Time is measured along the path taken by the clock. Two clocks in relative motion have an angle (known as "rapidity") between their worldlines. Comparing two clocks involves projecting the ticks of one onto the worldline of the other which introduces a geometric factor. Look up the "Twins Paradox", the resolution is trivial.

Dear Saswata Mandal,

>

if you follow the LT you find that the train and platform should see each other time dilated if considered both as IRFs on the same footing. But experiments say that this is not the case and also logic say that they cannot be considered as such, it is an undetermined problem.

The train was accelerated from the platform and then decelerated to rest. Either you assume a preferred frame(LET) , the one of the platform or (SR) you apply the fact that one system got accelerated and then decelerated: you get the same final result.

Although the final result is a confirmation of the experimentally verified twin effect and is the same, the result of SR is much more ambiguous since there is a discontinuity when in the twin problem the travelling one goes back.

I don't think this is possible, he does not notice a difference by staying in the train...

You are right, the SR is an inconsistent theory. Your experimental setup with a train is similar with the twin paradox setup. Unfortunately this kind of setups are too simplistic and are unable to prove beyond doubt that SR is inconsistent. Your moving train suffer accelerations and in consequence is not a valid frame of reference inside SR. I have a paper on this subject where an experimental setup with 2 clocks in motion without accelerations using light pulses for sync and compare of clocks. In this case both frames are equally entitled to be used as reference, with the result that both clocks run faster and slower in the same time which is clearly impossible in reality. It is really easy actually to prove that SR is false using exactly the same synchronization method that Einstein used in its original paper about SR.

You can do the "twins" scenario but use three "triplets" who only synchronise or compare their clocks when passing, no accelerations involved at all. The result is identical.

It is impossible to find any real contradiction in SR because the full set of equations form a mathematical group so can only ever give consistent results.

experiments with 3 clocks or more usually run into problems for no taking into account the relativity of simultaneity. For two proper time intervals to be compared and to mean something, the starting and ending moments of these 2 intervals must be simultaneous in both ref frames (in the simplest scenario). Also sometime experimental setups or their interpretation violate the principle of relativity or simply is not taking it into account, being one side views, like muon experiment or Hafele-Keating experiment with clocks in aiplane.

There's no problem that way Octavian, all the comparisons are local while relativity of simultaneity depends on the distance between the clocks. You are comparing the sum of two proper times with a third, all three being measured on inertial clocks.

Yes I understand your setup now with 3 clocks, the clocks 1 and 2 stay in the same state of motion so they are syncronazed, clock 3 is moving relative to them, passing clock 1 and then 2, clocks comparision is thus possible. The math analisys in this case is similar with tha one in my setup, leading to inconsistency. If we use clocks 1 and 2 frame then clock 3 appear slower than 1 and 2. If then use clock 3 frame as ref, then clocks 1 and 2 appear slower than 3. So analysis from different ref frames gives inconsistent results, clocks that goes both slow and fast in the same time, we have no clear prediction of what happen with the clocks.

I want to specify that when clocks 1 and 2 are used as ref then their proper time become equal with the coordinate time. Also when clock 3 is used as ref then its proper time become equal with the coordinate time. In both these situations we must do the complete calculations, using both lenght contraction and time dilation. If we do just asymetrical calculations using time dilation in the first case (1 and 2 as ref) and just lenght contraction in the second case (3 as ref) the the result appear as consistent, but by this we imply a deliberate asymetrical analysis.

Some years ago, I was tinkering with HTML5 and drew an interactive version to try out the "canvas" functions. It shows the twins worldlines with dots marking birthday parties, so one year apart as lived by each twin. You can choose the frame in the range ±0.99c in steps of 0.01c using a slider or by typing into a text box. The background grid is in years and light years so if you set any worldline vertical, you can check that the interval between the dots is correct. Proper time is measured along each line and is what drives all physics locally.

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/html5/twins.html

OB: I want to specify that when clocks 1 and 2 are used as ref then their proper time become equal with the coordinate time.

You can't do that. Proper time equals coordinate time when the clock is at rest, i.e. its worldline is vertical so if there is an any between two lines, only one can be vertical. The angle is the parameter known as "rapidity", related to speed.

Your example with Bob and Alice represent the classical twin paradox case in that case Alice is accelerating and is not a valid ref frame for SR, so the sitation is just a one side view (Bob side). One side views can't test the principle of relativity, the time dilation from them can be equally explained with SR and with LR (Bob frame can be considered preferential frame).

Then you say "proper times equal coordinate time when the clock is at rest". This is a typical violation of the principle of relativity and in consequence of SR. While the principle of relativity is valid, the concept of rest is non existent, we can only speak about inertial state of motion. When a system in an inertial state of motion is chosen to be the ref frame, that system become the ref for relative rest, all velocities become expressed relative to it. So its proper time become actualy equal with the coordinate time, the system becoming the ref for space-time coordinates.

OB: Your example with Bob and Alice represent the classical twin paradox case in that case Alice is accelerating and is not a valid ref frame for SR, so the sitation is just a one side view (Bob side).

True, I drew it that way some years ago, but imagine that you extend each worldline beyond the places where they intersect. Now you have a sketch of the triplets version with each sibling moving inertially before, during and after the whole experiment. All the dots drawn still stay where they are shown but there would be more on the extensions to the lines that aren't of interest.

OB: Then you say "proper times equal coordinate time when the clock is at rest". This is a typical violation of the principle of relativity ...

No, it is the definition of coordinate time. Time coordinates are allocated from a reference clock which is at rest in the frame.

OB: When a system in an inertial state of motion is chosen to be the ref frame, that system become the ref for relative rest, all velocities become expressed relative to it. So its proper time become actualy equal with the coordinate time, the system becoming the ref for space-time coordinates.

Essentially that's right but remember each clock defines a frame, there are three inertial frames in the twins scenario, the frame of the stay-at-home twin, the frame in which the traveller is at rest on the outbound leg and the frame in which he or she is at rest on the return leg. Adjusting the slider in the interactive page lets you see any one of those. Adding the other grids would show all three on the same page as a "Minkowski Diagram" but would be a bit cluttered on that scale.

Deae George Dishman,

The problem is solved. In reality the Twin paradox was proposed in SRT in order to keep on the independent reality and continuity in classical physics. In the reality there is no twin paradox as a result of retardation which is leading the relativistic quantum field and quantum superposition. In this case the reality is observer dependent as a result of retardation and thus the continuity in classical physics is violated. There is no continuity as a result of retardation which is leading to relativistic quantum field and quantum superposition. That explains in reality faster than light as proven in the experiment and how enzymes cheat time and space by quantum tunneling - a much faster way of traveling than the classical way. Seed Magazine published a fascinating article about a group of researchers who discovered a bit more about how enzymes use quantum tunneling to speed up chemical reactions. Because of that as SRT is classical theory by the fake geometry of Minkowski, it can't explain faster than light or how enzymes cheat time and space by quantum tunneling - a much faster way of traveling than the classical way. That's how in reality when we talk about relativistic quantum field and quantum superpositions, the reality in this case must be observer dependent.

How does a 'field' become observer dependent?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=05hjaap53pnk78rs6dmff6ual4&topic=48525.0;nowap

George Dishman can't take in his solution of the twin paradox the two sides.. why?

Because if SRT is keeping on the independent reality and continuity in classical physics, there is no solution for the problem in reality. George Dishman considers the independent reality and continuity according to the fake Geometry of Minkowski when he Minkowski said

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

So George Dishman can't consider the two sides according to the principle of relativity in SRT, because in this case there is no solution for the twin paradox according to the independent reality and continuity as SRT is classical theory. George Dishman can only using the Straw man in the discussion and consider only one side to solve the problem and he says the problem is solved by Minkowski geometry ... why?

Because in reality there is no twin paradox as a result of retardation, but the twin paradox is important for SRT to keep on the independent reality and continuity according to the principle of relativity in SRT. Now according to the retardation which is leading to the relativistic quantum field and quantum superposition, the reality must be observer dependent not observer independent according to the fake geometry of Minkowski. That's also how SRT can't explain faster than or Entanglement or tunneling in QM.

Azzam Almosallami,

> That explains in reality faster than light as proven in the experiment

May I ask which experiment you are referring to?

Have you considered what will happen if the train goes into reverse?

Dear James Garry

You can review these papers

Article Enzymology takes a quantum leap forward

Masgrau L, Roujeinikova A, Johannissen LO, Hothi P, Basran J, Ranaghan KE, Mulholland AJ, Sutcliffe MJ, Scrutton NS, Leys D. Atomic Description of an Enzyme Reaction Dominated by Proton Tunneling. Science. 2006 April 14;312(5771):237-41. PMID 16614214

lsson MH, Siegbahn PE, Warshel A. Simulations of the large kinetic isotope effect and the temperature dependence of the hydrogen atom transfer in lipoxygenase. J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Mar 10;126(9):2820-8. PMID 14995199

Arcia-Viloca M, Gao J, Karplus M, Truhlar DG. How enzymes work: analysis by modern rate theory and computer simulations. Science. 2004 Jan 9;303(5655):186- 95. PMID 14716003

Relative to faster than light

G. Nimtz, A. Stahlhofen, " Evanescent Modes and Tunnelling Instantaneously Act at a Distance", AIP Conf. Proc. -- March 6, 2008 -- Volume 977, pp. 310-315. 2-

G. Nimtz, W. Heitmann, Phys. Lett. A 196 (1994)p. 154. 3-

G. Nimtz, A. Stahlhofen, " Macroscopic violation of special relativity", submitted Aug/5/2007, arXiv:0708.0681v1

G. Nimtz, Gen. Rel. Grav. 31, 737 (1999); G. Nimtz, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 7, 618 (1998).

Azzam,

There appears to be considerable debate about the interpretation of these experiments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Give_up_(absolute)_relativity

I will watch from the sidelines.

Faster than light experimental data are highly questionable at least for now. Mass dilation appear to be a real phenomenon based on experimental observations, but the question that still exist is that the velocity in it is relative to an arbitrary chosen frame like in SR or is relative to an preferential frame like in other theories (for example Lorentz relativity).

Because of electromagnetic field propagation with speed of light, in faster than light conditions the EM field cant keep up with the body and will remain behind, so the body will lose all of its EM energy which may lead to a disintegration. Now this is just a basic intuitive analysis. In the case of preferential frame all these propagation effects will happen only with motion relative to that preferred frame, so reltive to other frames, faster than light movement is possible.

I'm not sure if my comment were taken as tongue in cheek - it wasn't meant to be. The relattive idrection of the train isas iimportant as is its speed.

So I will rephrase it. Consider this.

A photon travelling from A to B at the speed of light.

A second is travelling from B to A at the speed of light.

What are their relative speeds?

• Newtonian physics would say 2C or twice the speed of light.
• Einstinian physics would say C or 1 times the speed of light but they would see each other blue shifted to twice the frequency or half the wavelength.
• Quantum physics would say the question is unanswerable as, at the point they observed each other, both photons would disappear because of quantum uncertainty.

Dear Ian,

IP: A photon travelling from A to B at the speed of light.

IP: A second is travelling from B to A at the speed of light.

IP: What are their relative speeds?

You cannot construct a frame based on a photon, the axes are degenerate.

Dear Azzam,

AA: George Dishman can't take in his solution of the twin paradox the two sides.

A triangle has three sides, not two.

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/html5/twins.html

The solution works for all three frames.

Dear James Garry

There is no faster than light locally, but it is globally. There is no length contraction but retardation according to the relativistic invariant and the entanglement, and because of that globally as a result of retardation there is a jump in space and time which explains the tunnelling Instantaneously act at a Distance as proven in Gunter Nimtz experiments. That will lead as a result of retardation to relativistic quantum field and quantum superposition. In this the independent reality and continuity in classical is violated. That explains why the relativistic ether which is related to quantum vacuum is taboo as Robert B. Laughlin said;

The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

Relativists are right when they said there is no faster than light locally. The problem is related to globally. The problem of local and global in SRT is well known in physics. Relativists understand well the solution of local and global problem in SRT will lead to change SRT to the Copenhagen school and in this case the relativistic ether which is related to quantum vacuum will appear depending on the energy of vacuum. Because of that the modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo. So SRT can't explain tunnelling and entanglement and also how enzymes cheat space and time because of the independent reality and continuity which adopted in Minkowski geometry which is keeping on SRT to be classical not relativistic quantum field.

Dear George

I understand your solution well and you did that with me before and we kept in discussion in this topic more than two years. I asked you at that time to consider the two sides in your solution according to the principle of relativity in SRT, but you refused to do that and you could not to do that, because you understand well in this case there is no solution for the problem if we want to consider the independent reality and continuity in classical physics according to the principle of relativity in SRT. In order to be accurate, there is no length contraction, it is in reality the retardation which is leading that SRT to be expressed about relativistic quantum field and quantum superposition. In this the twin paradox disappeared and the difference in age when the twin meet is explained according to the quantum superposition. That's how in reality enzymes cheat space and time in tunnelling and the reaction moves in faster rate than the classical situation. That in reality solves the problem of local and global in SRT that you could not solve it till now. The system in this case is isolated not dissipative.

Dear Azzam,

AA: I understand your solution well and you did that with me before and we kept in discussion in this topic more than two years.

Yes, and nothing has changed in that time.

AA: I asked you at that time to consider the two sides in your solution ...

There are three 'sides' to the paths Azzam, they form a triangle, and the solution works perfectly in all three.

Instead of just talking nonsense, try to show a mathematical error anywhere in the solution, you won't find one.

Dear George,

I discussed with you about that and I do not want to repeat the same discussion. Try to understand the principle of relativity well in SRT and how it keeps on the independent reality and continuity. You consider one side in the problem. You have never considered the two sides. Now take the other side and do the same calculations, in this case there is no solution of the twin paradox. This is the principle of relativity in SRT which is taken from Galileo. Your solution is not the true solution of twin paradox according to the principle of relativity in SRT which is taken from Galileo in order to SRT to be classical theory keeping on the independent reality and continuity in classical physics.

AA: You consider one side in the problem. You have never considered the two sides.

As I have repeated several times, there are three sides to a triangle and I show all three in the interactive web page. If you don't know how many sides a triangle has, don't waste everyone's time.

Dear George,

This is from the point of view of the observer on ground. Now give us your solution from the point of view of the observer stationary in the moving train according to the principle of relativity. Now the observer on the moving train is stationary and the observer on the ground is moving in constant velocity v according to the principle of relativity. What will happen when they meet!? You will get the same solution and in this case there is no solution for the twin paradox and when they meet there is no time dilation. So if there is no time dilation in this case, then why the twin paradox and why SRT!? This is in reality the principle of relativity in SRT in order to keep on the independent reality and continuity. In your solution you considered the observer on the ground is stationary and the observer on the moving is moving. This is from the one side. Now give us the other side. You can't, because in this case there is no solution.

AA: Now give us the other side. You can't ....

I did. The observer on the ground sees the train's clock dilated, the observer on the train sees the ground clock dilated. Everything is symmetrical. Again we discussed all of this many times before and you still haven't understood these basics. The attached spacetime diagram is for your question on the train and pylons and shows both viewpoints, track and train. I last updated the file on the 13th January 2017 so you've had more than two years to understand the answer. If you can't follow it after all the help I've given you, you'll need to seek help elsewhere, I can do no more.

Indeed George see just one side of the problem, using Bob as ref frame. He refuze to apply the principle of relativity so actually he refuze SR as a theory, since if one take away the principle of relativity then SR will vanish. When one change the ref frame that also change the coordinate time to the new frame and this will lead to inconsistent predictions about accumulated time.

George in those diagram you treat motion as being absolute ( the track stay and the train is moving), absolute motion is outside the scope of both SR and GR. So you are wrong if we presume that SR is right.

Dear Octavian,

OB: Indeed George see just one side of the problem, using Bob as ref frame. He refuze to apply the principle of relativity ...

What does that mean? Bob is part of the (thought) experiment, we are the ones using the theory to process his results (or Alice's).

If we know the coordinates of the events as measured by Bob, we apply the Lorentz Transforms and they tell us the coordinates that would be measured by Alice, and we can do that for her velocity departing or arriving. Given results in any one frame, you can use the LT to get the values in both the other frames.

OB: When one change the ref frame that also change the coordinate time to the new frame and this will lead to inconsistent predictions about accumulated time.

Try it with the numbers from my diagram as an example. You find that you always get the same answer, proper time is an invariant quantity under the Lorentz Transforms so can never be inconsistent unless you made a mistake in your arithmetic.

In Azzam's question, the "pylons" are set in the ground next to the track. A flash of light is emitted as the rear of the train is level with Pylon A and reaches the front as that is level with pylon B.

OB: George in those diagram you treat motion as being absolute ( the track stay and the train is moving), ...

No, the track is at rest and the train moving in the left hand panel, the same experiment is shown with the train at rest and the track moving (a passenger's view) in the right hand panel. That is clearly stated in the titles of the panels.

Dear George,

At first the principle of relativity in SRT is working according to time dilation and length contraction as one unit. Now when you talk about time dilation alone according to your graphs, you separate between space and time Space and time as one unit according to the principle of relarivity in SRT is keeping on the independent reality and continuity.

These graphs you did with me. You proposed now a fake principle of relativity after the retardation in my theory. This fake principle of relativity from you is not real. You took that from my theory when I proposed the retardation in my theory and now you want to take it and propose a fake principle of relativity after the retardarion in order to explain time dilation. This is not SRT as you propose now. How you propose the retardation in my theory and after that you propose a fake principle of relativity!? This is not SRT but it is my theory with the retardation. In my theory no need to the principle of relativity as a result of retardation. According to the principle of relativity in SRT show us the space and time that is keeping on the independent reality and don't separate between space and time. All what you need now is to draw the same graph by considering the observer on the moving train stationary and the observer on the ground is moving with constant velocity v. You can't do that because in this there is no solution for the twin paradox and there is no time dilation. So your solution is to take the retardarion in my theory and propose a fake principle of relativity. This is not SRT but my theory with fake principle of relativity proposed by you.

AA: Now when you talk about time dilation alone according to your graphs

Time dilation is shown but lengths are contracted too. In the left hand diagram at t=0, the pylons are 200m apart, in the right hand diagram at t'=0, they are 160m apart.

Conversely the rest length of the train is 100m so in the right hand diagram front and rear are separated by that distance at t'=0 whereas in the left hand diagram the train is moving so they are separated by 80m.

AA: You proposed now a fake principle of relativity ..

No, the diagrams are all produced as graphs in Excel and the numbers come directly from applying the Lorentz Transforms. We've been over all of this dozens of times, you just don't even recognise SR when you are shown it. Open up a good textbook for once and you'll find everything I'm telling you in it, there is nothing new here.

AA: All what you need now is to draw the same graph by considering the observer on the moving train stationary and the observer on the ground is moving with constant velocity v. You can't do that ..

That is the right hand panel, it's already in front of you and has been for two years.

Dear George,

You can't talk by space and time as one unit as proposed by SRT in reality, because in this case you appear the inconsistency of SRT as I proved in my theory. We discussed about that before and how you proposed the fake principle of relativity by your mind according the retardation in my theory.

let's talk by numbers. The train at pylon B. The velocity of the moving train is 0.87c and the reading of the clock of the observer on the ground is 8 seconds now. Give us the reading of the clock of the stationary observer on the ground relativity to the observer on the moving train now, and what is the reading of the clock now on the moving train relative to the observer on the ground and on the train. Show us your fake principle of relativity what to say, and forget now the length contraction.

Dear Azzam,

AA: You can't talk by space and time as one unit as proposed by SRT in reality ..

Of course we can if that's what you want to do. Just rub out the chart grids, the white background is spacetime. We overlay coordinates for our convenience but they aren't part of nature, they are our measurements of it.

AA: .. because in this case you appear the inconsistency of SRT as I proved in my theory.

If you had a theory, I could easily believe it would be inconsistent but that's not the case for SR, you just don't have a clue how the real theory is applied.

AA: We discussed about that before and how you proposed the fake ..

No Azzam, you are the fake. We discussed it before and showed that you didn't know the first thing about relativity, it seems nothing has changed in the two years since then.

AA: let's talk by numbers.

Good idea.

AA: The train at pylon B.

I presume you mean the front of the train, not the rear.

AA: The velocity of the moving train is 0.87c

The speed in the diagrams is 0.6c.

AA: and the reading of the clock of the observer on the ground is 8 seconds now.

The reading on the ground clock is 200, you can read that off the vertical scale on the left hand "Track Frame" diagram for that event dot, the one located where the blue "front" line intersects the red "Pylon B" line. You seem to be incapable of even reading the charts.

AA: Give us the reading of the clock of the stationary observer on the ground

The reading on the ground clock is 200 as above.

AA: what is the reading of the clock now on the moving train ..

The reading on the train clock is 100, you can read that off the vertical scale on the right hand "Train Frame" diagram for that event dot, the one also located where the blue "front" line intersects the red "Pylon B" line. You seem to be incapable of even reading the charts.

AA: Show us your fake ...

You are the fake Azzam, you can't even read the numbers off a chart when you are given the answers.

Now if you want to disagree with those results, just put the event coordinates into the Lorentz Transforms and see what you get. Stop wasting everyone's time just because you are too lazy to do any work yourself.

George Dishman,

You are really fake. As usual you use the Straw man in the discussion. You give me the answer by one side. That is relative to the observer on the ground. Like this you cheat in the discussion. Give me the answer by the two sides. Whay abiut the otherside at the same time. Now at this time since SRT keeps on the independent reality and continuity give me at this time what is the reading of the clock on the moving train now also for the observer on the moving train and the reading of the clock on ground now relative to the observer on the moving train according the principle of relativity in SRT. Like this you play wirh us. You can't do that. You just play with us and using the Straw man.

Like this George Dishman play in the discussion, he is impossible to give a complete answer. He understand well the complete answer will embarrass him. Let us see how George Dishman proposed his fake principle of relativity.

AA: You are really fake.

No Azzam. you are the "fake" or maybe just really stupid.

AA: You give me the answer by one side. That is relative to the observer on the ground. Like this you cheat in the discussion. Give me the answer by the two sides.

I gave you both, can't you read? You asked about "The train at pylon B." so here again are the answers for that event, I'll put them in bold so you can't miss them this time:

If you want to know the answers to any more questions, I will expect you to at least make an attempt to read them off charts. If you can't work something out for yourself, I'll help, but you you should be able to work out everything from the charts alone. That's the test I'm setting you.

George

-:-:-:- Repeating the answers -:-:-:-

AA: Give us the reading of the clock of the stationary observer on the ground

GD: The reading on the ground clock is 200, you can read that off the vertical scale on the left hand "Track Frame" diagram for that event dot, the one located where the blue "front" line intersects the red "Pylon B" line.

AA: what is the reading of the clock now on the moving train ..

GD: The reading on the train clock is 100, you can read that off the vertical scale on the right hand "Train Frame" diagram for that event dot, the one also located where the blue "front" line intersects the red "Pylon B" line.

No George you did not give me the answers and you can't give me the answers according to your fake principle of relativity you proposed in your fake diagram. So at the momemt that the observer on the ground sees the clock of moving train reads 100 while his clock reads now 200, relative to the observer on the moving train his clock reads 100. That's ok as I predicted in my theory. Now at this time according the principle of relativity during the motion what is the reading of the clock on the ground now relative to the observer on the moving train!? It is impossible to be 200 while his clock reads 100 during the motion. So what is the reading of the clock now on the ground relative to the observer on the moving train during the motion!? Answer me!! Or you want to escape from the answer!?

AA: No George you did not give me the answers

Yes I did Azzam, I'm not going to repeat them again because you already accepted my numbers.

AA: So at the momemt that the observer on the ground sees the clock of moving train reads 100 while his clock reads now 200, relative to the observer on the moving train his clock reads 100.

The numbers are correct but the way you are saying it is confused, I guess English is your second language so that's OK. To write it correctly, you could say "At the moment when the front of the train is level with Pylon B, the ground clock on the pylon reads 200 and the clock at the front of the train reads 100." but you've agreed my numbers so that's OK.

AA: That's ok as I predicted in my theory.

No, you said "the reading of the clock of the observer on the ground is 8 seconds". How you worked that out is a complete mystery to me but it's wrong so I don't care.

AA: Now at this time according the principle of relativity during the motion what is the reading of the clock on the ground

As we said above yet again, the reading on the trackside clock is 200. You just said that yourself Azzam, a few lines back. What is your problem? Just look back at the bits in bold in this message.

Listen Gorge stop cheating I changed the numbers as you wanted. I do not care to numbers now, I care to your fake principle of relativity. You have not answered my questions. I have been now since 5 hours in the train and I'm writing from my mobile.

My question is clear and it does not need all of this Straw man and cheat from you.

What is the reading of the clock on the ground now according to the principle of relarivity for the observer on the moving train during the motion while his clock reads now relative to him 100 during the motion. I do not want when they meet and v=0. Do you want to say 200!? In this case this is not time dilarion, it time speeding up and this is not SRT. So answer my question.

Now as we see according the principle of relativity of Dishman, when the clock on the moving train reads 100 during the motion for the observer on the moving train, then the clock on the ground during the motion must be speeding up not dilated relative to the observer on the moving train and it must read 200. This is the principle of relativity of Dishman.

AA: You have not answered my questions.

I have answered your one question over and over again, you asked what the clock readings would be when the train passed pylon B and I told you, if you mean the front of the train the answers are 200 on the ground clock and 100 on the train clock.

AA: I have been now since 5 hours in the train and I'm writing from my mobile.

Ouch, that's a long journey.

AA: My question is clear and it does not need all of this Straw man and cheat from you.

I think the question was clear but you didn't confirm that you wanted to now about the front of the train which I had to assume. If you were asking about the rear, the answers will be different.

AA: What is the reading of the clock on the ground now according to the principle of relarivity for the observer on the moving train during the motion while his clock reads now relative to him 100 during the motion.

The reading on the ground clock when the front of the train passes pylon B (and at the same moment the light reaches the front) is 200. The front of the train passing the pylon is a single event and the reading on the clock when that happens is the same as seen by everyone, it is a proper time so is invariant.

AA: I do not want when they meet and v=0.

The speed is never 0, it is always 0.6c from when the front of the train passes pylon A and before until the rear of the train passes pylon B and after.

AA: Do you want to say 200!?

I've told you that is the correct answer a dozen times.

AA: In this case this is not time dilarion, ...

Correct, it is not just time dilation, the clocks were set to zero when the rear of the train passed pylon A and the flash of light was emitted but I think you are asking about when the front of the train passes pylon B. There is a distance between them so you cannot ignore the relativity of simultaneity. The answer is a combination of the two, or you can just apply the Lorentz Transforms to the coordinates, that's what I do.

For others following this, I'll add some detail.

Saswata Mandal, Azzam has somewhat taken over this thread but his question is very similar to yours so I hope you think the discussion is relevant in answering your question. If not, I'll drop out.

At the moment the light is emitted from Pylon A, as determined by the ground observer, the clocks on both pylons read t=0 because that is taken as the start of the experiment and the clocks are synchronised by the ground observer.

The clocks at the front and rear of the train however are synchronised by the observer on the train. In his frame the both read t'=0 when the rear passes pylon A but according to the ground observer, the clock at the front has been set to t'=-60.

The ground observer sees the experiment last for 200. The train is moving at 0.6c giving a gamma factor of ɣ=1.25 so time dilation means the train clocks advance by 200/ɣ=160. The train clock starts at -60 and advances by 160 giving a reading at the end of 100.

You can do the same from the train frame. The passenger sees his clock advance by 100, time dilation makes that 80 but from his point of view the track clock was set to 120 at the time the experiment started so advances to 200.

Azzam is failing to take relativity of simultaneity into account, and that is probably the most common error people make when learning this subject.

Listen dear GEORGE

My question from the beginning is related to the principle of relativity of Einstein which is well known for all. Now according to your principle of relativity which you tried to take it from my paper, time on the ground must speed up relative to the observer on the moving train because his clock reads 100 at this moment during the motion while he sees during the motion at this time the clock on the ground reads 200. So this not SRT but it is your principle of relativity which you tried to take it from my theory and explain SRT. In my theory the twin paradox disapeared as a result of retardation which is leading to the relativistic quantum field and quantum superposition. Because of that I could answer the question how enzymes cheat space and time and can speed up reactions. The twin paradox disappeared in my theory and there is no principle of relativity as a result of retardation.

Azzam, you clearly didn't think about my reply of about 40 minutes ago but I added another just before yours which should help you understand.

The problem is that you are neglecting the relativity of simultaneity. The ground clocks are slowed as seen from the train and the train clocks are slowed as seen from the ground, but they don't all start at zero. You need to learn to take that into account in all SR problems.

Dear George

You wrote"Azzam is failing to take relativity of simultaneity into account, and that is probably the most common error people make when learning this subject'

Einstein view point of simultaneity is not true. Also time is not moving backward but only forward. It is not true to consider time is movimg backward. In your explanation you considered only the proper time. In my theory I considered the proper time and the proper length equal to the coordinate time and space. Because of that in your explanation there is no principle relativity but you are trying to explain SRT according to my theory and that is not true . There is a difference between my theory and SRT.

In all SRT books there is no time speeding up as proposed by George Dishman just now. All what it is known is time diilation. This term I discovered it in my theory as a result of retardation which is leading to the relativistic quantum field and quantum superposition. In reality as a result of retardation there is no twin paradox. Twin paradox disappeared. And thus there is no principle relativity but relativistic quantum field.

AA: Einstein view point of simultaneity is not true.

You may take that view but it remains an essential part of SR so you cannot omit it if you want to use the phenomenological approach. In every problem, you have to consider three effects:

• time dilation
• length contraction
• relativity of simultaneity.

Depending on the experiment, some may not be significant but usually they all apply and if you miss one, you get the wrong answer.

I prefer to use the coordinate approach, if you get the input numbers right and then apply the Lorentz Transforms, they tell you the coordinates in the other frame exactly, it's a lower risk method in my opinion. Anyway, you can choose which you like or do both to check your results, it's a good way of finding slip-ups.

AA: In your explanation you considered only the proper time.

The final values I have given have been the coordinate times either in the track or train frame throughout the discussion. The only place I used proper times was in the last message when I talked about the clock "advancing" by some amount and that was just at the end to show you how the coordinate time became the sum of the initial offset plus the change in proper time divided by gamma.

AA: There is a difference between my theory and SRT.

That's fine, but I have been talking only about Einstein's SR, not yours, s don't say I'm doing it incorrectly. It may not be your way but what I've done throughout is the way Einstein's SR is applied in practice, I hope you've learned the technique this time, we've spent far too long on such a simple question.

AA: In all SRT books there is no time speeding up as proposed by George Dishman just now.

Oh come on Azzam, stop lying every time you lose an argument. YOU got it wrong because you left out relativity of simultaneity, I said the clock that is moving is slowed but starts at a higher value.

Dear George

You did not do SRT or Einstein relativity because in this case you violated the principles of SRT as classical theory keeping on the independent reality and continuity. Now in order to adopt that according to the relativitic invariant you need to back to the Copenhagen school as I did. So at the end you proved all what I said.

If the clock are not starting all at 0 then they are not properly synchronized, so you can't make any relevant clocks comparison at all.

Dear George,

In your explanation the slow is not following the reciprocity principle in SRT. Try to understand SRT. So you are mistaken in this case if you want to talk in SRT.

Dear Octavian,

The clocks on the train are correctly synchronised as determined by the observer on the train but out of sync by a specific amount as determined by the trackside observers.

Similarly, the clocks by the track are correctly synchronised as determined by the trackside observer but out of sync by a specific amount as determined by the observer on the train.

This is an obvious consequence of synchronising clocks by exchanging light signals but any other sensible method results in the same thing.

This aspect of relativity is by far the most commonly forgotten and can have a serious impact because it is first order while the other effects are second order.

The rate of change of relativity of simultaneity is also important in understanding the equivalence principle as Einstein used in developing GR so it's worth studying.

Dear Azaam,

AA: You did not do SRT or Einstein relativity ..

Yes I did, the difference is that I took all three effects into account, you forgot one.

AA: In your explanation the slow is not following the reciprocity principle in SRT.

Yes it does, the track clock increase of 200 in the track frame is reduced by 1.25 to 160 in the train frame and the train clock increase of 100 is reduced to 80 in the trackside frame, that is a symmetrical slowing by the same time dilation factor, the effect is reciprocal.

There's no point making these statements that are contrary to reality Azzam, I can always go back and copy what I said, everyone can see you're not telling the truth.

Dear George,

As I told you that you voilated all the laws that SRT can be classical theory and because of that in reality the Einstein's view point of simultaneity is not true physically, and because of that as a result of retardation time is moving forward not backward. In this case you proved my theory completely that it is relativistic quantum field and quantum superposition. Because of that in my paper I succeeded in quantization of gravity in my theory and I got the unified theory.

Listen George

You do not understand what do you say now. You contradict yourself everytime. I know now how is your principle of relativity is fake. Now anyone can understand my theory and see how you proposed a fake principle of relativity basis on my theory. You contradict yourself everytime.

AA: Listen George

No Azzam, you need to listen, you tell me things all the time and usually the wrong and you need to drop the arrogance, buy a textbook and start learning what SR is really all about.

AA: As I told you that you voilated all the laws that SRT

Nope, not one. I just apply it correctly, you forgot to include relativity of simultaneity so you got it wrong.

AA: You contradict yourself everytime.

Nope, you can look back through this thread or compare it to what we said two years ago, you won't find a single contradiction or any disagreement with SR because all the numbers come from a spreadsheet that calculates the Lorentz Transforms.

If I had made any errors, you would be able to show where the numbers were incorrect but you can't because what I've done is correct. Your feeble attempts at abuse just won't work

Dear George

All my questions are simple for you and you understand what do I mean by my questions because we discussed that for 2 years. But since you understand that, you wanted to appear intellegent and then trying to escape from the serious goal of my questions that proving SRT is not classical theory. Because of that were very confused in your answers. Because of that in your answers you confused between the coordinate space and time the proper space and time. I do not want to repeat again. You proved now SRT is not classical. No need to think. Your relativity of simultaneity is not true, and even you apply it wrong. You take my retardation and you propose everything fake from your mind and you say that is true, but it is fake. I do not want to repeat the same discussion. Einstein himself refuted his relativity and he was convinced by the ether. Now any one can understand what is this ether which is related to quantum vacuum.

Dear George

You wrote "Yes it does, the track clock increase of 200 in the track frame is reduced by 1.25 to 160 in the train frame and the train clock increase of 100 is reduced to 80 in the trackside frame, that is a symmetrical slowing by the same time dilation factor, the effect is reciprocal."

We agreed that this time that is measured is the proper time. Now you want to propose the reciprocity according the proper time. What is this relativity you are talking about!? Look how everything is fake with you! LOL!

Good luck man

I'm afraid i not understand fully your experimental setup and how you synchronize the clocks, maybe you can describe it in details here.

Octavian, this article explains the process:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation#Einstein

To construct a "frame", that synchronisation technique is then used to create an array of clocks and rulers as shown in the attached scan fro "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler, my recommended textbook for anyone wanting to learn SR.

Coordinate time is the value taken from one of these clocks local to the event so that we don't need to consider propagation time (which Azzam calls "retardation").

In Azzam's experiment, the clocks on pylon A and the rear of the train are the reference clocks for the track and train frames respectively.

AA: We agreed that this time that is measured is the proper time.

No Azzam, you said it was proper time but I never agreed, I was talking about time dilation of the coordinate times.

George it seem to be quite difficult to discus with you, I asked for a detailed description of this experimental setup with the train. Because without such a clear description we can't really have any significant argument. Instead you just link me to a generic description of Einstein synchronization. For example of a clear and rigorous experimental setup, see my paper.

Dear George Dishman,

At first, the synchronisation of clocks is impossible even if the train is stationary according to GR... Why? Because if we considered the gravitational field of the rest mass of the rest train, then according to GR how can you synchronise the clocks in this case according to GR even if the train is stationary!? That is impossible according to GR and this refutes SRT. Also according to GR, the speed of light is not constant which in violation with what SRT proposed, and thus this refutes the constancy of the speed of light in SRT. Suppose you have now an array of clocks stationary in the vacuum, and if we considered the rest mass and thus the gravitational field of each clock, then how can you synchronise the clocks and how can you consider the constancy of the speed of light in this case according to GR!? This also refutes SRT.

You wrote "No Azzam, you said it was proper time but I never agreed, I was talking about time dilation of the coordinate times."

This time that is measured is the proper time and it is even the proper time in SRT. time dilation in SRT is computed by the proper. This is well known in SRT and you can review SRT. In my theory I considered the coordinate time is equal to the proper time and I considered space is invariant and thus I explained this time dilation resulted from the delay in space and time according to the relativistic invariant which I called it retardation according to the relativistic invariant and the entanglement which is leading to the relativistic quantum field and quantum superposition. You understand that well. In this case there is no reciprocity but there is retardation and thus vacuum fluctuations when changing the coordinates systems. That is how in reality GR can be expressed by the relativistic quantum field, and in this the energy of the vacuum plays the rule. That's how this quantum vacuum is the equivalent in modern physics of a particulate aether as suggested by Paul Dirac.

Now you want to take my idea in my paper that the coordinate time is equal to the proper and according to that you propose a fake reciprocity from your mind, and because of that you said "I was talking about time dilation of the coordinate times."

How is that if time dilation in SRT is measured according to the proper time and all relativist understand that!? In this case your reciprocity that you propose is only fake not real. No need to the principle of relativity and reciprocity according to the retardation. Now you violated that SRT is classical theory.

regards

Dear Octavian,

OB: George it seem to be quite difficult to discus with you, I asked for a detailed description of this experimental setup with the train. Because without such a clear description we can't really have any significant argument. Instead you just link me to a generic description of Einstein synchronization.

Sorry Octavian, when you asked is assumed you weren't aware of the method.

In detail for Azzam's thought experiment, the method would be that a flash of light would be sent from pylon A to B then back and the clocks set such that the time of reflection at B was the average of the time of emission and detection at A as in the generic description.

The same would be done on the moving train, a flash from the clock at the rear would be reflected from the clock at the front back to the rear and the clocks set so the reflection time at the front was the average of the send and receive times at the rear.

OB: For example of a clear and rigorous experimental setup, see my paper.

Would you care to provide a link if it differs from above.

Dear Azzam,

AA: if we considered the gravitational field of the rest mass of the rest train

We don't, we treat it as negligible. This is a discussion about the twins paradox in SR, not GR.

GD: No Azzam, you said it was proper time but I never agreed, I was talking about time dilation of the coordinate times.

AA: This time that is measured is the proper time and it is even the proper time in SRT. time dilation in SRT is computed by the proper.

Time dilation is computed as dt'/dt directly from the Lorentz Transforms. Both t' and t are coordinate times. If you transform from inertial frame K to inertial frame K' and the object is moving in both frames then neither value represents the object's proper time.

AA: How is that if time dilation in SRT is measured according to the proper time and all relativist understand that!

Everyone who studies SR knows you are talking nonsense.

Dear George,

You are still using lies in the discussion. At first my definition of time in my theory is different from SRT, because of that the problem of time in physics is solved by my theory while in SRT the problem of time is still existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

Do not mix my theory with SRT and explain SRT by my theory. Do not steal from my theory.

We are talking about the time registered by the clock which is the proper time.

You wrote "Time dilation is computed as dt'/dt directly from the Lorentz Transforms. Both t' and tare coordinate times. If you transform from inertial frame K to inertial frame K' and the object is moving in both frames then neither value represents the object's proper time."

This is not true. It is fake! From Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time

In relativity, proper time along a timelike world line is defined as the time as measured by a clock following that line. It is thus independent of coordinates, and a Lorentz scalar.The proper time interval between two events on a world line is the change in proper time.

So try to understand what is the proper time and how is defined in SRT, and then what is the the proper time interval between two events. Go and learn LT and SRT well. Stop using lies in the discussion as usual.

You wrote "We don't, we treat it as negligible. This is a discussion about the twins paradox in SR, not GR."

We are talking here about the relativistic effect. According to your answer there is no SRT then, it is fake. GR refute SRT. Do you mean in order to apply SRT physically, then the rest mass of the train must be zero!? This is nonsense physically! The relativistic effect in reality is negligible in SRT in case of slow velocity and thus by the equivalence, it is negligible also in case of weak gravitational field as in GR, so if you want to consider the relativistic effect is negligible, then ignore SRT and GR and thus back to Newton and Galilean. If you want to consider the relativistic effect, then you must consider it within the framework of relativistic quantum field and quantum superposition. The real relativistic effect in gravity will appear seriously in case of strong gravitational field, so what does GR say in case of strong gravitational field, you can't say, because GR is not relativistic theory in reality. It is fake also!

You wrote "in detail for Azzam's thought experiment, the method would be that a flash of light would be sent from pylon A to B then back and the clocks set such that the time of reflection at B was the average of the time of emission and detection at A as in the generic description."

This is lie! In our thought experiment we were discussing on way travel not two ways travel.

Dear Azzam,

AA: You are still using lies in the discussion.

Never. I occasionally make mistakes but I never lie, unlike some others.

AA: At first my definition of time in my theory is different from SRT ...

Whatever, I'm only talking about SR.

GD: "Time dilation is computed as dt'/dt directly from the Lorentz Transforms. Both t' and tare coordinate times. If you transform from inertial frame K to inertial frame K' and the object is moving in both frames then neither value represents the object's proper time."

AA: This is not true.

Yes it is.

AA: From Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time "In relativity, proper time along a timelike world line is defined as the time as measured by a clock following that line. It is thus independent of coordinates, and a Lorentz scalar.The proper time interval between two events on a world line is the change in proper time."

That is correct but I was talking about time dilation, not proper time.

AA: Do you mean in order to apply SRT physically, then the rest mass of the train must be zero!?

No, as I said it must be negligible which means the effect must be less than the accuracy of the measuring instruments.

GD: "in detail for Azzam's thought experiment, the method would be that a flash of light would be sent from pylon A to B then back and the clocks set such that the time of reflection at B was the average of the time of emission and detection at A as in the generic description."

AA: This is lie! In our thought experiment we were discussing on way travel not two ways travel.

In the experiment, that is correct. To synchronise the clocks before the experiment starts, you need to use the two-way method that Einstein defined. Octavian asked me to explain it in detail so that's what I did.

Dear George

You wrote "That is correct but I was talking about time dilation, not proper time."

We are talking about the time registered by the clock itself which is known in SRT as the proper time. It is independent of coordinates, and a Lorentz scalar. In my theory I considered the proper time is equal to the coordinate time and space is invariant. Because of that you wanted to steal this definition in my theory and after that you propose a fake reciprocity from you and say this is SRT. That is not true in SRT. So stop stealing from my theory. So you want to take the retardation from my theory and propose a fake reciprocity and a fake simultaneity from you and say this is SRT. Go and learn SRT well. The time registered by the clock in SRT is the proper time which is independent of coordinates. If you want to consider the proper time is equal to the coordinate time then say that directly and it is in my theory and you steal it from my theory. Then let us compare your fake theory with my theory, and then how you propose a fake reciprocity and fake simultaneity method.

You said "No, as I said it must be negligible which means the effect must be less than the accuracy of the measuring instruments."

Nonsense, try to understand the relativistic effect in this case and compare it with GR. If the relativistic effect in this case is negligible, then we do not need to GR also. The effect of GR in this case is negligible, and thus why GR. So what you say in this case is a kind of Straw man in the discussion.

You said "To synchronise the clocks before the experiment starts, you need to use the two-way method that Einstein defined. Octavian asked me to explain it in detail so that's what I did."

Einstein view point of simultaneity is not true physically. It is only fake! There is no way to synchronise the clocks. All what you use is bedtime stories, because of that you can't give exact answer for anything. In our discussion we understood that according to one way travel. Now when you understand that is wrong now, you wanted to propose a two way travel and back to Einstein method. Einstein himself understood that his method is wrong and he was convinced by the ether. In order to understand how is that just mix SRT and GR together to understand how that is wrong. In reality it is relativistic quantum field and quantum superposition. But this is taboo. This is the end of the story. I understand well how to think and I do not want to repeat the same discussion we did before. Any one who understand relativity, he understands well that you are stealing from my theory and trying to re-explain SRT by my theory.

Sending light pulses between clocks that are in the same frame (ground clocks and train clocks) is useless, because can't establish any relation of simultaneity between clocks on the ground and clocks on train. So the clocks can't be compared in meaningful way.

This is my experimental setup (pdf attached)

OB: Sending light pulses between clocks that are in the same frame (ground clocks and train clocks) is useless,

It works to synchronise the pylon clocks in the ground frame and, independently, the train clocks in its frame.

OB: because can't establish any relation of simultaneity between clocks on the ground and clocks on train.

That is done by a convention, we choose one event which acts as the origin of both coordinate systems. In Azzam's case when the rear of the train passes pylon A and the light flash is emitted.

OB: This is my experimental setup (pdf attached)

OK, the Superbowl has just started so I'll look at it tomorrow. The thing to remember to save yourself time and wasted effort is that the Lorentz transforms are part of a mathematical group so it is impossible to create a true contradiction. If you think you have found one, you've made an error.

Dear George,

You wrote "we choose one event which acts as the origin of both coordinate systems. "

In SRT there is no single event, and because of there is no one event can act as the origin of both coordinate systems. I do not know from where you bring your information about SRT.

AA: In SRT there is no single event,

Rubbish, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(relativity)

AA: no one event can act as the origin of both coordinate systems.

Rubbish, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#Coordinate_transformation

• "At t = t′ = 0, the origins of both coordinate systems are the same, (x, y, z) = (x′, y′, z′) = (0, 0, 0). In other words, the times and positions are coincident at this event. If all these hold, then the coordinate systems are said to be in standard configuration .."

AA: I do not know from where you bring your information about SRT.

• "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler
• "Introducing Einstein's Relativity" by Ray d'Inverno
• "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.

What textbooks are you using?

GD: Rubbish, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(relativity)

AA: no one event can act as the origin of both coordinate systems.

Here we are talking about SRT. Read well and try to understand man what is written;

One of the goals of relativity is to specify the possibility of one event influencing another. This is done by means of the metric tensor, which allows for determining the causal structure of spacetime. The difference (or interval) between two events can be classified into spacelike, lightlike and timelike separations. Only if two events are separated by a lightlike or timelike interval can one influence the other.

So in relativity there is no single event, but one event influencing another in order to keep on the causal structure of spacetime. So in relativity we deal with the difference (or interval) between two events. So all your explanations are not true and lies. You are stealing only from my theory.

You said "Rubbish, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#Coordinate_transformation"

What is clear you do not understand exactly what is the difference between LT and why it was proposed and SRT and Einstein's view point of simultaneity and why. Because of that you mix in SRT between coordinates space and time and proper space and time which is taken from my theory . In my theory there is no time dilation as proposed in SRT by the fake geometry of Minkowski, there is only retardation and relativistic quantum field. Because of that as a result of retardation there is no way that the two frames are agreed at t'=0 t=0 and x'=0 x=0 as a result of retardation at the same time. That is impossible. Because of that the Einstein's view point of simultaneity is nonsense and not true physically. Now you want to consider the proper time is equal to the coordinate time!? if you want to consider that, then show us how in your fake, the proper length is equal also to the coordinates length and show us how basis on your nonsense when you consider the proper space and time equal to the coordinate space and time then how can you define Einstein's view point of simultaneity. The problem according to your nonsense you want to propose also your fake reciprocity. LOL!

Review here

Mathematical nonsense as used by Einstein’s relativity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrun8KUyYm4