The Twin Paradox Made Simple

[A-wal]

My solipsism, just as my religious persuasion, has nothing to do with it. Velocity is defined by the measurement of a traveled distance over time. A distance as defined in the frame of the observer making the measurement.

 

How do you believe that a measured distance over a measured time can give a false velocity when it's this measurement that actually defines the velocity?

[Moronium]

My solipsism, just as my religious persuasion, has nothing to do with it. Velocity is defined by the measurement of a traveled distance over time. A distance as defined in the frame of the observer making the measurement.

 

How do you believe that a measured distance over a measured time can give a false velocity when it's this measurement that actually defines the velocity?

 

You really need to ask?  There are lots of ways, but you would never understand any way which requires a grasp of the slightest nuance.  But maybe you can get this, who knows?:

 

My speedometer is broken because my odometer has become miscalibrated.  I'm going down the highway at 100 mph, but my speedometer says I'm only going 50.  Cop clocks me at 100 mph on radar.

 

In court I tell the judge that I could only have been going 50, and no other possible speed, because that's what I MEASURED my speed to be..

 

Charges dismissed, ya figure?

Edited May 11, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

This statement was contained in an academic paper published many decades ago.  But it was known to Einstein and every other physicist worth his salt well over 100 years ago, and is still accepted by mainstream physicists today, of course.

 

 

 

Summarizing these results we may say that the following statement is in perfect agreement with all experimental evidence: A preferred system of reference, the ether system, exists. Clocks are slow when moving with respect to the ether system and measuring rods shrink. As seen from a moving system clocks in the ether system are fast and measuring rods elongated.

 

 

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Eather/MANSOURI/MANSOURI1.pdf  (page 505)

 

In short, no "reciprocal time dilation;" no relative simultaneity; no self-created paradoxes, and, therefore, no sophistic attempts to deny the paradoxes; no need to advocate the universally discredited metaphysics of solipsism. Nothing in a PFT depends in the least on what any subjective observer sees, thinks, perceives, assumes, or concludes.   A PFT just deals with matter in motion, (i.e., physics) not the perceptions of subjective observers (human psychology).  All much cleaner that way, ya know?  SR is simply not needed to explain "all experimental evidence."

 

Get with the times, A-wal.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

You really need to ask?  There are lots of ways, but you would never understand any way which requires a grasp of the slightest nuance.  But maybe you can get this, who knows?:

 

My speedometer is broken because my odometer has become miscalibrated.  I'm going down the highway at 100 mph, but my speedometer says I'm only going 50.  Cop clocks me at 100 mph on radar.

 

In court I tell the judge that I could only have been going 50, and no other possible speed, because that's what I MEASURED my speed to be..

 

Charges dismissed, ya figure?

So it's your contention that the instruments used to determine that the speed of light is unaffected by the relative velocity of the emitter were miscalibrated? Every time?

 

This statement was contained in an academic paper published many decades ago.  But it was known to Einstein and every other physicist worth his salt well over 100 years ago, and is still accepted by mainstream physicists today, of course.

Summarizing these results we may say that the following statement is in perfect agreement with all experimental evidence: A preferred system of reference, the ether system, exists. Clocks are slow when moving with respect to the ether system and measuring rods shrink. As seen from a moving system clocks in the ether system are fast and measuring rods elongated.

 

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Eather/MANSOURI/MANSOURI1.pdf  (page 505)

 

In short, no "reciprocal time dilation;" no relative simultaneity; no self-created paradoxes, and, therefore, no sophistic attempts to deny the paradoxes; no need to advocate the universally discredited metaphysics of solipsism. Nothing in a PFT depends in the least on what any subjective observer sees, thinks, perceives, assumes, or concludes.   A PFT just deals with matter in motion, (i.e., physics) not the perceptions of subjective observers (human psychology).  All much cleaner that way, ya know?  SR is simply not needed to explain "all experimental evidence."

 

Get with the times, A-wal.

The only paradoxes in SR are the strawman ones you've attempted to fabricate.

 

So it's your contention that it's been well established and for over 100 years and still accepted by mainstream physics today that a preferred frame of reference exists and that an aether exists?

[Moronium]

Heh, A-wal.  You never fail to take something I say and then declare I'm saying something I didn't say. I simply referred you to authoritative sources who say what they say and what they say certainly contradicts your claims.  You can deny them all you want, if that's what you want to do.  That's all you've done so far, and I've cited a bunch of prominent experts for your benefit, which you ignore.  Well, not ignore, really, you just summarily dismiss them with the suggestion that they are all "highly stupid."

 

You can wise up, or not.   Your choice.

 

So it's your contention that the instruments used to determine that the speed of light is unaffected by the relative velocity of the emitter were miscalibrated? Every time?

 

 

 

It's standard theory in both SR and LR that the measuring instruments on moving objects become deformed with speed, and, yes, that's every time.  But only one theory (SR) incoherently claims that the distortion is "reciprocal."

Edited May 11, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

But you're quoting 'authoritative' sources in an attempt to support you views that (just the recent ones amoung a long list of absurdities):

 

1. Presumably that the instruments used to determine that the speed of light is unaffected by the relative velocity of the emitter were miscalibrated, every time.

You really need to ask?  There are lots of ways, but you would never understand any way which requires a grasp of the slightest nuance.  But maybe you can get this, who knows?:

 

My speedometer is broken because my odometer has become miscalibrated.  I'm going down the highway at 100 mph, but my speedometer says I'm only going 50.  Cop clocks me at 100 mph on radar.

 

In court I tell the judge that I could only have been going 50, and no other possible speed, because that's what I MEASURED my speed to be..

 

Charges dismissed, ya figure?

 

2. It's been well established and for over 100 years and still accepted by mainstream physics today that a preferred frame of reference exists and that an aether exists?

Summarizing these results we may say that the following statement is in perfect agreement with all experimental evidence: A preferred system of reference, the ether system, exists. Clocks are slow when moving with respect to the ether system and measuring rods shrink. As seen from a moving system clocks in the ether system are fast and measuring rods elongated.

In short, no "reciprocal time dilation;" no relative simultaneity; no self-created paradoxes, and, therefore, no sophistic attempts to deny the paradoxes; no need to advocate the universally discredited metaphysics of solipsism. Nothing in a PFT depends in the least on what any subjective observer sees, thinks, perceives, assumes, or concludes.   A PFT just deals with matter in motion, (i.e., physics) not the perceptions of subjective observers (human psychology).  All much cleaner that way, ya know?  SR is simply not needed to explain "all experimental evidence."

 

The claims are batshit to the extreme.

Edited May 11, 2018 by A-wal

[Moronium]

The claims are batshit to the extreme.

 

 

Hahahahahaha.  Well, that settles it, once and for all, sho nuff!

 

You best get busy writing to the physics departments in every university in the country and inform them of the TRUTH, eh?  You owe it to the world.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Scholarly articles like this, from the Cornell University Library, are all over the internet, for anyone who cares to actually inform themselves before pretending to be an expert.

 

 

Special relativity with a preferred frame and the relativity principle: cosmological implications

Georgy I. Burde

(Submitted on 11 Oct 2016)

 

The modern view, that there exists a preferred frame of reference related to the cosmic microwave background (CMB), is in apparent contradiction with the principles of special relativity. The purpose of the present study is to develop a counterpart of the special relativity theory that is consistent with the existence of a preferred frame but, like the standard relativity theory, is based on the relativity principle and universality of the (two-way) speed of light.

 

 https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08771

Edited May 11, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I'll take a minute to repeat what I'm sure I must have said before, somewhere in this thread.

 

You can get up in the morning, lay in the grass all day, and the Sun will appear to rise in the east and set in the west.  Now, there are at least two possible explanations for this, viz:

 

1.  The Sun is moving across the sky, or

2.  The earth is rotating on an axis, so that it "appears" that the sun is moving relative to the earth, rather than vice versa.

 

What you "see" would be exactly the same, either way.  Therefore, what you see, with your eyes, can never tell you which one is the case.

 

But that doesn't mean that

 

1. Neither 1 nor 2 (from above) can be true, or that

2.  Both are true, because each viewpoint is "equally valid."

 

In fact, common sense tells you that it can't be both, and that it's probably not "neither."

 

Assuming that one of the two is actually the case, in fact, how can we tell which is the case?

 

Well, NOT by just looking at it.  But by looking at other things we see, comparing hypotheses for confirming or falsifying evidence, etc. we can DEDUCE (not see) which of the two is more likely, under rational  analysis.

 

Like any other scientific theory, neither SR nor alternatives to it, can ever be "proven."  When two (or more) competing hypotheses explain all known phenomena equally well and neither has been falsified, we must make a decision which is based on something other than empirical grounds.

 

My position is that, for many reasons, LR is much more rational than SR, even assuming that neither has been falsified.  But, for reasons I've stated many times (which includes empirical tests as well as rational grounds), I believe the primary implications of SR have actually been falsified (by the GPS, the H-K experiment, and many others, for example).

 

We all believe, for good reasons, that motion is absolute, even if we can't strictly prove it.  We tacitly assume it every day, such as when we declare that the earth revolves around the sun and that the entire universe does not revolve around the earth while it remains motionless.   SR attempts to deny that absolute motion exists (when inertial frames are involved).  As I've shown, Feynman doesn't believe this, nor anybody else, really, even if they pay lip service to SR, as they are sometimes trained to do. Nobody can say, for example, that the universe is 13+ billion years old without assuming that motion is absolute and that it can be detected (even if the detection comes through inference rather than direct observation).

Edited May 11, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Assuming that one of the two is actually the case, in fact, how can we tell which is the case?

 

Well, NOT by just looking at it.  But by looking at other things we see, comparing hypotheses for confirming or falsifying evidence, etc. we can DEDUCE (not see) which of the two is more likely, under rational  analysis.

 

 

There were many reasons for ancients to assume that it was the earth moving, not the sun.  Centuries of empirical observations gave enough data to identify regularly recurring patterns.  When one analyzed those patterns in conjunction with the assumption that the earth was stationary, a model with great predictive power emerged.  Total eclipses centuries into the future could be predicted by the geocentric model, for instance.

 

Copernicus's early heliocentric model did not make prediction that were more accurate.  Actually they were less so than the long-established (and long tinkered with and tweaked to match observations) geocentric model.

 

But a model can have great predictive power without having any correspondence to the actual state of affairs.  Nonetheless many are inclined to think that predictive power proves the "truth" of a model.

 

One major problem of geocentricism was the observed retrograde motion of the planets.  Again, the earlier heliocentric model (assuming circular planetary orbits) did not provide a better "explanation" of the phenomenon.  This changed once Kepler hypothesized (based on observations) that planetary orbits were not circular but elliptical instead.

 

These theoretical improvements, along with other considerations, such as Galileo's inertial hypothesis, eventually led scientists to confidently assert that a heliocentric model of planetary motion was much more likely to be "true" than a geocentric model.

 

The only point of this post is to elaborate on the notion that logical deduction, not raw sense perception, is what ultimately provides our "knowledge," such as it is, of what's actually "out there."  It seems to me that the positivistic approach taken by SR ignores this.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

My speedometer is broken because my odometer has become miscalibrated.  I'm going down the highway at 100 mph, but my speedometer says I'm only going 50.  Cop clocks me at 100 mph on radar.

 

In court I tell the judge that I could only have been going 50, and no other possible speed, because that's what I MEASURED my speed to be..

 

Charges dismissed, ya figure?

 

You really need to ask?  There are lots of ways, but you would never understand any way which requires a grasp of the slightest nuance.  But maybe you can get this, who knows?:

 

My speedometer is broken because my odometer has become miscalibrated.  I'm going down the highway at 100 mph, but my speedometer says I'm only going 50.  Cop clocks me at 100 mph on radar.

 

In court I tell the judge that I could only have been going 50, and no other possible speed, because that's what I MEASURED my speed to be..

 

Charges dismissed, ya figure?

No, because you are an idiot and the device you used to measure reality was, as you admit, faulty.  I will not get out of a speeding ticket because my speedometer is faulty.

 

Your argument requires that all previous measurements have been faulty, but you have failed to provide how they are faulty.  In a court of law, or in science, your argument is simply lacking in evidence.

 

 

 

There were many reasons for ancients to assume that it was the earth moving, not the sun.  Centuries of empirical observations gave enough data to identify regularly recurring patterns.  When one analyzed those patterns in conjunction with the assumption that the earth was stationary, a model with great predictive power emerged.  Total eclipses centuries into the future could be predicted by the geocentric model, for instance.

 

And these explanations have been shown to be an inadequate description of reality, even though they were adequate at the time with the measurements made at that time.

 

 

 

Copernicus's early heliocentric model did not make prediction that were more accurate.  Actually they were less so than the long-established (and long tinkered with and tweaked to match observations) geocentric model.

  This would be a valid argument if you could show it to be the case and if we still relied on a Copernician model of the solar system, which we don't.  

 

 

 

But a model can have great predictive power without having any correspondence to the actual state of affairs.  Nonetheless many are inclined to think that predictive power proves the "truth" of a model.

  If they do, then they are idiots and fundamentally misunderstand what science is.

 

 

 

The only point of this post is to elaborate on the notion that logical deduction, not raw sense perception, is what ultimately provides our "knowledge," such as it is, of what's actually "out there."  It seems to me that the positivistic approach taken by SR ignores this.

If you think that logical deduction can accurately predict observations, then you are fundamentally misunderstanding what deduction and knowledge is.  I also am not convinced that you understand what Special Relativity is.

 

 

EDIT: My qutoes failed likely due to syntax errors.

Edited May 13, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

 

.  I will not get out of a speeding ticket because my speedometer is faulty.

 

Think again.

 

Your argument requires that all previous measurements have been faulty, but you have failed to provide how they are faulty.

 

Trying reading what I say, for once, eh?

 

My post: But a model can have great predictive power without having any correspondence to the actual state of affairs.  Nonetheless many are inclined to think that predictive power proves the "truth" of a model.

 

JM:  If they do, then they are idiots and fundamentally misunderstand what science is.

 

It's kinda ironic that you would say this, because that seems to be one source of your absolute certainty about which scientific theories are true, and which aint, ya know?

 

 

My post:  The only point of this post is to elaborate on the notion that logical deduction, not raw sense perception, is what ultimately provides our "knowledge," such as it is, of what's actually "out there."  It seems to me that the positivistic approach taken by SR ignores this.

 

JM: If you think that logical deduction can accurately predict observations, then you are fundamentally misunderstanding what deduction and knowledge is. 

 

Heh, you are just demonstrating your complete misconception of what a scientific theory is/does, not mine, JT.

 

I also am not convinced that you understand what Special Relativity is.

 

Likewise, I'm sure, amigo.

 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

I'll think again if you provide a reason for me to believe that what you claim is true and has been shown to be false isn't, in fact, false.  I have read the crap you've spewed.  The fact that I don't agree with you isn't because i didn't read your idiocy, it's because what you claim to be true is demonstrably false.  Let me say this please, for the final time, scientific theories cannot be proven to be true, as we are not omniscient.  The best we can do is to show that explanations of observations like theories are not true.  Your assertion that there is an aether is demonstrably false.  This is an important distinction from deduction  Science is not and can not be concerned with deduction, as we, as scientists, are not omniscient.  Deductive reasoning is the sort that determines that a^2+b^2=c^2.  This can be shown to be true.  Nothing in science can show that something is true.  Instead, because we lack all knowledge, the best we can do is show that certain claims are false.  This is the problem of induction.

[Moronium]

I'll think again if you provide a reason for me to believe that what you claim is true and has been shown to be false isn't, in fact, false.  I have read the crap you've spewed.  The fact that I don't agree with you isn't because i didn't read your idiocy, it's because what you claim to be true is demonstrably false.  Let me say this please, for the final time, scientific theories cannot be proven to be true, as we are not omniscient.  The best we can do is to show that explanations of observations like theories are not true.  Your assertion that there is an aether is demonstrably false.  This is an important distinction from deduction  Science is not and can not be concerned with deduction, as we, as scientists, are not omniscient.  Deductive reasoning is the sort that determines that a^2+b^2=c^2.  This can be shown to be true.  Nothing in science can show that something is true.  Instead, because we lack all knowledge, the best we can do is show that certain claims are false.  This is the problem of induction.

 

This post is incoherent, sorry, JM.  Of course deduction can never PROVE any theory.  But the following conclusion hardly follows from that, and is in fact prima facie absurd:

 

Science is not and can not be concerned with deduction...

 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

How can I make it more clear to you moron?  Science is not and can not be concerned with deduction follows precisely because deduction is useless in showing our explanations of reality are accurate.  We must use inductive reasoning.  And because we must, then we must also concern ourselves with that which can be shown to be false, such as the claim that two accurate clocks that travel at different velocities and are then brought together will show the same time.  We know this claim is false because we have shown it to be false.  If any explanation of reality we use requires that this experiment must be true instead of false, then we can throw it out as being an inaccurate explanation of reality.  If any moron continues to assert that this experiment shows a result that it does not show, then we can throw that moron out as a liar.

 

Deduction CAN prove a theory, moron.  The problem is that we can not deduce future observations, and therefore we can not use deduction to evaluate theories.  We can, however, deduce that your theory, that has been shown to be false, is not an accurate description of reality.

Edited May 14, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

we must also concern ourselves with that which can be shown to be false, such as the claim that two accurate clocks that travel at different velocities and are then brought together will show the same time.  We know this claim is false because we have shown it to be false.  .

 

 I have never even remotely made such a claim, JM.  Discourse with you is impossible, because you seem to lack fundamental reading comprehension.  It's simply impossible to predict what you will claim that a very elementary sentence says.

[JMJones0424]

Again, you make a claim that is demonstrably false.  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30976-the-twin-paradox-made-simple/page-6?do=findComment&comment=356268

 

You are a liar.  If, in order to engage with discourse I must ignore the fact that you are a liar, then I agree, discourse with me is impossible.

 

Instead of asserting that which is false is true, you might consider observing tests that have already been made that contradict your idea of reality and adjust you understanding.