maybe he did and God said start a thread

The problem is the airplane experiment with the 4 atomic clocks - the clocks in the plane registered slower than earth clocks when flying east (I think) and earth was slower when it flew west. So they did "compare notes". I could be wrong, but I think this is given as proof of SR.

So take the case of the plane flying east. Earth clocks would be A and plane clocks would be B. Why wouldn't A be slower?

I'm afraid I don't have access to all internet sites at the work I'm at (though strangely they accepted a poker site as 'acceptable' ) and I'm unfamiliar with this experiment.

It sounds to me though that it's a test of general relativity not special relativity - both since the clocks are presumably brought back and stood next to each other (requiring acceleration after the 'fly past' moment) but also because it is within a gravitational field. As I say though - I'm not really clear as to what happened and whether you're speaking of a real-world experiment or a thought experiment (in the real world, I dont think you'll ever really account for what we observe without using general relativity which is not so amenable to hand-wavy arguments).

And since I feel like being nitty right now let me explain how this works. It doesn't seem that God just hands out answers. But instead, his answer would be that burst of imagination that springs into a "I think I'm going to start a thread about this" thought - which provides NR's conclusion (hopefully ). Maybe he did or maybe he didn't but the sheer sincerity of NR's trying to figure this out would trigger God's action, whether prayer was even involved.

How is this at all distinguishable from NR's just doing it on his own?

You're reading Gardner wrong. Gardner said you don't need *living* observers. You still need an observer of some kind. Gardner mentions instruments. The instruments will record the observations appropriate for the reference frame they are at rest in.

Again, the point of special relativity is that observations made in one reference frame don't have to agree with observations made in a different frame. Each observer, whether man or mechanical, will observe according to how the events play out in their rest frame.

Would this matter if he could hypothetically receive the info instantaneously? I was trying to isolate the FoR aspect.

This directly violates a postulate of special relativity, so it is not a good hypothetical. (But in terms of the "spirit" of what you are saying, I would say yes)

I said in an earlier post there is a gravitational effect in the experiment, but it's taken as a confirmation of SR and there is also a velocity effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%...ing_experiment


Hafele–Keating experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October of 1971, Joseph C. Hafele and Richard E. Keating took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners and flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against those of the United States Naval Observatory.

According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs slower, and the effect is proportional to the square of the velocity. In a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, the clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, is moving faster than a clock that remains on the ground, while the clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, is moving slower.

According to general relativity, another effect comes into play: the slight increase in gravitational potential due to altitude that speeds the clocks back up. Since the aircraft are flying at roughly the same altitude in both directions, this effect is more "constant" between the two clocks, but nevertheless it causes a difference in comparison to the clock on the ground.

The results were published in Science in 1972:[1][2]
nanoseconds gained
predicted measured
gravitational
(general relativity) kinematic
(special relativity) total
eastward 144±14 −184 ± 18 −40 ± 23 −59 ± 10
westward 179±18 96±10 275±21 273±7

The published outcome of the experiment was consistent with special relativity. The observed time gains and losses were different from zero to a high degree of confidence, and were in agreement with relativistic predictions to within the ~10% precision of the experiment. The results were verified in an improved experiment in 1976 by the University of Maryland, this time verifying the relativistic predictions to a precision of about 1%.[3] A reenactment of the original experiment took place on the 25th anniversary of the original experiment, using more precise atomic clocks, and the results were verified to a higher degree of accuracy.[4] Nowadays such relativistic effects are, for example, routinely incorporated into the calculations used for the Global Positioning System.[5]

Because the experiment was reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified.[6] A few authors who dispute the validity of the theory of relativity have questioned the experiment: in a 1996 paper A. G. Kelly argued that the final published outcome had to be averaged in a biased way in order to claim such a high precision,[7] and Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, published a one-page criticism of the experiment in a creationist journal in 1977,[8] and also briefly discussed the experiment in a paragraph of his 1988 article RELATIVITY - joke or swindle? where he argued that "All the experiment showed was that the clocks were not sufficiently accurate to detect the small effect predicted".[9] However, neither Kelly's monograph nor Essen's 1988 article were peer reviewed (Essen's 1977 article was in a journal peer reviewed by creationist scientists,[10] but 'creation science' is viewed as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community[11]), both were written by authors who hold fringe views about the theory of relativity being fundamentally flawed,[12] and neither casts doubt on the verifications of the result by more precise methods as early as 1976. The physicist Tom Roberts and Siegmar Schleif also comment on Kelly's paper in What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?, saying:

His criticism does not stand up, as he does not understand the properties of the atomic clocks and the way the four clocks were reduced to a single “paper” clock. The simple averages he advocates are not nearly as accurate as the paper clock used in the final paper—that was the whole point of flying four clocks (they call this “correlated rate change”; this technique is used by all standards organizations today to minimize the deficiencies of atomic clocks).

Total time dilation

Τ = Δτv + Δτg + Δτs

Velocity

\Delta\tau_v = - \frac{1}{2c^2} \sum_{i=1}^{k}v_i^2 \Delta\tau_i

Gravitation

\Delta\tau_g = \frac{g}{c^2} \sum_{i=1}^{k} (h_i - h_0) \Delta\tau_i

Sagnac effect

\Delta\tau_s = - \frac{\omega}{c^2} \sum_{i=1}^{k} R_i^2 \cos^2 \phi_i \Delta\lambda_i

Where h = height, v = velocity, ω = Earth's rotation and τ represents the duration/distance of a section of the flight. The effects are summed over the entire flight, since the parameters will change with time.
[edit] References

1. ^ Hafele, J.; Keating, R. (July 14, 1972). "Around the world atomic clocksredicted relativistic time gains". Science 177 (4044): 166–168. doi:10.1126/science.177.4044.166. PMID 17779917. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/177/4044/166. Retrieved 2006-09-18.
2. ^ Hafele, J.; Keating, R. (July 14, 1972). "Around the world atomic clocksbserved relativistic time gains". Science 177 (4044): 168–170. doi:10.1126/science.177.4044.168. PMID 17779918. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/177/4044/168. Retrieved 2006-09-18.
3. ^ Wolfgang Rindler, Essential Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological, Springer-Verlag, 1979, p. 45
4. ^ Metromnia Issue 18 - Spring 2005
5. ^ Deines, "Uncompensated relativity effects for a ground-based GPSA receiver", Position Location and Navigation Symposium, 1992. Record. '500 Years After Columbus - Navigation Challenges of Tomorrow'. IEEE PLANS '92.
6. ^ Wolfgang Rindler, Essential Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological, Springer-Verlag, 1979, p. 45
7. ^ A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9
8. ^ Essen, L. (1977) "Atomic Clocks - Coming and Going", Creation Research Society Quarterly 14, p. 64.
9. ^ Louis Essen (1988) "Relativity - Joke or Swindle?", Electronics and Wireless World 94, 126 - 127
10. ^ see http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html
11. ^ "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations". National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/media/voices/science. Retrieved 2008-08-28.
12. ^ see this paper by A. G. Kelly where he argues that the speed of light is not independent of the source as relativity predicts, and Louis Essen's book The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis

Ok it seems to me (though hopefully Max will give the correct answer) that the 'reconciliation' happens when the plane lands. I'm not convinced the plane flying at high altitude can really be said to be moving in a non-accelerating frame, but presuming they can extract the special relativity effect from the combined total effect:

The frame in the plane would see the ground based clock going slow as it orbitted the world. As it began to descend it would then start to experience acceleration and (as it sped towards the clock which had remained on the ground - initially appearing to the flying clock to be well behind) it would observe the ground-based clock speeding up. By the time the plane landed and the flying clock was taken out and placed next to the clock on the ground - both observers would agree with what was then observed - the stationary clock would say "Of course the flying clock is behind - we saw it running slower than us the whole time" the flying clock said "Well you did run slow while we were up in the air. In fact, just before we landed you were actually behind us. Then as we decelerated on the way in to landing you suddenly ran much quicker and recovered all that lost time, plus a little more - so now you are ahead of us. That's because of the acceleration we experienced though."

EDIT: They will agree about how many 'ticks' each has experienced from separation until reuniting - they will not agree on the rate of those ticks in each of the distinct 'phases'.

* One detail I'm glossing over is that any object in a gravitational field is accelerating - so I don't think the analysis I've set out here actually goes through as straightforwardly as this. Ultimately though, I think this is your resolution - both clocks will observe the other running slow whilst the experiment is being run. The acceleration as the orbiting clock comes in to land and compare notes is where everything gets 'tidied up'.

It's just how I understand things to be . If a Creator exists I do not see how we could be independent in thought. It wouldn't be that a connection exists, it would be that God IS the connection.

When you study past experiences and observe present ones you will start to notice patterns in your thought. Or rather that "your thought" isn't always accountable by you. It's as if this giant miraculous Super computer operates non stop, on your behalf, and it's YOURS, and you acknowledge it, but have absolutely no idea why you got so damn lucky. And I find that really suspicious.

But how would you distinguish this from its simply being a result of our own thought processes?

I think you basically got it, but just for clarification. There is a general relativity effect, but that effect will be the same for the east bound and west bound plane so if cancels out. The East bound plane has a faster velocity relative to the center of the Earth than the west bound plane does. So special relativity predicts that the East bound plane should show less elapsed time than the westward plane and a clock that stays at rest relative to the Earth's center. The "relative to the center of Earth" part matters because the frame in which both clocks are compared to each other at the end is the one that is at rest relative to the center of the Earth. .

The wiki article for this is TERRIBLE. Not sure why they spent so much time talking about crackpots that reject the experiment.

NotReady,

If you are trying to understand special relativity, I would recommend ignoring the experimental tests when you start out. First learn what the theory says (make sure you can answer basic conceptual questions and convince yourself that there aren't any contradictions) and after you do that you can start learning about how it has been experimentally confirmed. Real experiments are always messy and force you to take into account many things besides the single effect you are trying to study.

I'm about ready to give up on this but just want to note that planes decelerate when descending and landing.

Edit: I re-read your post and you have the plane both accelerating and decelerating when landing. The vertical acceleration due to gravity might skew the results? So that should be fixable by comparing clock times before it lands, correct?

Because of special relativity, saying the place accelerates or decelerates when landing is equally valid.

Max needs to post pics of hottie string theorists in string bikinis for his 10k post.

I meant 'accelerate' as in 'change in velocity'. Decelerate is just negative acceleration - one must use GR if a frame changes velocity (irrespective of if it gets faster or slower relative to any particular observer).

EDIT: "Fixable" sounds odd, I prefer reconcilable. Both observers will agree on things like 'the flying clock showed 142 hours have elapsed by the time it passed through the cloud just before it began to decelerate at the end of the experiment'. They will disagree on what the grounded clock was showing "at the same time" - the flying clock will think the grounded clock was showing 141 hours (at the moment the flying clock passed through the cloud) the grounded clock will think it was showing 143 hours at the moment the flying clock was passing through the cloud. They then both land and will agree that the flying clock shows 142.5 hours and the grounded clock was shows 143.25 hours - the flying clock saw the grounded clock rush through 2.25 hours while it spent half an hour descending. The grounded clock saw the flying clock rush through 0.5 hours during the .25 hours it took to land.

Obviously all numbers are artificial and wrong. The problem (it seems to me) is that you are trying to find a way to hold on to simultaneity or a preferred frame of "what really happened". I don't think this is helpful.

He doesn't, but unless he does, at the expense of his own, SR doesn't apply. Special Relativity isn't about what is relative; it's about what is absolute. The speed of light is an absolute between inertial frames. From your reference frame, you may think you're at rest, but in some other inertial frame you're traveling at 99.99…% the speed of light and flat as a pancake.

Not sure where you're going with all this but bear in mind that SR is about measurement from a distance; it's not ontological. I.e. it's how things appear, not how things are.

I strongly disagree - I think it's how things are. For example: it appears to us that 'simultaneous' is a question of fact, but in reality there is no definitive 'real answer' to the question "Did event A and B occur at the same time?"

That "example" was probably unhelpful on reading it back. I agree with Max Raker that you are better off grappling with the hypothetical thought experiments until you develop the knack of focussing on what is invariant across frames - rather than mistakenly lapsing into the idea that there must be an agreed answer to things like 'which came first' or 'which clock runs faster'.

Is there a problem though? (Theologically, I mean). I can't think of any Christian doctrine which is invalidated or challenged by the fact our universe is relativistic.

Fine. That's your prerogative. You are flat as a pancake; you are growing and shrinking in stature; and your clock is speeding up and slowing down. Some maple syrup, a change of clothes and setting your alarm clock a light year or two early and you're good to go. But I have to go to bed in my non-Digger FoR.

(In jest, of course.)

I don't know how much was jest, but the bolded is all an excellent example of what I'm talking about. You speak of all of those things as if they are invariant - as if there's a 'real answer'. Relativity doesnt imply I'm growing and shrinking. It doesnt imply my clock is speeding up and slowing down. It doesnt imply I'm bigger or smaller. All it implies is that different frames of reference give different answers to all those questions.

I didn't actually go through the calculation or anything but someone (bunny or Max I think) nailed it.

Both clocks can register slower than the other because they aren't "meeting up" to compare notes UNLESS they are accelerating at some point. And then you have to use GR. As a side note, I once read somewhere that SR can handle accelerating frames in some cases but I have no clue what the stipulations are. And in the plane example I'm fairly sure (disclaimer: without reading through it carefully), you have to use GR to tease out the gravitational and acceleration factors, which leaves you with the SR component that you are testing.

If two reference frames (attached to planes, trains, something) are NOT accelerating and are NOT in gravitational fields, each clock is moving slower relative to the other. The apparent logical inconsistency vanishes when you realize that in order for them to compare information ("compare notes") they will have to transmit their clocks' times to one another -- and the fastest they can do this is at the speed of light.

It is logically ok to say both clocks "run slower". What would be logically inconsistent is to say t1 < t2 and t2 < t1 where t1 and t2 are the times given by the clocks. This is what you were getting at earlier -- and what fixes this is to take into account the time to transmit the information from one clock to the other -- or, alternatively, take into account the acceleration and gravity using GR, depending on the experiment. Once you include this in the math you'll no longer get a contradiction like t1 < t2 and t2 < t1.

I think I'm beginning to get this. I remember reading somewhere that the twin paradox works because the away twin has to decelerate, turn and accelerate etc. I guess what bugs me is the whole thing rests on math but can't be proved experimentally - which was what I thought the plane experiment was claiming. Maybe it does, not sure I get that part yet.

duffe
Not sure where you're going with all this but bear in mind that SR is about measurement from a distance; it's not ontological. I.e. it's how things appear, not how things are.

Bunny
I strongly disagree - I think it's how things are. For example: it appears to us that 'simultaneous' is a question of fact, but in reality there is no definitive 'real answer' to the question "Did event A and B occur at the same time?"

Gardner
" (Time has) no meaning apart from the relation of an object to an observer".
"(Tme) can be recorded on instruments. (It does) not require a living observer".

This is what confuses me. If I read relativity and think of it as a kind of optical illusion, a view of things from a perspective, like saying the sun rises, I'm fine. But Gardner and you seem to be saying something more - the sun really DOES rise, it's not just a viewpoint.

There are basically two reasons I asked - I've always had this problem since I first looked at Einstein. It never was important enough for me to spend much time on. Recently I've been reading a Craig book about God and time in which he claims that though SR is valid about most things, he thinks Newton was right and absolute time exists - but it isn't measurable for us, so it's metaphysical. He claims Einstein gets rid of absolute time by assertion, which is also metaphyscial(he says Einstein was a verificationist on this issue), so it isn't really a question of physics or measurable science. Anyway, it isn't important for any major Christian doctrine, so I didn't want to post about that aspect, but am trying to understand SR better so I can evaluate Craig's ideas - which he didn't just make up, there are scientists from which he gets them, at least in part.