Relativity and Modern Morality

[Gerard]

Gerard: My paradox of two astronauts approaching each other in empty space, for which JT provided analysis, remains unresolved (to my mind). The difference in their ages will depend upon whose perspective we calculate from (which means, of course, that their motion is reciprocal); however, when we try to resolve this by adding a third observer, we see that the state of motion of this observer determines the difference in their aging, and there is only one state of motion such that the motion of the twins is reciprocal. This tells me that relativity is not a reliable guide for time dilation, because it cannot make any absolute claims, yet the traditional twin's paradox makes the claim that one of the twins has aged more from every perspective, and this is an absolute claim. This might be accounted for by referring all motion to acceleration, but this is not what is done in Relativity, as Cinci has consistently shown. For, if that were the case, then we would not take into account the motion of the twin's space ship (in the traditional Twin's Paradox) once it had stopped accelerating. Yet, in keeping with SR, we continue to calculate time dilation for the travelling twin even after he has stopped accelerating. This tells me that SR implies an aether, according to which the travelling twin is moving...of course, Cinci will never admit this, nor will he admit the observer dependence of SR. Hence, the paradox remains unresolved.

cinci: I will comment here on the unerlined statements above in order:

1. This comment is inaccurate. JT showed that the end result was the same in all cases but that the process for getting was different.

Gerard: Each time we based our calculation on a different reference frame we concluded something completely different.

2. JT's claim was no less absolute. The twins aged the same amount in each case.

Gerard: I'm blown away by this statement. Sometimes we judged one twin to have aged more, sometimes the other...only one reference frame determined that the twins had aged the same amount. There is no sense in which this statement makes sense.

3. The introduction of an aether here is nonsequitor; not being able to grasp relativity, you simply defer to the only other theory you've heard of. Aether theory cannot resolve your questions.

Gerard: Wow, if you really think this you need to read my messages more carefully. I explained above that

we continue to calculate time dilation for the travelling twin even after he has stopped accelerating

. You don't understand why I would say that this might imply an aether, according to which the ship was moving?

4. The twin paradox has been tested physically in the Haefele-Keating experiment and the clocks aged at different rates in accordance with relativity. Observers travelled with the eastbound clocks, with the westbound clocks, and with the earthbound clocks. All observed the same difference in the clocks at the end of the experiment. Observer dependence is not an issue. Observers only enter the scenarios because explanations of the phenomena are made anthropomorphic to simplify them.

Gerard: This is nonsequitor.


6.

Here is the bottom line. The question "What is the relative age of the twins?" only has a unique answer when the twins are colocated. This is because relative velocity and distance influence the passage of time. When they are colocated every observer in the universe will agree on their ages including those in relative motion in any direction, at any speed, accelerating or not, or in any other condition you can think of.

Gerard: Again, no. JT, would you like to interject here?

Only with relativity can you resolve what each of those observers will see but in each and every case, relativity will lead you to the correct and only unique answer to the question.

Gerard: No, the answer depends, in every case, on the reference frame from which the calculations are made, and this is true at every point on their journey, including when they meet.

No other theory can improve on this situation. There simply isn't a unique answer to that question unless the twins are colocated.

Gerard: Whoa, I don't understand why you now claim that there isn't a unique answer, when in the same paragraph you said this,[b]

relativity will lead you to the correct and only unique answer to the question.

Again, whether or not the twins are colocated, the answer depends upon the state of motion of the reference frame from which the calculations are made.

There is no verifiable theory that tells you that it works any other way. So you have no grounds to say it is paradoxical

Gerard: The second statement doesn't necessarily follow from the first.

[Gerard]

Such maltreatment of matter and its interactions is standard with Einsteinian thinking - thinking that one has explained everything merely by editing out what is vital and reducing the remainder to a series of mutually inconsistent predeterminations e.g. as in JammyTown's clever analysis of three twins (triplets) separated for space flights to test time dilation. Starting with the triplets returning from their journey and being equally old on return, he extrapolates backwards to show that, despite the initial stipulation, the triplets had to have been born at different times! Once again, SR and GR refute the premises on which they were based - hence these theories are nonsense and have no part whatsoever in genuine scientific endeavor!

Alright... this seems to refer back to the analysis way, way back here. In every reference frame, he gets the same reading for the clocks at the end of the race; if the triplets were born at a time of 0:00 in each frame, then all three frames agree on the age of the triplets at the end of the race, and on the time on all three clocks at the end of the race.

Admittedly, if they're each born in different spaceships and such distant locations then they're not exactly triplets... which implies that they were born well before the experiment and transported to their spaceships.

Gerard: I believe what you're saying is that we can take any reference frame as stationary and translate to it from the perspective of A, B and L and find that our calculations are the same. This is really saying nothing about consistency between frames but only pointing out the fact that the mathematical translations can be done. If we consider A to be the stationary frame, we will arrive at one set of conclusions (in which B has aged less). If we consider B stationary, we will arrive at a different set of conclusions (in which A has aged less). If we consider L as stationary, then we may see B or A to be more time dilated (depending on their motion relative to L), and for the state of motion such that they are moving at the same speed relative to L, albeit in opposite directions, we will calculate them to be equally time dilated. This is what Oz calls a mutually confused jumble of ages.

[OZLOFT]

Some revealing commentary on the true purpose of spacetime diagrams!

You reduce matter to mere space and time by reducing matter to worldlines on spacetime diagrams.

...what on earth does one do with a spacetime diagram without any matter marked on it? That's just a blank piece of paper.

The spacetime may as well be blank piece of paper. Matter is represented - i.e. misrepresented - as a 'traveling dot' i.e. a line without any internal qualities whatsoever. It is a representation of the deterministic worldview - a worldview that even Cincirob denies, even though he worships Einstein cravenly and submissively! In effect, matter is edited out completely in favor of abstract kinematical squiggles, in effect cartoons so abstract they have no applicable meaning or understanding to the physical world whatsoever.

But what is the true purpose of Minkowskian spacetime diagrams?

They are there to tell people that they are merely hapless pawns, playthings of the arbitrary multiverse (= universe according to Einstein apologists), entirely passive and utterly unable to do anything for themselves. They then have to be ruled by unscrupuous leaders who can get away with all sorts of deceit in order to maintain their power since the Einstein-befuddled rabble have, in consequence of their beliefs, lost the ability to think about any larger issue at all - scientific, social, political, economic or philsophical since the paradox-generating Einstein-based principles now dominate the whole of life (e.g. as manifested in Complementarity, which Pais, in his biography of Niels Bohr, called "another kind of relativity").

Realizing the above, it will then come as no surprise that, given relative population figures in 1st world countries during the last 100 years, those who invent and peddle such ideas are to a remarkable degree of Jewish background (Einstein, Minkowski, partly Bohr, Pauli, Max Born - but note too the Nazi Party member Pascual Jordan); it is part and parcel of a swindler financial-speculator ruling class* determined to keep the masses a confused and bickering rabble - which is what physics has ended up with, since the Minkowskian diagrams are utterly useless for practical endeavor!

Indeed I was going to write of relativity being a form of intellectual booze - but so help me, the Cardinal beat me here too!

You [Gerard and other anti-Einsteinians and Einstein critics] need to adopt something like the philosophy of the Alcholics Anonymous prayer: God [= Big Al Einstein] grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference.

So bottoms up Gerard!

Yours faithfully
OZLOFT

* The Jewish situation was certainly rebalanced by the ex-US citizen David Bohm who pioneered the theory that led the Aspect Experiment and the ultimate disproof of SR by demonstrating motion faster than light. Nevertheless, he crippled himself by continuing to believe in Einstein's relativity until the day he died - the nonsensical "Implicate Order" philosophy.

[OZLOFT]

Alright. As to the travelling twins problem; if you have two twins travelling towards each other, what you need to do is to start out defining, very precisely, in space and time, the moment at which each twin is a certain age. There's a point to bear in mind here; you can't use distant events as time references. That is to say, as long as the twins are not in the same place, you can't define twin one's age when twin 2's clock reads 12:00. You have to define the time reference for each twin with a local event.

Right. Once you've defined the starting conditions, very thoroughly and without contradiction, then you will find that every single reference frame will give you the same result for the ages of the twins when they meet up (some conversion of starting conditions will probably be required; that's where the Lorentz transforms come in). Feel free to check up on this; or provide a set of starting conditions and I'll show the results from a few frames if you like (just please keep the twins and their destination in a straight line, because otherwise the math gets a lot more complicated). Not all frames will agree that the light from the supernova hit both twins at the same time, of course... I'm not entirely sure how this relates to modern morality, but I'm pretty sure of the maths.

The problem with CCC's impending presentation (I suspect!) is that found in Einstein's presentation in Relativity, the Special and the General Theory Appendix I where he derives the Lorentz equation according to "Einsteinian principles." Here Einstein imagines two fast moving observers in 'spaceships' or 'trains' approching each other, each one seeing the other length contracted and time dilated equally (this of course leading to the twin paradox and time-travellers' paradoxes etc.). The naive reader's acceptance of SR is then assured by the artificially created symmetry of the situation!

This is why JammyTown's triplets presentation is so important. He teases out the hidden prejudices in Einstein's presentation, revealing these logical paradoxes, paradoxes that CANNOT be resolved by postulating a stagnant absolute aether (which I think is what you meant by 'aether theory' Gerard, though I might be wrong). The naive resolution of the paradoxes of course is by saying that that both twins move relatively to this stagnant aether, the time dilation apportioned to each twin then being proportional to the absolute velocity of the twin (i.e. motion relative to the stagnant ether); a more detailed investigation however, shows that this idea does not work and leads to paradoxes of its own.

Yours faithfully,
OZLOFT

[Gerard]

Oz wrote: "...paradoxes that CANNOT be resolved by postulating a stagnant absolute aether (which I think is what you meant by 'aether theory' Gerard, though I might be wrong). The naive resolution of the paradoxes of course is by saying that that both twins move relatively to this stagnant aether, the time dilation apportioned to each twin then being proportional to the absolute velocity of the twin (i.e. motion relative to the stagnant ether); a more detailed investigation however, shows that this idea does not work and leads to paradoxes of its own."



Gerard: I was not positing a stagnant aether but pointing out that the idea of time dilation seems to imply one. If there is an aether, perhaps it isn't stagnant.

[cincirob]

cinci: 1. This comment is inaccurate. JT showed that the end result was the same in all cases but that the process for getting was different.

Gerard: Each time we based our calculation on a different reference frame we concluded something completely different.

cinci: Maybe you concluded something different, but JT didn't. Here is his final tally from three different points of view:
In the reference frame of L:

These are the clock readings when the race begins:
L=0.00, A=0.00, B=0.00
These are the clock readings at the end of the race:
L= 10.00, A=8.66, B=9.95
These are the three different elapsed times during the race:
L=10.00, A=8.66, B=9.95

In the reference frame of A:
These are the three different clock readings when the race begins:
L=2.50 A=0.00, B=2.83
These are the clock readings at the end of the race:
L= 10.00, A=8.66, B=9.95
These are the three different elapsed times during the race:
L=7.50 A=8.66, B=7.12

In the reference frame of B:
These are the three different clock readings when the race begins:
L=0.10, A=0.48, B=0.00
These are the clock readings at the end of the race:
L= 10.00, A=8.66, B=9.95
These are the three different elapsed times during the race:
L=9.90, A=8.18, B=9.95

It is just as I said later in my post. There is a single unique point where all observers agree and that is when they are colocated. And that is JT's conclusion.
********************************

[Gerard]

cinci: 1. This comment is inaccurate. JT showed that the end result was the same in all cases but that the process for getting was different.

Gerard: Each time we based our calculation on a different reference frame we concluded something completely different.

cinci: Maybe you concluded something different, but JT didn't. Here is his final tally from three different points of view:
In the reference frame of L:

These are the clock readings when the race begins:
L=0.00, A=0.00, B=0.00
These are the clock readings at the end of the race:
L= 10.00, A=8.66, B=9.95
These are the three different elapsed times during the race:
L=10.00, A=8.66, B=9.95

In the reference frame of A:
These are the three different clock readings when the race begins:
L=2.50 A=0.00, B=2.83
These are the clock readings at the end of the race:
L= 10.00, A=8.66, B=9.95
These are the three different elapsed times during the race:
L=7.50 A=8.66, B=7.12

In the reference frame of B:
These are the three different clock readings when the race begins:
L=0.10, A=0.48, B=0.00
These are the clock readings at the end of the race:
L= 10.00, A=8.66, B=9.95
These are the three different elapsed times during the race:
L=9.90, A=8.18, B=9.95

It is just as I said later in my post. There is a single unique point where all observers agree and that is when they are colocated. And that is JT's conclusion.
********************************

Gerard: These calculations take L as the stationary frame, and in this particular example, L was not colocated at the coincidence of A and B, though it was midway between them at the beginning of the race. He also worked out the problem from the perspective of a different L, such that L was colocated at the incidence of A and B, and the conclusion was different. In that example, A, B and L all had identical clock readings.

[cincirob]

cinci: 2. JT's claim was no less absolute. The twins aged the same amount in each case.

Gerard: I'm blown away by this statement. Sometimes we judged one twin to have aged more, sometimes the other...only one reference frame determined that the twins had aged the same amount. There is no sense in which this statement makes sense.

cinci: Well let me blow you back. The ages of the twins were defined as zero at the beginning of the exercise and no matter who assessed what happened he concluded their age at the end of the race to be L= 10.00, A=8.66, B=9.95. Three different views of what happened but concensus on the outcome. They won't agree on the elapsed time to get this agreement because all their clocks run at different rates relative to each other but they do not disagree on the only point where it makes sense to ask the question. This is like the typical question asked of relativists when they say each observer sees the other's clock time dilated or the other's meter stick contracted; the question asked is "Who is right?" And the answer to that is both.
**********************************

cinci: 3. The introduction of an aether here is nonsequitor; not being able to grasp relativity, you simply defer to the only other theory you've heard of. Aether theory cannot resolve your questions.

Gerard: Wow, if you really think this you need to read my messages more carefully. I explained above that we continue to calculate time dilation for the travelling twin even after he has stopped accelerating. You don't understand why I would say that this might imply an aether, according to which the ship was moving?

cinci: No, I don't. Aether is a theory that doesn't work. I don't know how you imply anything with a theory that doesn't work. And I certainly can't take a phenemon predicted by a theory that does work and does have experimental evidence to support it and say that phenomenon implies a defunct theory. But I'm all ears for your explanation.
*************************************

cinci: 4. The twin paradox has been tested physically in the Haefele-Keating experiment and the clocks aged at different rates in accordance with relativity. Observers travelled with the eastbound clocks, with the westbound clocks, and with the earthbound clocks. All observed the same difference in the clocks at the end of the experiment. Observer dependence is not an issue. Observers only enter the scenarios because explanations of the phenomena are made anthropomorphic to simplify them.

Gerard: This is nonsequitor.

cinci: Hey, no fair. I used nonsequitor first. This example may be weak, but what is your case for anything being observer dependent?
**************************************

cinci: 6. Here is the bottom line. The question "What is the relative age of the twins?" only has a unique answer when the twins are colocated. This is because relative velocity and distance influence the passage of time. When they are colocated every observer in the universe will agree on their ages including those in relative motion in any direction, at any speed, accelerating or not, or in any other condition you can think of.

Gerard: Again, no. JT, would you like to interject here?

cinci: He doesn't have to. His exercise made it clear as I showed above.
**********************************

cinci: Only with relativity can you resolve what each of those observers will see but in each and every case, relativity will lead you to the correct and only unique answer to the question.



Gerard: No, the answer depends, in every case, on the reference frame from which the calculations are made, and this is true at every point on their journey, including when they meet.

cinci: The evidence is to the contrary.
***************************

cinci: No other theory can improve on this situation. There simply isn't a unique answer to that question unless the twins are colocated.

Gerard: Whoa, I don't understand why you now claim that there isn't a unique answer, when in the same paragraph you said this, "relativity will lead you to the correct and only unique answer to the question." Again, whether or not the twins are colocated, the answer depends upon the state of motion of the reference frame from which the calculations are made.

cinci: And again, it did not. All three observers agree on the final age of the twins.
***********************

cinci: There is no verifiable theory that tells you that it works any other way. So you have no grounds to say it is paradoxical

Gerard: The second statement doesn't necessarily follow from the first.

cinci: It does if you understand the first and apparently you don't.
****************************

[OZLOFT]

cinci: 2. JT's claim was no less absolute. The twins aged the same amount in each case.

Gerard: I'm blown away by this statement. Sometimes we judged one twin to have aged more, sometimes the other...only one reference frame determined that the twins had aged the same amount. There is no sense in which this statement makes sense.

cinci: Well let me blow you back. The ages of the twins were defined as zero at the beginning of the exercise and no matter who assessed what happened he concluded their age at the end of the race to be L= 10.00, A=8.66, B=9.95. Three different views of what happened but concensus on the outcome. They won't agree on the elapsed time to get this agreement because all their clocks run at different rates relative to each other but they do not disagree on the only point where it makes sense to ask the question. This is like the typical question asked of relativists when they say each observer sees the other's clock time dilated or the other's meter stick contracted; the question asked is "Who is right?" And the answer to that is both.
**********************************

...and yet the Cardinal denies the parallel universes required to "store" the mutually contradictory answers in!

6. Here is the bottom line. The question "What is the relative age of the twins?" only has a unique answer when the twins are colocated. This is because relative velocity and distance influence the passage of time. When they are colocated every observer in the universe will agree on their ages including those in relative motion in any direction, at any speed, accelerating or not, or in any other condition you can think of.

Colocated i.e. local realist philosophy. There is only a local answer - not an objective answer true for everyone no matter what their state of motion. For those far away or in different states of motion the answers are different i.e. the truth (so-labelled) is different. Once again we have to invoke parallel (or intersecting) universes and link them all up with a Minkowskian diagram! But then, Cardinal Sinci always had problems with admitting the plain implications of his teaching.
Yours faithfully,
OZLOFT

[cincirob]

OZ: Colocated i.e. local realist philosophy. There is only a local answer - not an objective answer true for everyone no matter what their state of motion. For those far away or in different states of motion the answers are different i.e. the truth (so-labelled) is different. Once again we have to invoke parallel (or intersecting) universes and link them all up with a Minkowskian diagram! But then, Cardinal Sinci always had problems with admitting the plain implications of his teaching.

cinci: Exactly wrong. When the twins are colocated, all observers will agree on their ages no matter what their state of motion is or where they are.
************************************************

[Gerard]

cinci: 2. JT's claim was no less absolute. The twins aged the same amount in each case.

Gerard: I'm blown away by this statement. Sometimes we judged one twin to have aged more, sometimes the other...only one reference frame determined that the twins had aged the same amount. There is no sense in which this statement makes sense.

cinci: Well let me blow you back. The ages of the twins were defined as zero at the beginning of the exercise and no matter who assessed what happened he concluded their age at the end of the race to be L= 10.00, A=8.66, B=9.95. Three different views of what happened but concensus on the outcome. They won't agree on the elapsed time to get this agreement because all their clocks run at different rates relative to each other but they do not disagree on the only point where it makes sense to ask the question. This is like the typical question asked of relativists when they say each observer sees the other's clock time dilated or the other's meter stick contracted; the question asked is "Who is right?" And the answer to that is both.
**********************************

Gerard: LOL! Top points for humor, but I think you're trying to be slippery here. I'm well aware that if we calculate their motion in the frame of L we get one set of answers. My point is that when we give L different states of motion relative to A and B, we get different results. Hence, different reference points are either mutually exclusice (i.e. parallel universes), or they are mutually inconsistent (i.e. paradoxical).

cinci: 6. Here is the bottom line. The question "What is the relative age of the twins?" only has a unique answer when the twins are colocated. This is because relative velocity and distance influence the passage of time. When they are colocated every observer in the universe will agree on their ages including those in relative motion in any direction, at any speed, accelerating or not, or in any other condition you can think of.

Gerard: Again, no. JT, would you like to interject here?

cinci: He doesn't have to. His exercise made it clear as I showed above.
**********************************

cinci: Only with relativity can you resolve what each of those observers will see but in each and every case, relativity will lead you to the correct and only unique answer to the question.

Gerard: see my comment above, in which I point out that you are only considering a single reference frame, and that different states of motion for L will give you different answers (and we already worked these problems out too, in case you don't remember). Why should we insist on everyone in the universe picking the same arbitrary point to which to refer their calculations? Are you trying to be slippery?

cinci: There is no verifiable theory that tells you that it works any other way. So you have no grounds to say it is paradoxical

Gerard: The second statement doesn't necessarily follow from the first.

cinci: It does if you understand the first and apparently you don't.
****************************

Gerard: No, it doesn't. This is your idea of trash talk, but it isn't a logical statement.

[cincirob]

Gerard: These calculations take L as the stationary frame, and in this particular example, L was not colocated at the coincidence of A and B, though it was midway between them at the beginning of the race. He also worked out the problem from the perspective of a different L, such that L was colocated at the incidence of A and B, and the conclusion was different. In that example, A, B and L all had identical clock readings.

cinci: You have to define the world at some instant and relative to some observer. JT did that with all the clocks reading zero from L's point of view. At the end of the race all the clocks read a particular set of values. All the participants agree on that set of values. Their earlier perspectives don't agree because they are all separated in space and in relative motion.

When A interrogates a synchronized B clock which he has to do locally at the beginning of the race he will not read zero on that clock because of the distance and relative velocity involved; but the clock at B still reads zero for B. Later, when they are colocated, the relativity of simultaneity effect go to zero because the distance separating them is zero the all agree on the final age of all the participants.

What you are missing is that there is a unique value on each clock at the beginning of the race but only the observer located with that clock can read that value. Everybody else can only interrogate a clock synchronized with a distant clock and the relativity of simultaneity comes into play.

If you could read a distant clock and get the same value as its owner, it would be like seeing into the past. That knowledge can only reach you at the speed of light and that is what preserves causality. Let's say you could read the clock of a distant observer as he reads it. That means, if he fired a laser cannon at you, you could duck and it would miss you. From the point of view of the laser firer, you will have changed the future and foiled causality. Nature and relativity don't permit this. So all this chicanery with clocks is what preserves casuality which, I believe, is one of the things you do believe. Like it or not, that is reality.
*******************************************

[Gerard]

Gerard: These calculations take L as the stationary frame, and in this particular example, L was not colocated at the coincidence of A and B, though it was midway between them at the beginning of the race. He also worked out the problem from the perspective of a different L, such that L was colocated at the incidence of A and B, and the conclusion was different. In that example, A, B and L all had identical clock readings.

[b]cinci: You have to define the world at some instant and relative to some observer. JT did that with all the clocks reading zero from L's point of view. At the end of the race all the clocks read a particular set of values. All the participants agree on that set of values. Their earlier perspectives don't agree because they are all separated in space and in relative motion.

When A interrogates a synchronized B clock which he has to do locally at the beginning of the race he will not read zero on that clock because of the distance and relative velocity involved; but the clock at B still reads zero for B

.

Gerard: Unbelievable! Is A not an inertial frame? Why is A not allowed to consider itself the stationary system at any given start point? If A is not allowed this, by what authority do you grant the earth inertial status?


Later, when they are colocated, the relativity of simultaneity effect go to zero because the distance separating them is zero the all agree on the final age of all the participants.

What you are missing is that there is a unique value on each clock at the beginning of the race but only the observer located with that clock can read that value. Everybody else can only interrogate a clock synchronized with a distant clock and the relativity of simultaneity comes into play.

If you could read a distant clock and get the same value as its owner, it would be like seeing into the past. That knowledge can only reach you at the speed of light and that is what preserves causality. Let's say you could read the clock of a distant observer as he reads it. That means, if he fired a laser cannon at you, you could duck and it would miss you. From the point of view of the laser firer, you will have changed the future and foiled causality.

Gerard: You are trapped in a web of self-contradiction. See my quote above.

[cincirob]

Gerard: These calculations take L as the stationary frame, and in this particular example, L was not colocated at the coincidence of A and B, though it was midway between them at the beginning of the race. He also worked out the problem from the perspective of a different L, such that L was colocated at the incidence of A and B, and the conclusion was different. In that example, A, B and L all had identical clock readings.

cinci: You have to define the world at some instant and relative to some observer. JT did that with all the clocks reading zero from L's point of view. At the end of the race all the clocks read a particular set of values. All the participants agree on that set of values. Their earlier perspectives don't agree because they are all separated in space and in relative motion.

When A interrogates a synchronized B clock which he has to do locally at the beginning of the race he will not read zero on that clock because of the distance and relative velocity involved; but the clock at B still reads zero for B.

Gerard: Unbelievable! Is A not an inertial frame?

cinci: What on Earth inspired such a question? Everything JT and I have said treat A as an inertial frame. Do you think that all inertial frames have to agree on all events? Your question is unbelievable.
**********************************

Gerard: Why is A not allowed to consider itself the stationary system at any given start point? If A is not allowed this, by what authority do you grant the earth inertial status?

cinci: In case you missed it, I have no idea why you would ask that question. t = 0 for L, A, and B when A and B are a specified distance from L. These are three events in spacetime and they were defined assuming L is the stationary frame. Those events will look differnt from any other frame. This is what CCC was telling you with the Minkowski approach. JT did look at it with A as stationary and with B as stationary. I have no idea why you brought Earth into this.
***************************************

cinci: Later, when they are colocated, the relativity of simultaneity effect go to zero because the distance separating them is zero the all agree on the final age of all the participants.

What you are missing is that there is a unique value on each clock at the beginning of the race but only the observer located with that clock can read that value. Everybody else can only interrogate a clock synchronized with a distant clock and the relativity of simultaneity comes into play.

If you could read a distant clock and get the same value as its owner, it would be like seeing into the past. That knowledge can only reach you at the speed of light and that is what preserves causality. Let's say you could read the clock of a distant observer as he reads it. That means, if he fired a laser cannon at you, you could duck and it would miss you. From the point of view of the laser firer, you will have changed the future and foiled causality.

Gerard: You are trapped in a web of self-contradiction. See my quote above.

cinci: I saw your quote. You're still missing the point. Without these variations that JT showed, cause and effect would be violable. And reality tells us it isn't.

Please point out the self-contradiction. I did the best I could to explain some fairly esoteric issues and your response above is in contradiction to the facts and your other comment is that I am self-contradicting. You need to bring more to the table than that.

I simply can't get over your question about A above. I'm beginning to think Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is at work. I have confined your misgivings about relativity to an ever smaller range of possibilities and the result is ever wilder claims about what you think is being said. Are you so set against the theory that you leave no possibility that you are wrong about it?
****************************

[Gerard]

Gerard: These calculations take L as the stationary frame, and in this particular example, L was not colocated at the coincidence of A and B, though it was midway between them at the beginning of the race. He also worked out the problem from the perspective of a different L, such that L was colocated at the incidence of A and B, and the conclusion was different. In that example, A, B and L all had identical clock readings.

cinci: You have to define the world at some instant and relative to some observer. JT did that with all the clocks reading zero from L's point of view. At the end of the race all the clocks read a particular set of values. All the participants agree on that set of values. Their earlier perspectives don't agree because they are all separated in space and in relative motion.

When A interrogates a synchronized B clock which he has to do locally at the beginning of the race he will not read zero on that clock because of the distance and relative velocity involved; but the clock at B still reads zero for B.

Gerard: Unbelievable! Is A not an inertial frame?

cinci: What on Earth inspired such a question? Everything JT and I have said treat A as an inertial frame. Do you think that all inertial frames have to agree on all events? Your question is unbelievable.
**********************************

Gerard: Apologies, I misunderstood you! I thought you were claiming that we could only calculate this problem considering L as stationary.


Gerard: Why is A not allowed to consider itself the stationary system at any given start point? If A is not allowed this, by what authority do you grant the earth inertial status?

cinci: In case you missed it, I have no idea why you would ask that question. t = 0 for L, A, and B when A and B are a specified distance from L. These are three events in spacetime and they were defined assuming L is the stationary frame. Those events will look differnt from any other frame. This is what CCC was telling you with the Minkowski approach. JT did look at it with A as stationary and with B as stationary. I have no idea why you brought Earth into this.
***************************************

Gerard: See my apology above. If you were in agreement with me the whole time, why did you pretend not to be? Depending on which frame we take as the stationary point and refer the motion of the ships to, we get different answers. Why do you pretend as though I am saying something that I am not? We are in agreement as to the facts. From my perspective this is a paradox, for no one has given me a single reason why A should prefer to use the frame of L, or why a certain state of motion is preferable for L over any other, and I therefore can only conclude that everyone's contradictory conclusion is equally valid, and Relativity unequivocally describes a 'Multiverse'.