
if (D) --> not (F), not (G), not (H), not (I).
Therefore if (D) --> (J).
If (E) --> not (H), not (J).
Therefore if (E) --> (F) or (G) or (I).
All irrelevant because all options are invalid. See above.
None of it's irrelevant. All of it's correct (and any competent mathematician will tell you so), but you simply don't respect reason at all. Like religious people, you claim to be rational while making a mockery of reason and mathematics.
As I said earlier, I'm not interested in model numbers.
That's because you rely on being slapdash and on incompatible-model mixing in order to hide your errors from yourself. It's clear that you've gone as far as you can with this though - your thinking is firmly locked. You aren't seeking truth here at all - all you're doing is digging in to defend establishment errors. The funny thing is though, many of the people at the top of the establishment actually agree that these contradictions exist in set 2 models and they are happy to accept that they are broken - they stick to defending the static block model instead.
The other thing that clearly invalidates the set 2 models is the unhappening-and-rehappening-of-events issue as you change frame. You trip up on that too. An event happens at point B while you're at point A, but some frames tell you it's happened and other frames tell you it hasn't happened yet. You believe all of them. To hide the idiocy of your position, you complain that frames don't speak so they don't tell anyone anything, but that's all diversion - frame C analysis produces data that claims the event at B has happened, but frame D analysis produces data that claims the event at B has yet to happen. They can't both be right. And I'm standing at point B, fully aware at one moment when the event had yet to happen, you were getting information from frame C telling you that it has happened AND/OR that at another moment after the event had happened, you were getting information from frame D telling you that it hadn't happened yet. Even when you're fed directly with this contradictory information from rival frames, you still can't see any contradictions! Relativity makes monkeys of many people who imagine that they understand it because they've been taught by the baboons with the brightest backsides, trained to reject the much better intuitive understanding of relativity that they had before their education ever began.