Xyz's Request That Sluggo Listen To Him

[xyz]

martillo;

After reading selected portions;

1.1A relativity inconsistency

While twins A and B are in relative motion, each can observe the clock rate of the other. Since clocks are frequencies, each is observing doppler shifts of the other clock. While diverging the frequency decreases, while converging the frequency increases. If one uses a light signal to get a reading from the other clock, that clock will appear to be running slow regardless of doppler shift.

Aging concerns the accumulated time on a clock, which requires a comparison at a common location. The underlined are not the same thing.

The graphic is a variation of M (mother-ship), with A and B moving in the same direction with different speed profiles. Their clocks are synchronized at 0.

Which twin has aged the least, when compared at 10?

twins 161103.gif

 

8.2 MM experiment

If all components have velocity u, and the velocities add as vectors, then light speed is c relative to all components, i.e. the results are the same as if the lab is not moving. The original problem involved the difference in the x-path vs the p-path. With your setup a difference would be detected by an outside observer, with light speed >c on the perpendicular path. That just magnifies the problem. Now t_x =² t_p compared to t_x = t_p in the original setup.

If light acquired the u component in the p direction, then t_p = t₀ . A light clock would not run slower as a result of motion, i.e. there would be no time dilation and consequently no length contraction, the very thing that resolves the problem.      

Sluggo I know many people never ''listen'' to me.  Please try to ''listen'' to see if you understand this. 

 

 

 

 

Twin 1 stays on Earth

 

 

Twin 2  travels the cosmos and returns 

 

 

Twin 2 arrives back now. 

 

 

Both twin 1 and twin 2 both agree that they are in each others present , the now. Both twin 1 and twin 2 agree because they are both in the same frame of now, that the exact same time passed for both twins. 

 

 

 

Do some time maths if you like

 

 

twin 2 sets off 00:00am and returns several years later at 00:00am 

 

 

 

 

think!

 

 

added let me add the time lines

 

 

twin one

 

 

00:00:00_______________________________________________________________________________________________00:00:00

 

 

 

twin 2 the slower time

 

 

 

00:00:00_________________________________________________00:00:00

 

 

 

 

 

Now look and consider that twin two does not arrive back home to twin one in the past, twin 2 arrives in the present, the same length of time line. 

 

 

I can do it with circles if you like and represent the circle as a clock. 

 

 

Twin 1 sits at 0 degrees, 

 

 

twin 2 travels 360 degrees in a circle at approx 0.288miles/s  

 

 

 

 

 

twin 2 takes 24 hrs to complete the circle. 

 

 

 

twin one also experiences 24 hrs

Edited January 5, 2017 by xyz

[A-wal]

They only agree on the amount of proper time that's passed (once they're back in the same frame of reference as each other) if they both accelerated by the the same amount in total. If not then the one that accelerated more will have experience less time passing than the one that didn't accelerate (or accelerated less).

 

Each is time dilated and length contracted from the perspective of the other will they're in inertial motion relative to each other so the situation is symmetric and neither can claim that their measurement of time is any more valid than the other, but when one of them accelerates into the other's frame of reference they are moving to a frame in which they were time dilated and length contracted while they where in motion relative to the observer that was always in this frame so now both observers agree that less time has passed for the one who accelerated.

 

Inertial motion relative to other objects causes coordinate time dilation and length contraction, acceleration causes less proper time (the time measured by the observer) to pass than for an object that remains inertial because the accelerator is moving to a frame of reference in which they were time dilated and length contracted while they were in a different frame.

Edited January 5, 2017 by A-wal

[xyz]

They only agree on the amount of proper time that's passed (once they're back in the same frame of reference as each other) if they both accelerated by the the same amount in total. If not then the one that accelerated more will have experience less time passing than the one that didn't accelerate (or accelerated less).

 

Each is time dilated and length contracted from the perspective of the other will they're in inertial motion relative to each other so the situation is symmetric and neither can claim that their measurement of time is any more valid than the other, but when one of them accelerates into the other's frame of reference they are moving to a frame in which they were time dilated and length contracted while they where in motion relative to the observer that was always in this frame so now both observers agree that less time has passed for the one who accelerated.

 

Inertial motion relative to other objects causes coordinate time dilation and length contraction, acceleration causes less proper time (the time measured by the observer) to pass than for an object that remains inertial because the accelerator is moving to a frame of reference in which they were time dilated and length contracted while they were in a different frame.

Sometimes I really think you do not understand.   Acceleration is not mentioned, you are not ''listening'' to the very simple logical argument. 

 

Let me ask you something Awal, if you was my twin and you left on a journey to another galaxy, then returned to me in my present, you and I are in the same present, you left and we both experienced the same amount of time passed to return to each others present.  Can you understand that Awal?

 

The reason Awal, if time ran slower for you, you would return in my past and we would never see each other again. 

 

 

Look at it this way, say I experience 1 year of time at the rate (R1)

 

 

and you experience 6 months of time at rate (R.5)

 

 

 

You dont return to me 6 months in my past, (V) velocity is constant. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by xyz

[billvon]

The reason Awal, if time ran slower for you, you would return in my past and we would never see each other again.

That's ridiculous.  Time runs slower for GPS satellites; they do not "return to the past" and disappear.

[xyz]

That's ridiculous.  Time runs slower for GPS satellites; they do not "return to the past" and disappear.

arr you finally got it, exactly , the twin returns in the present because time did not run slower for the twin who left. If time did run slower then the twin would return behind our timeline, in the past, which is would be plainly stupid to think. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by xyz

[billvon]

arr you finally got it, exactly , the twin returns in the present because time did not run slower for the twin who left. 

No, you miss the point.

 

Time runs slower for GPS satellites.  Time runs slower for ISS astronauts.  This is not conjecture.  This is fact. 

[xyz]

No, you miss the point.

 

Time runs slower for GPS satellites.  Time runs slower for ISS astronauts.  This is not conjecture.  This is fact. 

Quite clearly you miss the point and your not getting it, timing runs slower on GPS, the GPS and the astronauts are in time. 

 

Ok lets try to get you to ''see'' this . 

 

 

 

You and I are twins, you leave Earth and return several years later to meet me. 

 

 

 

Do you agree we both meet in the present? the now. 

[billvon]

You and I are twins, you leave Earth and return several years later to meet me. 

 

Do you agree we both meet in the present? the now. 

Both of us are present now, and both of us will be present in the future.  At any given time we will both experience a "now."  We will not agree on how much time passes between those times.

 

If you had a twin, and he went to the ISS for a year and came back, he would be .01 seconds younger than you (since compared to the speed of light his speeds are low.)  If he traveled significantly faster (i.e. close to the speed of light) then he could be traveling for a year and come back, at which time he would be six months younger than you.  Same effect, just a difference in scale.

[xyz]

Both of us are present now, and both of us will be present in the future.  At any given time we will both experience a "now."  We will not agree on how much time passes between those times.

 

If you had a twin, and he went to the ISS for a year and came back, he would be .01 seconds younger than you (since compared to the speed of light his speeds are low.)  If he traveled significantly faster (i.e. close to the speed of light) then he could be traveling for a year and come back, at which time he would be six months younger than you.  Same effect, just a difference in scale.

You are incorrect and this is what I am trying to point out to you, please ''listen''. 

 

 

 

I will use your own example, 

 

''If you had a twin, and he went to the ISS for a year and came back, he would be .01 seconds younger than you''

 

 

 

 

So you are saying time runs slower for the astronaut , ok let us do the two time lines 

 

 

 

 

Earth twin time line = ___________________________________________________________________________________1 year

 

 

 

space twin time line=______________________________________________________________________________<1 year

 

 

 

 

twins meet time line=_____________________________________________________________________________________1 year

 

 

Now do you ''see''?  If there was a contraction of time, the twins could never meet up.

 

 

added - this is the question you need ask yourself, 

 

 

if the twin returns 1 year later, how possible is it for the returning twin to experience less than a year of time passed?  P=0 because the returning twin is the lesser time. 

 

 

added- on a constant and accurate synchronisation of clocks all time lines are an equal length. 

Edited January 6, 2017 by xyz

[Maine farmer]

You are incorrect and this is what I am trying to point out to you, please ''listen''. 

 

 

 

I will use your own example, 

 

''If you had a twin, and he went to the ISS for a year and came back, he would be .01 seconds younger than you''

 

 

 

 

So you are saying time runs slower for the astronaut , ok let us do the two time lines 

 

 

 

 

Earth twin time line = ___________________________________________________________________________________1 year

 

 

 

space twin time line=______________________________________________________________________________<1 year

 

 

 

 

twins meet time line=_____________________________________________________________________________________1 year

 

 

Now do you ''see''?  If there was a contraction of time, the twins could never meet up.

 

 

added - this is the question you need ask yourself, 

 

 

if the twin returns 1 year later, how possible is it for the returning twin to experience less than a year of time passed?  P=0 because the returning twin is the lesser time. 

 

 

added- on a constant and accurate synchronisation of clocks all time lines are an equal length. 

I think that you are thinking of time as a solid and inflexible quality, when it appears to me that time is more fluid and dynamic.

[xyz]

I think that you are thinking of time as a solid and inflexible quality, when it appears to me that time is more fluid and dynamic.

Time is only more fluid and dynamic if we consider it to be ''light'' orientated, but if we consider the very essence of space, an empty volume of time , then it is relatively easy to 'see' that matter and energy occupy this empty volume of time, allowing us to create timing relative to time. Time existing as the stationary reference frame with a value of 0 or infinite that we are relatively timing ourselves in comparison too. 

 

 

Consider a blank piece of paper, the blankness representing time, now imagine a few dots moving around the blankness, this allows for timing in time. 

[billvon]

You are incorrect and this is what I am trying to point out to you, please ''listen''. 

 

I will use your own example, 

''If you had a twin, and he went to the ISS for a year and came back, he would be .01 seconds younger than you''

So you are saying time runs slower for the astronaut , ok let us do the two time lines 

 

Earth twin time line = ___________________________________________________________________________________1 year

space twin time line=______________________________________________________________________________<1 year

 

twins meet time line=_____________________________________________________________________________________1 year

Now do you ''see''?  If there was a contraction of time, the twins could never meet up.

That's a great theory.  In reality there is a contraction of time and the twins do meet up.  It happened, so there's really no question about it.

 

When reality conflicts with a pet theory you have, reality wins - every time.

[Maine farmer]

Time is only more fluid and dynamic if we consider it to be ''light'' orientated, but if we consider the very essence of space, an empty volume of time , then it is relatively easy to 'see' that matter and energy occupy this empty volume of time, allowing us to create timing relative to time. Time existing as the stationary reference frame with a value of 0 or infinite that we are relatively timing ourselves in comparison too. 

 

 

Consider a blank piece of paper, the blankness representing time, now imagine a few dots moving around the blankness, this allows for timing in time. 

Using the piece of paper as an analogy, consider bending and folding the paper, and consider time to be woven within space and the matter that exists within spacetime.

[sluggo]

A clock provides a beat or rhythm to record events.

1. The light clock contains the essential features of a precision timekeeping device in a very simple form. A single photon (packet of em energy) is sent from zero vertically to a mirror m 1 unit distant and returns to a detector at zero, i.e. one cycle. A unit of 'time' is defined as k cycles. When the clock and viewer are at rest, the A frame, the time for 1 cycle is 2/c = 2, letting c =1. When the clock and viewer are moving, relative to A, shown in the left, the photon changes direction with the clock, but its speed is constant, as shown by the 90 arc. After .5 cycle in the rest frame, an identical clock moving at .6c would indicate .8 the distance to m. Since light speed is constant and independent of the source, the light has to compensate for the speed of the clock while moving to the mirror, i.e. the cycle is longer. This should explain why a moving clock runs slower. On the right is the moving viewers perception of his clock in the B frame. If 1 cycle in the A frame corresponds to .8 cycle in the B frame then any unit of time in the B frame is 1/.8 = 1.25 as long as the A unit.

2. Since the clock process involves transferring em energy, any process of a similar nature would be affected in like manner, including chemistry, which includes biological systems. If the viewers perception is altered by motion to the same degree as his clock, he won't detect any change in time.

3. The 2nd graphic compares the motion of A and B for10 hr of A-time. B moves away at .6c for 4 hr B-time, reverses direction and returns at .6c.Each may send a signal to the other every hr (blue lines). A will receive 8 signals from B and B will receive 10 signals from A. The exchange isn't necessary since the difference in accumulated time will be obvious at the reunion.

[xyz]

A clock provides a beat or rhythm to record events.

1. The light clock contains the essential features of a precision timekeeping device in a very simple form. A single photon (packet of em energy) is sent from zero vertically to a mirror m 1 unit distant and returns to a detector at zero, i.e. one cycle. A unit of 'time' is defined as k cycles. When the clock and viewer are at rest, the A frame, the time for 1 cycle is 2/c = 2, letting c =1. When the clock and viewer are moving, relative to A, shown in the left, the photon changes direction with the clock, but its speed is constant, as shown by the 90 arc. After .5 cycle in the rest frame, an identical clock moving at .6c would indicate .8 the distance to m. Since light speed is constant and independent of the source, the light has to compensate for the speed of the clock while moving to the mirror, i.e. the cycle is longer. This should explain why a moving clock runs slower. On the right is the moving viewers perception of his clock in the B frame. If 1 cycle in the A frame corresponds to .8 cycle in the B frame then any unit of time in the B frame is 1/.8 = 1.25 as long as the A unit.

2. Since the clock process involves transferring em energy, any process of a similar nature would be affected in like manner, including chemistry, which includes biological systems. If the viewers perception is altered by motion to the same degree as his clock, he won't detect any change in time.

3. The 2nd graphic compares the motion of A and B for10 hr of A-time. B moves away at .6c for 4 hr B-time, reverses direction and returns at .6c.Each may send a signal to the other every hr (blue lines). A will receive 8 signals from B and B will receive 10 signals from A. The exchange isn't necessary since the difference in accumulated time will be obvious at the reunion.

light clock3.gif

twin-xyz.gif

I have a question for you.

 

 

You say you send a single photon packet from 0, I see you need to explain the distance, which exists whether you send the photon or not . .?

[A-wal]

Sometimes I really think you do not understand.   Acceleration is not mentioned, you are not ''listening'' to the very simple logical argument. 

I'm not the one here who can't understand and really needs to learn to start listening! You said they experience the same amount of time passing and that can only happen if their overall acceleration is equal.

 

Let me ask you something Awal, if you was my twin and you left on a journey to another galaxy, then returned to me in my present, you and I are in the same present, you left and we both experienced the same amount of time passed to return to each others present.  Can you understand that Awal?

If one twin accelerates and the other doesn't then the less time will pass for the one that does. This is the only way it can work with a constant speed of light.

 

Look, twins start off at rest relative to each other and accelerate equally in opposite directions until they're moving away from each other at 0.5c. From the perspective of A light passes B at half the speed of light but we know that the speed f light is constant so light passes B twice as quickly from B perspective than it does from A's perspective. How can it pass the same object at different speeds unless the measure lengths differently? The difference in the velocities as measured by objects in motion relative to each other is time dilation and length contraction.

 

0.5c

B<----------------------------------A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light

0.5c                                        1c

 

The exact same thing happens if you reverse it. This time it's from B's perspective.

 

0.5c

B---------------------------------->A

Light------------------------------------------------------------------------->

1c                                          0.5c

 

Each is time dilated and length contracted from the others frame of reference and if one accelerates into the others frame then they will be in a frame where they were length contracted and time dilated while they were in motion relative to their new frame and so less time will have passed for the one that accelerates.

 

The reason Awal, if time ran slower for you, you would return in my past and we would never see each other again.

No that's utter crap! There's no backwards time travel, it's just that less time passes for one than fir the other. This is completely pointless, you can't even grasp something that simple but you still think you know better than everyone else. We're not disagreeing with you because we can't understand you, we're disagreeing with you because we can see stupid your claims are and how little you understand.

 

Look at it this way, say I experience 1 year of time at the rate (R1)

 

and you experience 6 months of time at rate (R.5)

 

You dont return to me 6 months in my past, (V) velocity is constant. 

If one observer experiences a year and one experience six months passing then the one who experience six months passing accelerated more than the other observer and time was moving slower through time from the others perspective, no moving backwards in time! That's just stupid.

[OceanBreeze]

 

 

''If you had a twin, and he went to the ISS for a year and came back, he would be .01 seconds younger than you''

 

 

So you are saying time runs slower for the astronaut , ok let us do the two time lines 

 

 

Earth twin time line = ___________________________________________________________________________________1 year

 

 

space twin time line=______________________________________________________________________________<1 year

 

 

twins meet time line=_____________________________________________________________________________________1 year

 

 

Now do you ''see''?  If there was a contraction of time, the twins could never meet up.

 

 

 

 

You are thinking about this wrongly.

They Do meet up because the space-faring twin does time travel, but it is into the future, not the past!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H3ksmxwpWc&feature=youtu.be