Understanding the Validity of Relativity: Questioning and Learning

[Joanna Dark]

I have just read the "Read Before Posting" sticky thread and am wondering. Relativity is a difficult theory to understand. How is a person supposed to learn of its validity if they are to automatically assume it is correct.

How do I know it is absolutely correct? If people can't question it how can they learn? Also why would it matter if people argued for or against it? People who don't care about discussing its validity would just ignore such a thread. Or is it a subject that evokes personal insults and gets out of hand?

Curious.

 

[Tachyonie]

Mabye because there is very little to no evidence that Einstein is wrong and therefor, give it that this is internet we are talking about, people could write whatever they want and that never has a good end.

But main reason is probably that this forum is supposed to help people learn and solve problems. If every second thread was an attempt to disproove this theory, students wouldn't be amused would they?
Oh and that doesn't mean you cannnot ask why is it correct when according to [your piece of evidence] it should be incorrect. You are right that a lot of learning comes from questioning the theory, but people often overreact.

Tachyon.

 

[Ich]

Also why would it matter if people argued for or against it? People who don't care about discussing its validity would just ignore such a thread. Or is it a subject that evokes personal insults and gets out of hand?

This is your first time online?
There are hundreds of cranks out there who question the validity of relativity. They all share at least three characteristics:
1. Discussions with them get out of hand.
2. They have insufficient knowledge of relativity.
3. They don't want to learn about it.
That's why there are specific rules.

 

[Joanna Dark]

Ok thanks. So I can discuss the difficutly I'm having and not be dismissed. Hopefully.

I'm currently studying relativity and my teacher doesn't seem to grasp the problem I'm having and continuously gives me the same answers. As if that will help my confusion, if you catch my drift.

Einstein pointed out that events aren't observed simultaneously from all frames of reference. I see a lightning bolt 3 miles away at a different time to a person 6 miles away. In order to know this we might create an artificial absolute frame of reference, calculate the speed of light, time observed and distance. We can know when the event occurred and when each observer saw the event.

That is to say our single frame of reference is incomplete. We could create a model of the entire visible universe and understand each frame of reference, it's distance to one another, it's time dilation and when each frame observes every event taking place. This model in my mind would be a collective, yet limited, absolute reference point within its own context.

My teacher keeps telling me that there is no absolute reference point. But within reason we can create one. Is this right?

The reason this is confusing to me is why Einstein makes the claim that if I am moving it appears as if the whole universe is moving. On the one hand you could state this is true. But on the otherhand we can know by calculating time dilation which body is traveling at which speed comparatively to another. You could suggest that both references were correct but I'm more inclined to accept the artificial absolute as acceptable and my single point of view is an illusion, or in appearance only.

Why is this a problem for me? I seem to gather from Einstein that he understood that according to the experiments in water that light the speed of light was constant. He then extrapolated it to mean that the speed of light was constant for all frames of reference. This is a big leapof faith. If you remember the mental experiment of the passenger on the train observing the speed of light compared to the observer on the station, he uses an artificial absolute reference point to suggest that time dilation occurs for the passenger so the speed of light is constant. That makes sense.

He then eliminates this absolute reference point to suggest that for the passenger on the train it appears that time dilates also for the observer standing at the station. If that were true then the theory is definitely counter-intuitive. But we can calculate the time dilation of the observer on the train. So the reciprocation that Einstein suggests, based on the hypothetical absolute frame of reference, is true for only one observer and an illusion for the other.

But this is the reason, I believe, that Einstein makes the claim that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Seems to be half true and half in appearance only.

See if I can make this clearer. The observer sees the man at the station apparently moving and the man at the station sees the train apparently moving. Both believe the other to be experiencing time dilation but when they meet up only one observer did.

The only reason we know of time dilation occurs is because of Einstein's artificial absolute point and experimentation to prove it. When I reverse the experiment and use the same artificial absolute I get reprimanded and told there is no absolute, that I don't understand reciprocation and that I can't understand it logically. Not just by my teacher either. I've taken this issue to others aswell. It seems that I can understand what others are saying but they can't quite grasp the actual reason I'm confused and explain it back to me. Seems more like dogma, in reference to anyone I've ever spoken to about it, than actual understanding.

On one hand you can create an artificial absolute and on the other it doesn't exist, seemingly depending on what works for the theory that the speed of light is constant fot all observers to be true.

That is my current understanding and have not yet received adequate explanation. Thanks

 

[Joanna Dark]

I'll dumb it down a bit.

An observer on a moving train sees a light traveling between the floor and the ceiling. An observer on the train station sees the same light travel a different distance yet they perceive the light to be traveling at the same speed. How is that possible? Time slows down for the observer on the train. Right? Basic relativity example used by Einstein based on an artificial absolute frame of reference.

Now try reverse the experiment. Pretend the light is still on the train, the train is stationary. The train station, with the observer still standing there, is actually moving. How is it possible that both observers see the same speed of light now? This is where my teacher throws the artificial absolute frame of reference out the window and the theory sticks.

Seems like a contradiction to me.

 

[Joanna Dark]

Huh I figured it out.

So it's a simple answer because in the first eg. the moving observer sees the light traveling a shorter distance than it really is and in the second example the moving observer sees the light traveling at a longer distance (and the light is moving between two moving points in the first eg. [add time dilation] and two stationary points in the second eg. [negative time dilation]) then both observers will see it traveling at the speed of light. Double negative equals positive.

So this is neither counter-intuitive nor has it got anything to do with reciprocation. Duh! Why don't people explain this properly? Make me go nuts with this illogical frigging reciprocation.

 

[peter0302]

I have just read the "Read Before Posting" sticky thread and am wondering. Relativity is a difficult theory to understand. How is a person supposed to learn of its validity if they are to automatically assume it is correct.

How do I know it is absolutely correct? If people can't question it how can they learn? Also why would it matter if people argued for or against it? People who don't care about discussing its validity would just ignore such a thread. Or is it a subject that evokes personal insults and gets out of hand?

Curious.

Go to sci.physics.relativity on usenet if you want to see what happens when people are allowed to post whatever they want with no evidence.

 

[pervect]

Ok thanks. So I can discuss the difficutly I'm having and not be dismissed. Hopefully.

I'm currently studying relativity and my teacher doesn't seem to grasp the problem I'm having and continuously gives me the same answers. As if that will help my confusion, if you catch my drift.

From my POV, what needs to happen is that you need to listen more to your teacher. I'm sensing a certain hostility here between you and him or her, which is unfortunate.

My teacher keeps telling me that there is no absolute reference point. But within reason we can create one. Is this right?

No, you can't create an absolute reference point.

You are making some false assumptions about the way time acts, apparently they are so deeply ingrained into your worldview that you don't realize that they _are_ assumptions (incorrect assumptions, to boot) rather than facts.

A litmus test for how time acts is the twin paradox. If you have two twins, each with their own clock, a twin following an accelerated trajectory will have a lower elapsed time on their clock than a twin following an unaccelerated trajectory.

Assumptions: the twins are in the flat space-time of SR, and the twins start out at the same location in space-time and eventually re-unite.

see for instance.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox .

The twin "paradox" is fundamentally incompatible with any notion of "absolute" time.

 

[Joanna Dark]

I thought the speed of light was the problem.

This idea that if I'm moving faster than another that I will observer their clocks going slower is silly.

To explain it properly let's just say that observer one is stationary and observer two is moving. Let's compare them side by side. Observer one sees his own clock traveling normally and observer two is in slow motion and so is his clock. Observer two's clock is traveling normally however he sees observer one in fast forward and so is his clock. Then the speed of light is equal for all observers and the Theory of Special Relativity makes perfect LOGICAL sense.

Reverse the lorentz transformation to understand a slower moving bodies actual time and velocity. No wonder people don't understand it.

It may seem perfectly acceptable that if I am moving it appears as if I'm stationary. But I won't see slower time dilation in others. It's a simple optical illusion like escher drawing that is physically impossible, not some freak of nature phenomena. Had me going for months.

 

[Tachyonie]

Huh I figured it out.

So it's a simple answer because in the first eg. the moving observer sees the light traveling a shorter distance than it really is and in the second example the moving observer sees the light traveling at a longer distance (and the light is moving between two moving points in the first eg. [add time dilation] and two stationary points in the second eg. [negative time dilation]) then both observers will see it traveling at the speed of light. Double negative equals positive.

So this is neither counter-intuitive nor has it got anything to do with reciprocation. Duh! Why don't people explain this properly? Make me go nuts with this illogical frigging reciprocation.

I see you figured it out yourself, but just incase I posted this very useful link containing 24 lectures mainly about special/general relativity.
Check them out, I remember this exact problem being discussed in there, I believe it could have been lecture 5 or something near that number.

Tachyon.

 

[Joanna Dark]

No, you can't create an absolute reference point.

You are making some false assumptions about the way time acts, apparently they are so deeply ingrained into your worldview that you don't realize that they _are_ assumptions (incorrect assumptions, to boot) rather than facts.

The twin "paradox" is fundamentally incompatible with any notion of "absolute" time.

No your misunderstanding the problem like my teacher.

There is an ARTIFICIAL absolute frame of reference. That is not the same thing. By calculating all reference points you do get an absolute of sorts. Whereby we can tell who's time is moving faster of slower or who's velocity is faster. If there was no artificial absolute then we'd still be in the dark ages.

Between you and me who is traveling faster hypothetically? How would you know? Without some reference to make an accurate judgement then we both are! Illogical explanations. Einstein's theory could have been so much easier to learn.

 

[Doc Al]

I thought the speed of light was the problem.

This idea that if I'm moving faster than another that I will observer their clocks going slower is silly.

Open your mind, grasshopper.

To explain it properly let's just say that observer one is stationary and observer two is moving. Let's compare them side by side. Observer one sees his own clock traveling normally and observer two is in slow motion and so is his clock.

OK. Observer one certainly observes his own clocks running normally, and he measures Observer two's clock and concludes that it operates more slowly than his own.

Observer two's clock is traveling normally however he sees observer one in fast forward and so is his clock.

Half right. Observer two sees his own clock running normally. But he also measures Observer one's clock as running slow--according to his clocks. The relativistic effects are completely symmetric.

Then the speed of light is equal for all observers and the Theory of Special Relativity makes perfect LOGICAL sense.

If what you said were true it would contradict the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

Reverse the lorentz transformation to understand a slower moving bodies actual time and velocity. No wonder people don't understand it.

Huh?

It may seem perfectly acceptable that if I am moving it appears as if I'm stationary.

You will appear stationary to yourself.

But I won't see slower time dilation in others.

Sure you would, if they were moving fast enough with respect to you.

It's a simple optical illusion like escher drawing that is physically impossible, not some freak of nature phenomena. Had me going for months.

Not quite. You haven't seen the light yet.

 

[Doc Al]

There is an ARTIFICIAL absolute frame of reference. That is not the same thing. By calculating all reference points you do get an absolute of sorts. Whereby we can tell who's time is moving faster of slower or who's velocity is faster.

To use your terminology, the idea of telling who's velocity is actually faster is silly. Forget Einstein for the while, you need to study Galileo.

If there was no artificial absolute then we'd still be in the dark ages.

Oh?

Between you and me who is traveling faster hypothetically? How would you know? Without some reference to make an accurate judgement then we both are!

The answer is that it's a meaningless question to say who's traveling faster unless you specify with respect to what. And the "what" is completely arbitrary.

Illogical explanations. Einstein's theory could have been so much easier to learn.

Perhaps because you missed the point?

 

[Joanna Dark]

What I believe happened was that Einstein developed an accurate theory that is rather complicated and after he explained time dilation he couldn't quite figure out how to reverse the situation. So instead he went off on a long tangent of reciprocation (or symmetry as you put it) which has no basis in logic.

Therefore for the next hundred years this theory got repeated by a whole bunch of people whose specialty is mathematics as opposed to mental visualisation, which is the process by which Einstein's brain worked.

Now you honestly try to tell me that if my time is going faster than yours (based on a previous experiment whereby only your clock experienced time dilation, if you will) that you could possibly see my clocks running slower.

I'm now not so sure that the "cranks" as they were so endearingly termed are necessarily nuts. They are just trying to get their heads around a concept that Einstein fans admit can't be logically understood.

I have just offered my theory of the situation based on the best of my knowledge, so please anyone, give me one good reason for the validity of reciprocation, when it makes no sense and Einstein's theory functions perfectly without it?

Just one good reason and i'll accept it without question.

 

[chroot]

You have demonstrated here in this very thread that you haven't the faintest grasp of the theory, yet you're completely confident in dismissing it, and even putting words in Einstein's mouth! Don't you see the irony in your position?

Special relativity is incredibly simple; all you need is a decent explanation and high-school algebra. The fact that you do not yet understand it means nothing about its veracity. You're simply ignorant. If you wish to remain ignorant, it's a personal decision -- you can fault no one but yourself.

- Warren

 

[Joanna Dark]

Hey I said his theory functions perfectly. I offered an opinion on a possible mistake in his theory no words were put in anyone's mouth. But if you would like to put words in my mouth and make personal insults then that is a choice too.

 

[chroot]

I haven't read a single coherent explanation of any "mistake," Joanna. All I've read are misconceptions that indicate you don't know what you're talking about.

- Warren

 

[Joanna Dark]

I am giving you the solution.

Offer me one good explanation for reciprocation and I'll accept it without question.

If einstein was right on this point, then I'm wrong. If not the Theory of Special Relativity makes complete sense to me.

It's your call.

 

[chroot]

Please define "reciprocation."

- Warren

 

[Doc Al]

What I believe happened was that Einstein developed an accurate theory that is rather complicated and after he explained time dilation he couldn't quite figure out how to reverse the situation. So instead he went off on a long tangent of reciprocation (or symmetry as you put it) which has no basis in logic.

You seem to think that because something makes no sense to you, that that is somehow an argument against it. (It's actually a famous fallacy of informal logic: The argument from personal incredulity.)

Therefore for the next hundred years this theory got repeated by a whole bunch of people whose specialty is mathematics as opposed to mental visualisation, which is the process by which Einstein's brain worked.

Now you honestly try to tell me that if my time is going faster than yours (based on a previous experiment whereby only your clock experienced time dilation, if you will) that you could possibly see my clocks running slower.

Have you even lifted a finger to actually learn something about relativity and why both observers must see the other's clocks run slow?

I'm now not so sure that the "cranks" as they were so endearingly termed are necessarily nuts. They are just trying to get their heads around a concept that Einstein fans admit can't be logically understood.

Nothing wrong with not understanding something. It's the ranting and railing that gets tedious fast.

I have just offered my theory of the situation based on the best of my knowledge, so please anyone, give me one good reason for the validity of reciprocation, when it makes no sense and Einstein's theory functions perfectly without it?

You are sadly mistaken if you think Einstein's theory "functions perfectly" without the "reciprocity" of time dilation (and other relativistic effects). In fact, one of the premises underlying relativity states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. So if it's true that a moving clock "runs slow" in one frame, that same principle had better apply in every frame.

In order to properly understand how it could possibly be true that both observers see the other's clocks run slow, you first have to understand what it means to measure the rate of a moving clock. You'll see that a full appreciation of time dilation requires understanding length contraction and the concept of simultaneity, as well as just "time dilation". It's tricky, but not that hard. And it's perfectly logical.

Just one good reason and i'll accept it without question.

It's never a good idea to accept anything "without question".

There are many books out there that do a great job of teaching the basics of relativity from the ground up. (If you are interested, just ask.)

Here's a link to one in a series of lectures covering the basics: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/time_dil.html" . This particular lecture explains by example how the symmetry of relativity is consistent and perfectly logical. (To understand it, you'll have to go back and read the earlier lectures in the series.)

If you're interested in learning, by all means stick around. But if all you want to do is rant against your professors or against relativity--take it elsewhere.

 

[Joanna Dark]

Let's just say you're seeing me off at the station (which you might well wish to do right now :tongue2:) and I'm on the train and my clock is running slow. Why would I also observe your clock to be running slow? That has had me up for nights on end over the past few months. I just figured out this morning that if I didn't see your clock running slow, rather the opposite it was fast, then everything falls into place and alleviates all the confusion I had experienced.

Give me one good reason as why my understanding is misguided and I'll graciously accept it. Otherwise I think I'll get a few good nights sleep.

 

[chroot]

If you see a traveler's clock as running slowly (because he is moving quickly with respect to you), then he must see your clock as running slowly, too (because you are moving quickly with respect to him).

- Warren

 

[Doc Al]

Let's just say you're seeing me off at the station (which you might well wish to do right now :tongue2:) and I'm on the train and my clock is running slow.

Why is your clock running slow?

Why would I also observe your clock to be running slow? That has had me up for nights on end over the past few months.

Why don't you crack the books or the link I gave and find out? If you expect a one sentence answer that explains relativity using "common sense", stop wasting time.

I just figured out this morning that if I didn't see your clock running slow, rather the opposite it was fast, then everything falls into place and alleviates all the confusion I had experienced.

It eliminates confusion by ignoring the complications of relativity. Not a good deal.

Give me one good reason as why my understanding is misguided and I'll graciously accept it. Otherwise I think I'll get a few good nights sleep.

Summarizing your logic: If I think X, then I conclude Y and Y makes sense. Sadly, Y has nothing to do with relativity (and doesn't really make sense).

I think you should just relax and get some sleep.

 

[Mentz114]

I'm on the train and my clock is running slow. Why would I also observe your clock to be running slow?

Your clock is not running any differently than it would if you were not on the train. You would not be aware of any effect of your motion. Only when your clock is measured by an observer in motion wrt your frame will it appear to be slower than the observers clock.

Also you seem to be confusing the situation where two inertial observers measure each others clock rate, and the round trip situation where clocks are synchronised, and one of them takes a round trip. This is not a symmetrical situation.

[simultaneous with Doc Al's post]

 

[Joanna Dark]

Well good explanation meaning that I agree with it. Just to clarify.

You are sadly mistaken if you think Einstein's theory "functions perfectly" without the "reciprocity" of time dilation (and other relativistic effects). In fact, one of the premises underlying relativity states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. So if it's true that a moving clock "runs slow" in one frame, that same principle had better apply in every frame.

That's an answer. So you are saying that if you were at a stationary or inertial train station and I was traveling at ANY constant velocity in any straight line (towards you or away from you or even parallel to you) my clock would run at the same rate as yours? I was led to believe that in this case time dilation would still occur for me and my clock would still be behind yours. So if my speed being non-inertial and you are stationary or inertial might I see your clocks running fast?

 

[chroot]

If you're moving with respect to me -- in any fashion whatsoever so that your distance from me is changing -- your clock will appear to me to be running slowly, as compared to my own. Similarly, my clock will appear to you to be running more slowly than your own.

If we are at rest with respect to each other, we would both observe each others' clocks running at the same rate as our own.

- Warren

 

[MikeLizzi]

Here we go again

Well, yes, I guess things do get out of hand when the admin starts insulting people. Maybe its time chroot got it. Special Relativity is incredibly difficult. All you can do with high school algebra is plug numbers into equations. If that’s chroot's criteria for understanding then I would add him to the list of the ignorant. Maybe if people were told that SR was difficult they would stop assuming they could understand it after only a few hours and stop posting premature conclusions.

 

[chroot]

Well, yes, I guess things do get out of hand when the admin starts insulting people. Maybe its time chroot got it. Special Relativity is incredibly difficult. All you can do with high school algebra is plug numbers into equations. If that’s chroot's criteria for understanding then I would add him to the list of the ignorant. Maybe if people were told that SR was difficult they would stop assuming they could understand it after only a few hours and stop posting premature conclusions.

Go get a copy of Feynman's lectures. Look at the chapter on special relativity. It's perhaps 20 pages long, and as complete and thorough as anyone could hope. Any high schooler could understand it, given the desire to understand it. It's not hard.

I didn't insult Joanna personally -- I simply called her ignorant, which is a factual statement. I want her to understand that her opinions about the theory are irrelevant when she is demonstrably unaware of what the theory even says. You know, the old adage about books and covers...

- Warren

 

[matheinste]

Hello chroot.

-------If you're moving with respect to me -- in any fashion whatsoever so that your distance from me is increasing -- your clock will appear to me to be running slowly, as compared to my own. Similarly, my clock will appear to you to be running more slowly than your own.---------

Would it not be best to use changeing instead of increasing here. It could lead to misunderstanding in this particular case.

Matheinste.

 

[chroot]

Would it not be best to use changeing instead of increasing here. It could lead to misunderstanding in this particular case.

Correct.

- Warren

 

[Doc Al]

That's an answer. So you are saying that if you were at a stationary or inertial train station and I was traveling at ANY constant velocity in any straight line (towards you or away from you or even parallel to you) my clock would run at the same rate as yours? I was led to believe that in this case time dilation would still occur for me and my clock would still be behind yours.

As has been stated several times: If you and I are in inertial frames moving with respect to each other, then we both see each other's clocks run slow. We both see our own clocks running just fine.

Further: Just because my clocks run slow according to your measurements, does not mean that something has physically changed in my clocks. (And vice versa.) Time dilation (and other relativistic effects) are best viewed as due to the (admittedly strange at first) nature of time and space itself. It would be quite bizarre indeed if just by moving with respect to someone that you could somehow physically affect their clocks in their own frame. Relativity is strange, but not that strange.

To really understand this, and not just parrot the conclusions, you must study the details. It doesn't take any more than a bit of algebra to derive time dilation and other effects from the premises of relativity. Of course that doesn't prove relativity true--just that it is internally consistent and makes sense. What gives us confidence that relativity is "true" is the mountain of experimental evidence that has been accumulated over the last 100 years. Much of modern physics would make no sense without relativity.

 

[Joanna Dark]

Well if I'm traveling in a straight line at a constant speed away from a stationary individual and my clock is still traveling slower than the stationary clock. All appearances suggests that we are traveling at the same speed but with different clock speeds I can't see how I observe your clock at the same speed as you observe mine. Who cares about synchronising the clocks. We bought them at the same manufacturer mine says 4am yours says 10pm and yours will reach 11pm before mine hits 5.

If I was orbiting a person at half the speed of light same thing. Your clock is traveling way faster than mine. Mines traveling way slower than yours.

If I'm increasing velocity away from you, and you are stationary, it appears we are traveling at the same rate away from each other symtrically. My clock is slower and yours is faster.

On the other hand:

You travel at 50 mph and I travel at 50 mph in opposite direction our clock is traveling at the same rate and should appear to be equal. But this example I never used.

Inertial frames or not I cannot see how I am wrong. No good answers yet.

 

[Doc Al]

Well if I'm traveling in a straight line at a constant speed away from a stationary individual and my clock is still traveling slower than the stationary clock.

What are you talking about with your clock "travelling" slower than the "stationary" clock? What happens is that the "stationary" observer sees your clock as running slow according to his clocks.

All appearances suggests that we are traveling at the same speed but with different clock speeds

Huh? How could you be traveling at the same speed? Compared to what? What matters is your relative speed.

I can't see how I observe your clock at the same speed as you observe mine. Who cares about synchronising the clocks. We bought them at the same manufacturer mine says 4am yours says 10pm and yours will reach 11pm before mine hits 5.

You still want an answer that doesn't require you to actually learn something about relativity. Good luck!

If I was orbiting a person at half the speed of light same thing. Your clock is traveling way faster than mine. Mines traveling way slower than yours.

Wrong again.

If I'm increasing velocity away from you, and you are stationary, it appears we are traveling at the same rate away from each other symtrically. My clock is slower and yours is faster.

Wrong again.

On the other hand:

You travel at 50 mph and I travel at 50 mph in opposite direction our clock is traveling at the same rate and should appear to be equal. But this example I never used.

Wrong again.

Inertial frames or not I cannot see how I am wrong. No good answers yet.

:rofl:

Done playing yet?

 

[chroot]

Well if I'm traveling in a straight line at a constant speed away from a stationary individual and my clock is still traveling slower than the stationary clock.

What?

All appearances suggests that we are traveling at the same speed but with different clock speeds I can't see how I observe your clock at the same speed as you observe mine.

What?

Who cares about synchronising the clocks. We bought them at the same manufacturer mine says 4am yours says 10pm and yours will reach 11pm before mine hits 5.

What? You keep changing your scenarios so quickly that I can't even keep track of what you're asking anymore.

If I was orbiting a person at half the speed of light same thing. Your clock is traveling way faster than mine. Mines traveling way slower than yours.

Orbits involve only tangential velocity, not radial velocity.

If I'm increasing velocity away from you, and you are stationary, it appears we are traveling at the same rate away from each other symtrically. My clock is slower and yours is faster.

Suppose two people are moving away from one another. Neither is able to say the other is at rest; in fact, both assert themselves as being at rest, and that it is the other who is moving. Since both people are free to consider themselves at rest, the situation is identical for each. They each see the others' clock running slowly.

Since this is at least the fifth or sixth time this has been repeated in this thread, you either:

a) have poor reading comprehension
b) do not wish to let go of your glaring misconception
c) are purposefully wasting our time

You travel at 50 mph and I travel at 50 mph in opposite direction our clock is traveling at the same rate and should appear to be equal. But this example I never used.

What is "our clock?" Where is "our clock?" Who is holding "our clock?" If you actually have any desire to understand what relativity actually predicts, you need to stop changing your scenarios so quickly. It would be nice if you could thoroughly analyze and understand one scenario before bringing up another.

Inertial frames or not I cannot see how I am wrong. No good answers yet.

At this point, I'm pretty sure you're just wasting our time for your own enjoyment.

- Warren

 

[Doc Al]

How about this: Explain to us how you would measure the rate of a moving clock.

Then we can continue.