The Twin Paradox Made Simple

[GAHD]

I'm going to leave a little thought experiment for you. IT'll show dofferentials in a way that anyone with a drivers licence can understand.

Ever accelerate a car without a differential around a sharp turn? Your tires will "squawk" because they cannot spin at different speeds, while the one on the INSIDE curve has to do less distance than the one on the OUTSIDE curve. A Lot of relativity can be understood better when you understand that light is like a car without a diff: traveling a longer distance at higher speeds, but forced to have only experienced so many turns during that distance.

Why only so many turns? well, wave propagation can only happen at C at the best of times, and if your "leading edge is relatively retarded because the nucleus is also traveling at a decent percentage of c you'll get a wave imbalance with a chunk of the charge building up on the trailing end....

 

Wonder if that mental image/analogy can help you guys? Perhaps my explanation's a bit ham-fisted, but I hope it helps you.

Edited October 24, 2018 by GAHD

[marcospolo]

marcospolo;

 

 

 

Ed on earth watches Art leave at .9c to a destination 9 light sec distant. Ed records Arts arrival there at 10 sec.

All EM processes on Arts ship slow to 44% of their earth rate. He records arrival time of 4.4 sec. He also assumes a pseudo rest frame since his speed is constant. He concludes the destination arrived early (compared to earth charts) due to length contraction of the outside world as it flew by at .9c. Arts world is 44% the size of Eds world. The blue lines are light signals sent by Art to reflect from the destination, as seen by each observer.

marcos 1023.gif

Well that is just stupid.

If Art is going to go to a destination that is 9 light seconds distant, and he knows how fast he is going to be traveling, then he knows that it will take 10 seconds.

So if as you say, his EM slows  then according to SR he will measure 10 seconds on his slowed clocks. Art wont know anything is different.  Ed will record exactly what was expecting Arts trip to take, 10 seconds.   Everyone records 10 seconds for the 10 second trip... Wow, that SR sure is a mind bend!

 

You blue lines are crap.

 

What SR says, is that somehow Ed can watch his own clock, and also see into Arts ship, and watch Arts clock, which will record only 4..4 seconds......

But he also presumably can watch Art, standing beside the ship clock, and Ed can watch Art watch his clock, and see what Art sees, that 10 seconds has elapsed. Because Ed can see Art record 10 seconds, which is what Ed also records.....    now its getting f***ed up.

 

So the only conclusion a rational person can make is that Ed is experiencing some form of delusion where he is recording two different times for the same event.

One of the times recorded by Ed is 10 sec. the other is 4.4 sec, and that is the time he gets by watching a remote clock speed by at 0.9 light speed,  and the other observer records 10 sec. on that very same remote clock. Art only has one time recorded.

 

Clearly Einstein, i mean Ed, is either suffering some mental problem or is making S**t up.

Edited October 24, 2018 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

 

 

marcopolos;

 

–-

While (simultaneously) Ann’s clock reads 1, she observes (via light signals) Bill’s clock read .8, i.e. his clock running slow, and requiring 1/.8 = 1.25 A-clock units for the light at the mirror. Bill’s perception is altered by his speed so he accepts his reflection event as B 1.0 time. Both perceive a reflection at t = 1, but each will perceive the other clock as slow. All observers are moving, but they do not perceive their own time dilation. That is why physics is the same for all observers in constant (inertial) motion.

Your assessments of the situations are faulty because you don’t comprehend the basic principles involved.

I submit that as you have been indoctrinated into the religion of Relativity, and its been drummed into your head, like a cult does to its members, its YOU who cant now discern reality from fiction.

 

Ann's clock reads one, AND SO WILL BILLS CLOCK! If Ann "gets the message" about what is on bills clock at a given instant, which takes time to send, that does not alter one scrap that they both have the same time on their clocks! 

If Ann has half a brain, she will make allowance for the fact that it takes time for the message to arrive, so she will add on the difference to 0.8 and still come up with the correct answer, 1 second!   No one who can think rationally and logically will ever think that they are "seeing" the others clocks running slow. !  

 

This is the sort of problem one finds when simple Math geeks try to understand a more fundamental science, Physics, which is way above their heads. Well to be fair, its not that Mathematicians are stupid, its just that they think with a different viewpoint that a physics guy.    

Edited October 24, 2018 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

I'm going to leave a little thought experiment for you. IT'll show dofferentials in a way that anyone with a drivers licence can understand.

 

Ever accelerate a car without a differential around a sharp turn? Your tires will "squawk" because they cannot spin at different speeds, while the one on the INSIDE curve has to do less distance than the one on the OUTSIDE curve. A Lot of relativity can be understood better when you understand that light is like a car without a diff: traveling a longer distance at higher speeds, but forced to have only experienced so many turns during that distance.

 

Why only so many turns? well, wave propagation can only happen at C at the best of times, and if your "leading edge is relatively retarded because the nucleus is also traveling at a decent percentage of c you'll get a wave imbalance with a chunk of the charge building up on the trailing end....

 

Wonder if that mental image/analogy can help you guys? Perhaps my explanation's a bit ham-fisted, but I hope it helps you.

You have an analogy that has no parallels with what we are talking about.

You don't get any "longer distances" that light must travel for one person compared to any other person.

The whole argument that light must go in two paths to get where its going is FALSE.  This never happens in reality. There is absolutely no basis for that claim. NONE.

 

Your whole base for this physics is only existing inside a madman's head. (Einstein)

You have allowed yourself to get caught up in his delusion.

 

Meanwhile in the real world, physics carries on regardless. Light does the same thing for everybody. There is never a longer and shorter path for one pulse of light.

 

You cant get around that fact.  

[GAHD]

You have an analogy that has no parallels with what we are talking about.

You don't get any "longer distances" that light must travel for one person compared to any other person.

The whole argument that light must go in two paths to get where its going is FALSE.  This never happens in reality. There is absolutely no basis for that claim. NONE.

 

Your whole base for this physics is only existing inside a madman's head. (Einstein)

You have allowed yourself to get caught up in his delusion.

 

Meanwhile in the real world, physics carries on regardless. Light does the same thing for everybody. There is never a longer and shorter path for one pulse of light.

 

You cant get around that fact.  

But the clock will have more and more charge imbalance in any forward traveling wave, which means it's frequency changes...it's fine. You're just running around like a headless chicken at this point. Indoctrinate yourself, know your enemy that you may actually win a battle at some point. This endless retreating and shouting from a distance is a somewhat amusing badgering tactic, but that is all. ;)

[marcospolo]

But the clock will have more and more charge imbalance in any forward traveling wave, which means it's frequency changes...it's fine. You're just running around like a headless chicken at this point. Indoctrinate yourself, know your enemy that you may actually win a battle at some point. This endless retreating and shouting from a distance is a somewhat amusing badgering tactic, but that is all. ;)

You just cant imagine the light clock really, can you?  it function escapes your ability to think things through.

Which part of "the light clock will not function for either observer if its moving at and proportion of light speed", don't you understand?  Its not a complex statement.  

 

The photon in the light clock has nothing to do with a frequency, this is a thought experiment, we are comparing the path of a photon as seen by two observers.

If its a spherical wave front that we are using as the time pulse in the clock, then both observers will see an expanding ball of light, but both will see the same ball of light, with its origin  and center unaffected by any motion of any insignificant observer, who may or may not be moving, in which ever way you wish to define motion. Light only does its own thing in its own frame, thats why its constant for everyone else.

 

So if the spherical wave of light is expanding as we expect, its not going to do two different things just because someone is watching from a moving spaceship and another person is not in a space ship.  The observers may "think" they see light doing different things, but Physicists call that an illusion, a trick of the light, smoke and mirrors, or just ignorance of the people reporting their observations without taking their situation into consideration.

 

Given these obvious points, its not a cinch for you to still try to justify SR.  Your argument becomes really awkward and difficult to swallow.

At best, SR must be considered a very dubious hypothesis. But I say its way worse that that.

[A-wal]

Frames are inventions of fantasy. they do not exist.

A frame is just a shorthand way of defining relative motion, it doesn't make sense to claim they don't exist.

 

So the absolute frame is as valid in your relative world as any other frame.

all those individual frames you invent in your head, ARE all contained in one all encompassing frame.  This is not a difficult thing to imagine.

 

In fact that frame is the domain of light.  This is what you think. You just don't went to verbalize it.

An absolute frame is not part of the SR model. It doesn't make any sense to use something that SR doesn't use to attempt to invalidate it.

 

Now you said it again: "so a single event happening 'at the same time' in two different frames doesn't even make sense.".

 

You cant even understand that if you think that, then you can never work through the light clock in a spaceship thought experiment.

You cant even see why this claim of yours make the light clock proof of time dilation, impossible.

 

You even agree that you don't understand it, you don't understand my objection.

 

You may have watched the video, buy cognitive dissonance has affected your ability to comprehend.

No it's you that can't work through the lightship thought experiment without thinking in terms of an absolute frame. Others have no problem understanding it. The absolute frame model is invalidated by the consistency of the speed of light for all observers despite their motions relative to each other.

 

Ill go slow for you...

:)

 

First, if as you claim, 'nothing happens at the same time".... then for both observers, the photon arrives at the top mirror as different events.

But Einstein requires the photon to arrive at the top mirror at exactly the same instant for both observers, otherwise you can not start comparing the lengths of the triangles height Vs the Hypotenuse. So you have no basis of geometry to develop the Lorentz equation. therefore no Special Relativity.

This is not how the model works. There is no 'at the same instant' if observers are in different frames, that only works if observers are in the same frame as each other. How can you possibly attempt to refute the model when you still clearly don't even understand what it describes? Again, you're using something from outside of SR and trying to squeeze it into a model that doesn't use it so of course it's not going to make sense.

 

Second, 

You keep repeating the same error after its been proven to be an error of rational thought.

The stationary observer is not going to see a diagonal path, and the ship observer is not going to see his clock working period.

 

This is the facts of real physics.

 

The photon wont follow the ship to create a zigzag, and the photon won't reach the top mirror when inside the ship, it will crash into the clocks side containing walls. (assuming it is constructed like a tube with mirrors at each end)

Wtf? Of course it going to create a zigzag. If the light is going up and down the centre of the cylinder then it's doing that in every frame. Of course it's not going to hit the side if it's in motion relative to you, that's like saying someone on a moving train throws a ball into the air and catches it but from the perspective for an observer on the platform the ball hits the window. That really would be a logical inconsistency. You could put a censor at the side of the light clock and it would active the censor from a frame where the ship is in motion but not on the ship, that's very silly.

 

And finally there is another problem for you.  Einstein in his paper on SR does indeed make use of an absolute frame of reference, but he only focuses on the stationary and moving frames.   However when you read the paper, it is clear that he sets up the whole thought experiment using a preferred, absolute stationary frame.

No he doesn't.

[sluggo]

Well that is just stupid.

If Art is going to go to a destination that is 9 light seconds distant, and he knows how fast he is going to be traveling, then he knows that it will take 10 seconds.

So if as you say, his EM slows  then according to SR he will measure 10 seconds on his slowed clocks. Art wont know anything is different.  Ed will record exactly what was expecting Arts trip to take, 10 seconds.   Everyone records 10 seconds for the 10 second trip... Wow, that SR sure is a mind bend!

 

You blue lines are crap.

 

What SR says, is that somehow Ed can watch his own clock, and also see into Arts ship, and watch Arts clock, which will record only 4..4 seconds......

But he also presumably can watch Art, standing beside the ship clock, and Ed can watch Art watch his clock, and see what Art sees, that 10 seconds has elapsed. Because Ed can see Art record 10 seconds, which is what Ed also records.....    now its getting f***ed up.

 

So the only conclusion a rational person can make is that Ed is experiencing some form of delusion where he is recording two different times for the same event.

One of the times recorded by Ed is 10 sec. the other is 4.4 sec, and that is the time he gets by watching a remote clock speed by at 0.9 light speed,  and the other observer records 10 sec. on that very same remote clock. Art only has one time recorded.

 

Clearly Einstein, i mean Ed, is either suffering some mental problem or is making S**t up.

Ed and Art cannot see different times on Art's clock. Art has only aged 4.4 yrs. and has no problem with his clock. If you apply the LT to Eds coordinates, you will get those of Art. Look in the mirror before calling others stupid.

[sluggo]

marcospolo 226;
 

marcospolo;

Too bad the logic is wrong to start with.
No light photon will ever do the zig zag, under any circumstances. And also, one photon going somewhere will be observed to have done just one thing from any point of view.So math may seem OK, but its BS based on an error of reason.

 

Let's revisit the Einstein train scenario. The passenger Al drops an object from his outstretched hand, and sees it fall vertically to the floor. The bystander Bill on the platform watches the train go by at a constant speed, and sees the object fall in a curve to the floor (possible with large glass windows). Which trajectory is correct?

Both, because there is no 'real' physical path, other than the one perceived in the mind of each observer.

[marcospolo]

 

marcospolo 226;

 

marcospolo;

Let's revisit the Einstein train scenario. The passenger Al drops an object from his outstretched hand, and sees it fall vertically to the floor. The bystander Bill on the platform watches the train go by at a constant speed, and sees the object fall in a curve to the floor (possible with large glass windows). Which trajectory is correct?

 

Both, because there is no 'real' physical path, other than the one perceived in the mind of each observer.

 

This is irrelevant.

a ball has mass and in no way resembles or behaves like a massless light. 

furthermore, you are just saying that peoples perceptions can be deceiving.   Perception is no necessarily reality.

 

now that we have those two FACTS stored in our minds, please note that despite what each observer thinks he sees, there is only one thing that ball is doing.

 

A ball can not be traveling to the moon for one observer but just going up and down on the spot for someone else.  Despite what they pretend is happening. 

 

One or maybe both observers is inadequately informed, he is having an Einstein moment, i.e. he is ignorant about whats going on.

 

Pretty soon that ball, the ship, and the occupant will be on the moon, despite the fact that the occupant never realized he was in motion.

 

Anyway, if as you say,  "there is no 'real' physical path, other than the one perceived in the mind of each observer"

 

then you cant do the Physics of Special Relativity, as we cant do Physics on mental fantasies.

 

So, Sluggo, please either admit you are wrong here, or maybe go troll on the "mind altering drugs" forums. Because what you are saying is NOT Physics.

Edited October 25, 2018 by marcospolo

[OceanBreeze]

Too bad the logic is wrong to start with.

 

No light photon will ever do the zig zag, under any circumstances. And also, one photon going somewhere will be observed to have done just one thing from any point of view.

So math may seem OK, but its BS based on an error of reason.

 

 

Nice video.

 

I have just a couple of thoughts about this:

 

I think you will agree that when the Light clock LC, is at rest, (let’s assume it is sitting on the surface of the earth) and the observer is doing the same. So, the LC is at rest with the observer. Now a photon is emitted from the bottom mirror/emitter and it will strike the top mirror. And the photon will be reflected from the top mirror and strike the bottom mirror, providing that are aligned properly to provide a perfectly vertical path. Do you agree*

 

With that groundwork established, It does seem perfectly reasonable to think that the top mirror will “get out of the way of the photon” when the LC is now moving in uniform motion at relativistic speeds, with respect to that same observer who remains at rest on the earth’s surface (not moving with the clock) There is, in fact, some evidence to support that this will happen.

 

But, if the second statement is true, (the top mirror moves out of the way) why wouldn’t the observer who does move with the clock, when the clock is moving at relativistic speed, also see the photon miss the top mirror when the clock is in motion?

 

If the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, then if the photon misses the top mirror in one inertial frame it should miss it in every frame. Conversely, if it hits the mirror in one inertial frame, it must hit it in every inertial frame.

 

If you agree* (from the first paragraph) that the photon does hit the top mirror in at least one inertial frame, that should immediately make the argument that it misses it in another inertial frame wrong; based upon the premise that the laws of physics are that same in all inertial frames.  Further, for the photon to bounce between the two mirrors in every frame, it would need to follow the zig zag path in the frame that is moving relative to the observer, as seen by that observer.

 

All of these statements just follow logically, one from the other.

 

Of course, you might argue that the laws of physics are not the same in every inertial frame, but if you do that you will be arguing that the universe is much stranger than anything described in relativity.

 

We could never do coherent science, or any kind of science at all, in such a universe where an infinite number of inertial frames yield an infinite number of different results for the same experiment.

 

When considered in that light, relativity, far from being weird, is the only theory that makes sense.

 

Having said all of that, I do have some doubts of my own about the light clock, (but not relativity) but I will wait and see how the thread develops before deciding if I want to discuss that.

[marcospolo]

To further illustrate the fact that Einstein's Special Relativity is error, (and noting the lack of slap down arguments proffered by the Relativists) I have another observation that demonstrates the insanity that is Relativity.

 

I expect that no supporters can work around this one either, other than by twisting their own theories into knots in a tortured dance of the desperate.

 

Kinematics:

 

Two planets are about to collide.

 

Which planet is moving faster? Which planet is not moving at all? Maybe they are both going the same direction, but different speeds?

Relativity says we can’t tell.

 

Now according to Special Relativity, when the planets collide, the results MUST be identical under any relativistic framework, or if not, then we can tell who is moving and how fast, which proves relativity is wrong.

 

But we can easily figure out what happened by observing the result of the collision, assuming we know the mass of each object. And the vectors involved at the time of the collision.

 

Kinematics will quickly show us which planet was doing what, based on what will happen to the planets after the collision.

A fast moving planet that hits a stationary planet will react differently than is both planets were moving on their own trajectory and each had a velocity. 

If you don’t set up an Absolute frame of reference for this scenario, you cant calculate anything much about the trajectories of the planets, their velocities, and what happens after they collide.

 

No Absolute frame means no complete Physics can be done.

 

This proves that there is no such thing as pure relativistic motion, all motion must be related to an absolute frame of reference, which is static for the conditions under consideration. Such as, the Earth is a local, absolute frame for everything happening nearby or on the earth.

 

Einstein’s thought experiments involving a stationary and a moving frame, actually have by inference, an objective,hidden, absolute frame that sets the origin and condition, (stationary) of the guy on the platform. Without this unmentioned by real 3rd imaginary, absolute frame Einstein has no hypothesis.

 

But don't go looking for the absolute frame of reference with your interferometers. The Absolute Frame of reference is as imaginary as all other frames of reference are. They exist only as Math constructs, that are used to help calculate results of physical objects in motion.

 

Imaginary frames don't affect physical objects, bend space, dilate time or shrink distance in one axis.  They are imaginary.

Edited October 26, 2018 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

Nice video.

 

I have just a couple of thoughts about this:

 

I think you will agree that when the Light clock LC, is at rest, (let’s assume it is sitting on the surface of the earth) and the observer is doing the same. So, the LC is at rest with the observer. Now a photon is emitted from the bottom mirror/emitter and it will strike the top mirror. And the photon will be reflected from the top mirror and strike the bottom mirror, providing that are aligned properly to provide a perfectly vertical path. Do you agree*

 

With that groundwork established, It does seem perfectly reasonable to think that the top mirror will “get out of the way of the photon” when the LC is now moving in uniform motion at relativistic speeds, with respect to that same observer who remains at rest on the earth’s surface (not moving with the clock) There is, in fact, some evidence to support that this will happen.

 

But, if the second statement is true, (the top mirror moves out of the way) why wouldn’t the observer who does move with the clock, when the clock is moving at relativistic speed, also see the photon miss the top mirror when the clock is in motion?

 

If the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, then if the photon misses the top mirror in one inertial frame it should miss it in every frame. Conversely, if it hits the mirror in one inertial frame, it must hit it in every inertial frame.

 

If you agree* (from the first paragraph) that the photon does hit the top mirror in at least one inertial frame, that should immediately make the argument that it misses it in another inertial frame wrong; based upon the premise that the laws of physics are that same in all inertial frames.  Further, for the photon to bounce between the two mirrors in every frame, it would need to follow the zig zag path in the frame that is moving relative to the observer, as seen by that observer.

 

All of these statements just follow logically, one from the other.

 

Of course, you might argue that the laws of physics are not the same in every inertial frame, but if you do that you will be arguing that the universe is much stranger than anything described in relativity.

 

We could never do coherent science, or any kind of science at all, in such a universe where an infinite number of inertial frames yield an infinite number of different results for the same experiment.

 

When considered in that light, relativity, far from being weird, is the only theory that makes sense.

 

Having said all of that, I do have some doubts of my own about the light clock, (but not relativity) but I will wait and see how the thread develops before deciding if I want to discuss that.

You are half right.

 

Your mistake is in the incorrect assumption that light is like a cheap hooker, and will trot off with anyone, in any frame, for free!

 

The truth is that light demonstrably only functions according to its own rules,, that involve its own "frame of reference" totally independent of any imaginary subordinate  temporary frame made up to suit subjective pretend frames of reference, which as you say, in which the laws of physics all work the same.

 

For simplicity lets call lights frame, the "absolute, stationary fixed, static frame of reference". For want of better words.

Now rethink my video, and you will see that this is the only scenario where all physics as we observe, work out correctly.

 

Your assumptions lead to logical contradictions, so must be wrong.

Your setup says that given an million observers, all with different velocities, the photon will oblige each one of the million observers by doing one million different physical actions.  

 

AND you even say this yourself!   "We could never do coherent science, or any kind of science at all, in such a universe where an infinite number of inertial frames yield an infinite number of different results for the same experiment."

 

You cant seriously believe that this is reality.  Math maybe, but Physics, not.

 

In your scenario, (Einstein's) the claim is that the photon in any frame arrives at the top mirror simultaneously [after having proved that there is no such thing as simultaneity!} BUT never the less, the photon takes a different trajectory!   So this is surely contradicting your rule that the laws of Physics must be the SAME in all frames?

 

SAME, if you don't know, means that not just the arrival times coincide, but the rest of the physics must also coincide.  The trajectories in all frames MUST also be identical, according to the 1st postulate. 

 

Make a claim of Physics , you need to stick to it, and apply it without prejudice.

 

If the EVENT of the photon arriving at the top mirror at exactly the same time in any frame is true, THEN applying the exact same laws of physics, the event involving TRAJECTORY, and VELOCITY must likewise be identical in any frame. If not, Einstein's first postulate is incorrect.

Edited October 26, 2018 by marcospolo

[Dubbelosix]

Nice video.

 

I have just a couple of thoughts about this:

 

I think you will agree that when the Light clock LC, is at rest, (let’s assume it is sitting on the surface of the earth) and the observer is doing the same. So, the LC is at rest with the observer. Now a photon is emitted from the bottom mirror/emitter and it will strike the top mirror. And the photon will be reflected from the top mirror and strike the bottom mirror, providing that are aligned properly to provide a perfectly vertical path. Do you agree*

 

With that groundwork established, It does seem perfectly reasonable to think that the top mirror will “get out of the way of the photon” when the LC is now moving in uniform motion at relativistic speeds, with respect to that same observer who remains at rest on the earth’s surface (not moving with the clock) There is, in fact, some evidence to support that this will happen.

 

But, if the second statement is true, (the top mirror moves out of the way) why wouldn’t the observer who does move with the clock, when the clock is moving at relativistic speed, also see the photon miss the top mirror when the clock is in motion?

 

If the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, then if the photon misses the top mirror in one inertial frame it should miss it in every frame. Conversely, if it hits the mirror in one inertial frame, it must hit it in every inertial frame.

 

If you agree* (from the first paragraph) that the photon does hit the top mirror in at least one inertial frame, that should immediately make the argument that it misses it in another inertial frame wrong; based upon the premise that the laws of physics are that same in all inertial frames.  Further, for the photon to bounce between the two mirrors in every frame, it would need to follow the zig zag path in the frame that is moving relative to the observer, as seen by that observer.

 

All of these statements just follow logically, one from the other.

 

Of course, you might argue that the laws of physics are not the same in every inertial frame, but if you do that you will be arguing that the universe is much stranger than anything described in relativity.

 

We could never do coherent science, or any kind of science at all, in such a universe where an infinite number of inertial frames yield an infinite number of different results for the same experiment.

 

When considered in that light, relativity, far from being weird, is the only theory that makes sense.

 

Having said all of that, I do have some doubts of my own about the light clock, (but not relativity) but I will wait and see how the thread develops before deciding if I want to discuss that.

 

 

The video is not great at all. I propose marco takes this video and highlights the objects, and I will refute them blow by blow. I have pretty high confidence this will expose what little he really does know. 

[marcospolo]

Ed and Art cannot see different times on Art's clock. Art has only aged 4.4 yrs. and has no problem with his clock. If you apply the LT to Eds coordinates, you will get those of Art. Look in the mirror before calling others stupid.

Why are you applying some strange a irrational math to the real times on everyone's clocks?

Are you insane? We already have accurate clocks and correct records of the times on each clock.

 

Art went on a 9 year trip so is 9 years older due to the little known fact that it takes 9 years for 9 years to elapse!

 

In no universe is Art 4.4 years older.

 

And I called no one stupid, I called the arguments stupid.

[marcospolo]

The video is not great at all. I propose marco takes this video and highlights the objects, and I will refute them blow by blow. I have pretty high confidence this will expose what little he really does know. 

you have the video, go ahead, refute it blow by blow, we shall see if your arguments are  rational and logical. 

[marcospolo]

I saw that I had not given this enough of a reply before, so Ill pick it apart in detail now.

 

A frame is just a shorthand way of defining relative motion, it doesn't make sense to claim they don't exist.

 

Frames are imaginary, in that sense they do not exist in Physics, they are a math construct, in Math they are concepts.

 

An absolute frame is not part of the SR model. It doesn't make any sense to use something that SR doesn't use to attempt to invalidate it.

 

So you claim your imaginary frames exist, but not my imaginary frame, the absolute one? 

And the whole problem of Einstein’s thought experiment is BECAUSE he only includes half of the NECESSARY information required to do physics!

 

No it's you that can't work through the lightship thought experiment without thinking in terms of an absolute frame. Others have no problem understanding it. The absolute frame model is invalidated by the consistency of the speed of light for all observers despite their motions relative to each other.

 

If “others” understand it no worries, why do they have so much trouble explaining how it works? Half of them contradict the other half. And according to Einstein, “if you can’t explain it to a 6 year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”  I believe he was thinking of you.

 

:)

 

This is not how the model works. There is no 'at the same instant' if observers are in different frames, that only works if observers are in the same frame as each other. 

 

Exactly, BECAUSE Einstein claimed that there is no such thing as “at the same instant” you cannot then use the exact opposite of that claim in the light clock experiment can you?

 

The stationary observer can NEVER observe the photon arrive at the top mirror “at the same instant” as the moving observer, SO, therefore, and because of this fact, you can’t generate the Pythagoras triangle can you?   (in case you don’t understand why, here’s why….  The top of the triangle represents the top mirror, WHEN the photon arrives at that spot FOR BOTH OBSERVERS. Who ARE in different frames!

 

 It MUST be the same instant in time. If not, then the hypotenuse is of unknown relationship to the height, because you don’t have a triangle anymore! And so no Lorentz type equations can be invented.

 

Wtf? Of course it going to create a zigzag. If the light is going up and down the centre of the cylinder then it's doing that in every frame. Of course it's not going to hit the side if it's in motion relative to you, that's like saying someone on a moving train throws a ball into the air and catches it but from the perspective for an observer on the platform the ball hits the window. That really would be a logical inconsistency. You could put a censor at the side of the light clock and it would active the censor from a frame where the ship is in motion but not on the ship, that's very silly.

 

Here you are just plain wrong.wrong. A ball on a train will prescribe a parabola when viewed from a stationary position, IF the observer mentally blanks out half of the real world he is in!

 

A normal stationary observer will tell the truth.  The ball is going up and down, AND the train, man and his ball are going horizontally. The motion of the ball is a combination of two separate forces. Only if the man on the ship IGNORES his horizontal motion, can he as a Physicist claim that his ball is ONLY going up and down.  This is physics, we apply ALL known forces and circumstances to the situation, not only half of them.

 

With the light clock, please show how the motion of the ship horizontally can impart any second force on the photon, that can make the photon move diagonally compared to its original vector.

 

What is that second force that works with light, which no one knows about?  Are you sitting on some new and amazing new discovery?   Do tell.

 

No he doesn't.  ( my claim is that Einstein uses a hidden absolute frame in his thought experiments)

 

Clearly you have never read his paper, or you have not understood it.