The Twin Paradox Made Simple

[Moronium]

 

Not if the speed of light is constant it can't be.

 

 

 

 

Exactly.  Which is just you saying, for about the 100th time, "if SR is true, then it is true."

 

But what if it ain't "true?"

 

Oh, wait, I forgot.  That is an impermissible question in your world, which says  "Because SR has been indubitably  proven to be true, SR is true."

 

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. (Mark Twain)

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 SR is a model that describes observed reality and models that have a variable speed of light conflict with observed reality.

 

 

 

A completely mistaken claim, which you are far too zealously devoted to to ever abandon.

 

Reading the research of theorists like Robertson, Mansouri, and Sexl (among many others) 1000 times would not help you in the least.

 

Nor would it help you in the least to learn that every theoretical physicist worth his salt agrees with them.  Nothing could lead you to question the tenets of your sacred creed for a second.

 

Anyone who can't see the indisputable truth which you have found is simply "highly stupid," that all.

 

An interesting observation from David Hume, eh?

 

“Disputes between men pertinaciously obstinate in their principles are the most irksome.  The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence in enforcing sophistry and falsehood and, as reasoning is not the source from whence either disputant derives his tenets, it is in vain to expect that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.”

 

  

 

Of course, it doesn't necessarily take two equally bigoted "disputants" for this phenomenon to emerge, know what I'm sayin?

Edited May 3, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Exactly.  Which is just you saying, for about the 100th time, "if SR is true, then it is true."

 

But what if it ain't "true?"

 

Oh, wait, I forgot.  That is an impermissible question in your world, which says  "Because SR has been indubitably  proven to be true, SR is true."

If the postulates of SR ain't true then obviously SR isn't a description of reality. Because the postulates have never been shown to be false SR is an accurate description of reality.

 

You admit that SR is logically self-consistent but insist that it can't be an accurate description of reality based on, what exactly? If it's logically self-consistent and it matches observations that have confirmed its postulates (and it's predictions) then on what grounds are claiming that it can't be true?

 

A completely mistaken claim, which you are far too zealously devoted to to ever abandon.

 

Reading the research of theorists like Robertson, Mansouri, and Sexl (among many others) 1000 times would not help you in the least.

 

Nor would it help you in the least to learn that every theoretical physicist worth his salt agrees with them.  Nothing could lead you to question the tenets of your sacred creed for a second.

 

Anyone who can't see the indisputable truth which you have found is simply "highly stupid," that all.

So you're under the impression that "every theoretical physicist worth his '(their)' salt" agrees that the speed of light is variable, not consistent through different inertial frames?

 

Seriously, that's what you're claiming? :)

[sluggo]

I don't disagree at all about this observation.  I have made a number of posts, in different threads, pertaining to SR, and none of them have denied what the premises, and the logical implications entailed, of SR say.

 

I simply disagree with anyone who claims that SR in any way reflects "objective reality."  

You don't want to accept the fact that reality is also partly subjective.

[sluggo]

Yes, and in H-K all three clocks lost time compared to the hypothetical "master clock" located at the ECI (because they were ALL moving with respect to it, just at different rates of speed).  H-K accurately predicted the actual clock readings ONLY BY positing the ECI as the preferred frame.  A preferred frame is prohibited by SR, so SR was NOT, as many mistakenly claim, used to get the correct predictions.  SR would have given wrong predictions.

 

The model used, probably the RMS, I'm not sure, was one which posited absolute simultaneity and rejected the relative simultaneity of SR.

This experiment involves acceleration and gravity, thus is not processed within an SR environment.

[Moronium]

I'll repeat an example I used earlier to show that there is a distinction to be made between logical validity and aposteriori soundness.

 

1. All elephants are pink

2.  This animal is an elephant

3.  Therefore, this animal is pink.

 

From a logical standpoint, this argument is 100% valid.  If the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true.  But this is a mere apriori (analytic) truth, in Kantian terms.  It is not necessarily sound argument (an aposteriori, synthetic truth, in Kantian terms).

 

Logic alone gets you nowhere, except in topics, like math, which make no pretext of pertaining to the external world.  In the real world, even given that an argument is logically valid, one must still try to determine if it is a sound argument.  As Einstein once said:

 

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

If the postulates of SR ain't true then obviously SR isn't a description of reality. Because the postulates have never been shown to be false SR is an accurate description of reality.

 

You admit that SR is logically self-consistent but insist that it can't be an accurate description of reality based on, what exactly? If it's logically self-consistent and it matches observations that have confirmed its postulates (and it's predictions) then on what grounds are claiming that it can't be true?

 

So you're under the impression that "every theoretical physicist worth his '(their)' salt" agrees that the speed of light is variable, not consistent through different inertial frames?

 

Seriously, that's what you're claiming? :)

 

------

 

1.  Your understanding of science is hopelessly naive, I'm afraid, A-wal.  Scientific theory does not,  never has, and never will take the position that any theory which hasn't been proven false must be accepted as true.   Sorry.

 

2.  If you want my reasons, then you only need to make some attempt to understand the posts I've made.  You never do that.  You simply assume claim I make, and any rational support I offer, must be false (because I'm the one making/offering them).  You simply rush to loudly and repeatedly assert (with no rational basis being given) that "SR IS TRUE, SO IF YOU QUESTION IT, YOU ARE WRONG!"

 

3.  No, that's not what I said.  Read it again with at least a little care, eh?

Edited May 3, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You don't want to accept the fact that reality is also partly subjective.

 

Far from it, Sluggo.  The same wind that feels cool to one man feels warm to another.  That's subjective reality. It does NOT, however, make the wind either cool or warm.

[Moronium]

This experiment involves acceleration and gravity, thus is not processed within an SR environment.

 

 

Wrong, Sluggo.  In order to arrive at an accurate prediction, it was necessary for H-K to calculate TWO types of dilational effects, to wit:  

 

1.  Gravitational time dilation and

2. Time dilation caused by varying speed.  A theory of relative motion (which GR is not) is required for this calculation

 

Now if your point is that SR can't be applied in these circumstances, that may be true. It's usefulness is EXTREMELY limited.  On the other hand, the "clock postulate," which some regard as a third postulate of SR and which has been repeatedly confirmed in accelerator labs, asserts that only speed affects time dilation and that acceleration has no independent effect whatsover.

 

But that is only one of many reasons why SR could not even approximate accurate predictions.

 

Funny thing is, to this day, many cite the H-K experiment as one which "proves" SR.  Those people never claim that SR can't be applied, for some strange reason, eh?

Edited May 3, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

I'll repeat an example I used earlier to show that there is a distinction to be made between logical validity and aposteriori soundness.

 

1. All elephants are pink

2.  This animal is an elephant

3.  Therefore, this animal is pink.

 

From a logical standpoint, this argument is 100% valid.  If the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true.  But this is a mere apriori (analytic) truth, in Kantian terms.  It is not necessarily sound argument (an aposteriori, synthetic truth, in Kantian terms).

1 and 2 are basically postulates, if they're true then 3 is also true. SR has postulates that if true, lead to what SR describes. The only reason that this example doesn't apply to reality is that the postulates are bollocks. The postulates SR are not bollocks, a variable speed of light across inertial frames is.

 

 

If the postulates of SR ain't true then obviously SR isn't a description of reality. Because the postulates have never been shown to be false SR is an accurate description of reality.

 

You admit that SR is logically self-consistent but insist that it can't be an accurate description of reality based on, what exactly? If it's logically self-consistent and it matches observations that have confirmed its postulates (and it's predictions) then on what grounds are claiming that it can't be true?

 

So you're under the impression that "every theoretical physicist worth his '(their)' salt" agrees that the speed of light is variable, not consistent through different inertial frames?

 

Seriously, that's what you're claiming? :)

1.  Your understanding of science is hopelessly naive, I'm afraid, A-wal.  Scientific theory does not,  never has, and never will take the position that any theory which hasn't been proven false must be accepted as true.   Sorry.

 

2.  If you want my reasons, then you only need to make some attempt to understand the posts I've made.  You never do that.  You simply assume claim I make, and any rational support I offer, must be false (because I'm the one making/offering them).  You simply rush to loudly and repeatedly assert (with no rational basis being given) that "SR IS TRUE, SO IF YOU QUESTION IT, YOU ARE WRONG!"

 

3.  No, that's not what I said.  Read it again with at least a little care, eh?

1. Because the postulates of SR have never been shown to be false, SR cannot be shown to be an inaccurate description of reality. Because the postulates of SR have been shown to be true, SR can be shown to be an accurate description of reality.

 

2. The posts you've made demonstrate not only a lack of knowledge of the model but a lack of the intelligence required to grasp the model.

 

3. That's exactly what you said...

Reading the research of theorists like Robertson, Mansouri, and Sexl (among many others) 1000 times would not help you in the least.

 

Nor would it help you in the least to learn that every theoretical physicist worth his salt agrees with them.

...after confirming that they use a variable speed of light...

Why don't you review the extensive (3-part) publications of REAL scientists, like Sexl and Mansouri if you really want to know "how they could be equivalent" rather than just bleating that they're not 24/7, eh?  Just a suggestion.

They must have used a variable speed of light.

Bingo!  Surprisingly, you're starting to wise up a little already, A-wal.

So you are making the claim that every theoretical physicist worth their salt agrees that the speed of light is variable rather than consistent through different inertial frames. This claim is a lie. You then lied about making that claim.

 

“Disputes between men pertinaciously obstinate in their principles are the most irksome.  The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence in enforcing sophistry and falsehood and, as reasoning is not the source from whence either disputant derives his tenets, it is in vain to expect that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.”

 

Of course, it doesn't necessarily take two equally bigoted "disputants" for this phenomenon to emerge, know what I'm sayin?

That you lack the ability to distinguish between sound principles and unsound ones.

 

Wrong, Sluggo.  In order to arrive at an accurate prediction, it was necessary for H-K to calculate TWO types of dilational effects, to wit:  

 

1.  Gravitational time dilation and

2. Time dilation caused by varying speed.  A theory of relative motion (which GR is not) is required for this calculation

 

Now if your point is that SR can't be applied in these circumstances, that may be true. It's usefulness is EXTREMELY limited.  On the other hand, the "clock postulate," which some regard as a third postulate of SR and which has been repeatedly confirmed in accelerator labs, asserts that only speed affects time dilation and that acceleration has no independent effect whatsover.

 

But that is only one of many reasons why SR could not even approximate accurate predictions.

 

Funny thing is, to this day, many cite the H-K experiment as one which "proves" SR.  Those people never claim that SR can't be applied, for some strange reason, eh?

When the effects of gravity are taken into account you're left with exactly what SR predicts.

Edited May 3, 2018 by A-wal

[Moronium]

So you are making the claim that every theoretical physicist worth their salt agrees that the speed of light is variable rather than consistent through different inertial frames. This claim is a lie. You then lied about making that claim

 

 

You're absolutely hopeless, A-wal.

 

That's not what I said at all, and if you were literate, you could understand that.

 

You made a false claim which those theorists DENY.  Read that claim (of yours).  That's what is being addressed, not a variable speed of light.

 

I have no intention of addressing every absurd claim you make. It is boring, and even irritating, to try to reason with fundies.  I will, however, make one more comment.  You say:

 

 

When the effects of gravity are taken into account you're left with exactly what SR predicts.

 

 

Such responses are your stock in trade.  They do not,, however, demonstrate any insight, wisdom, understanding, or anything of the like.  On the contrary, they merely reveal your ignorance of the facts and of the subject matter you purport to pontificate about.

 

It's a fool's game that can go on eternally.  If I say "the sky is blue," you can easily scream "NO, IT'S BLACK!!!!!"  You can do that with anything I say, without having to know a damn thing.  Other's may know that the sky is not black, but you're completely oblivious to that.  The only important thing to you is that you have emphatically denied what your opponent has said, and you think that decides the matter and dictates the facts in a way that proves you are right.  It don't, sorry.

 

Maybe you would be better off reading the H-K paper, and making an attempt to understand it's findings and implications, eh?  Just a suggestion.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Utter BS! Don't try to worm your way out of it. You said...

A completely mistaken claim, which you are far too zealously devoted to to ever abandon.

 

Reading the research of theorists like Robertson, Mansouri, and Sexl (among many others) 1000 times would not help you in the least.

 

Nor would it help you in the least to learn that every theoretical physicist worth his salt agrees with them.

 

My claim was...

 SR is a model that describes observed reality and models that have a variable speed of light conflict with observed reality.

So you were claiming that every theoretical physicist worth their salt agrees with a model in which the speed of light is variable rather than consistent through different inertial frames!

Edited May 3, 2018 by A-wal

[OceanBreeze]

Far from it, Sluggo.  The same wind that feels cool to one man feels warm to another.  That's subjective reality. It does NOT, however, make the wind either cool or warm.

 

I don't agree with everything you say, Moronium, but one of the beautiful things about scientific theories is that they're always being doubted and tested. And you are doing a good job of that! Also, you are riling more than a few feathers, which is always fun to watch.

[A-wal]

:angry:

[Moronium]

My claim was...

 

 SR is a model that describes observed reality and models that have a variable speed of light conflict with observed reality.

 

 

 

So you were claiming that every theoretical physicist worth their salt agrees with a model in which the speed of light is variable rather than consistent through different inertial frames!

 

Still can't read, eh?  The part I bolded is flatly denied by any competent theoretical physicist.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

So your claim must be that any competent theoretical physicist rejects evidence showing the consistency of the speed of light across all inertial frames.

 

That is absurd.

Edited May 3, 2018 by A-wal

[Moronium]

So your claim must be that any competent theoretical physicist rejects evidence showing the consistency of the speed of light across all inertial frames.

 

That is absurd.

Hehehehe.  Did you just get a deluxe model Acme Straw Man Kit for your birthday, A-wal?  It is even within the realm of possibility that a solipsistic sophist like could actually accurately state what someone you are opposing has said?  

 

Your attempts to resolve issues with fallacious sophistry are laughable, and merit no substantive response.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Moronium