The Twin Paradox Made Simple

[Moronium]

1. Take any two clocks which keep accurate time.

 

2.  Synchronize them

 

3.  Now move them round any number of times, at any speed, in any direction(s), have them both moving, have one at rest for awhile, then the other, for as long as you want, whatever.

 

Now, apriori, you know two things will be true, when you finally bring them back together.

 

A.  Each clock will show ONLY one time, 9:00 A.M. EST, March 10, 2020, for example.

 

B.  Whatever the two readings are, whatever you can conceive of them to be, both clocks will NOT display a time which is earlier than the other one does.  Only one can possibly be "earlier," even if both somehow went backwards in time.

 

Ergo, there is, and can be, no "reciprocal time dilation."

 

You don't need an experiment to prove this.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

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.

My anti-materialism views have zero baring on the validity of SR.

 

So when 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.

...you weren't claiming that every theoretical physicist worth his salt agrees with a model that uses a variable speed of light rather than a constant speed of light across different inertial frames?

 

So this... "Nor would it help you in the least to learn that every theoretical physicist worth his salt agrees with them."...means what exactly?

 

1. Take any two clocks which keep accurate time.

 

2.  Synchronize them

 

3.  Now move them round any number of times, at any speed, in any direction(s), have them both moving, have one at rest for awhile, then the other, for as long as you want, whatever.

 

Now, apriori, you know two things will be true, when you finally bring them back together.

 

A.  Each clock will show ONLY one time, 9:00 A.M. EST, March 10, 2020, for example.

 

B.  Whatever the two readings are, whatever you can conceive of them to be, both clocks will NOT display a time which is earlier than the other one does.  Only one can possibly be "earlier," even if both somehow went backwards in time.

 

Ergo, there is, and can be, no "reciprocal time dilation."

 

You don't need an experiment to prove this.

fcuksake. While they are moving relative to each other both are time dilated and length contracted and this is how they can both measure light to be moving at the same speed relative to themselves despite their velocity relative to each other. From each objects frame, time is moving slower on the other object's watch. If object 1 accelerates into object 2's frame then less time will have passed on object 1's watch but if object 2 accelerates into object 1's frame then less time will have passed on object 2's watch.

 

If object 1 accelerates into object 2's frame then less time will have passed on object 1's watch because object 1 was in a frame of reference that's time dilated and length contracted from the frame of reference they're in now (object 2's frame). If object 2 accelerates into object 1's frame then less time will have passed on object 2's watch because object 2 was in a frame of reference that's time dilated and length contracted from the frame of reference they're in now (object 1's frame).

Edited May 3, 2018 by A-wal

[OceanBreeze]

1. Take any two clocks which keep accurate time.

 

2.  Synchronize them

 

3.  Now move them round any number of times, at any speed, in any direction(s), have them both moving, have one at rest for awhile, then the other, for as long as you want, whatever.

 

Now, apriori, you know two things will be true, when you finally bring them back together.

 

A.  Each clock will show ONLY one time, 9:00 A.M. EST, March 10, 2020, for example.

 

B.  Whatever the two readings are, whatever you can conceive of them to be, both clocks will NOT display a time which is earlier than the other one does.  Only one can possibly be "earlier," even if both somehow went backwards in time.

 

Ergo, there is, and can be, no "reciprocal time dilation."

 

You don't need an experiment to prove this.

 

I agree with everything except the ergo conclusion.

 

At the end of the experiment, when the clocks are brought back together only one clock will be slower than the other.

 

But, during the experiment each clock will be slower than the other as in the following diagram:

 

 

At the start, the stationary observer and the one travelling in the rocket-car have synchronized their clocks. Both clocks read 12.

 

Now the traveler moves at a high velocity which results in his space-time being changed according to the LT.

 

When the clocks are next compared, the stationary observer” clock read 9 and looking across from his non-transformed T and X axes, he observes the traveller’s clock to read 8, which is of course slowed down from his own.

 

However, the traveler, along his transformed axes, reads his own clock as 10 and the stationary clock as 9, so from his pov it is the stationary clock that has slowed.

 

As the graphic explains, because of the transformed space and time lines, each observer is actually reading the other’s clock in the past!

 

The graphic does not show the clocks being brought back together, but if the traveler returns back to the stationary observer’s frame, only the travelling clock will be shown to have slowed.

[Moronium]

Well, Popeye, all this mathematical hocus pocus concocted by Minkowski diagrams is quite interesting, but it has nothing to do with actual objects in the world.

 

Your whole analysis still depends heavily on supposed perceptions of individual observers, not an analysis of the objects themselves, e.g.

 

 

When the clocks are next compared, the stationary observer” clock read 9 and looking across from his non-transformed T and X axes, he observes the traveller’s clock to read 8, which is of course slowed down from his own.

 

However, the traveler, along his transformed axes, reads his own clock as 10 and the stationary clock as 9, so from his pov it is the stationary clock that has slowed.

 

 

You can take a solipsistic view and say that all truth is subjective and entirely independent of a (putatively non-existent) external world, or you can take a realistic view, which basically posits that there is a mind-independent physical world which is NOT subject to the control of subjective "thoughts" but instead obeys physical laws that exist independently of an observer.

 

A "frame of reference" is not a physical thing with a tangible objective existence in a three dimensions.  It is strictly a mental construct.  For a realist, mental constructs cannot affect the behavior of physical objects.  For a solipsist, only the mental construct is "real."  So, for a solipsist, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that "switching frames of reference" can have a radical impact on the external world (such as on clocks many light years away).

 

Depending on the metaphysics you prefer, you will reach different conclusions, needless to say.

 

The "all accumulated proper time difference occurs (virtually instantaneously) at turn-around" viewpoint makes no practical sense.  In that view the very same motion can "cause" a time change of months, years, centuries, or even millenium, all depending on the distance travelled.  Einstein utterly rejected that "explanation" for such reasons, and I do too.
 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

This may "make sense" to you, but I find it to be a contradiction:

 

At the end of the experiment, when the clocks are brought back together only one clock will be slower than the other.

 

But, during the experiment each clock will be slower.

 

 

Every day, 24 satellite clocks and innumerable earth clocks are moving with respect to each other without even being "brought back together" in the GPS. None of those clocks are "reciprocally dilated."  There are differences in ticking rates (with the faster clock's always being slower, and the slower clock's always being faster), of course.  But the difference in tick rate does not change only when the clocks "turn around" or "change frames of reference."

Edited May 4, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

Hey moron, luckily we needn't rely on hocus pocus. The test you require has been made

 

 

1. Take any two clocks which keep accurate time.

 

2.  Synchronize them

 

3.  Now move them round any number of times, at any speed, in any direction(s), have them both moving, have one at rest for awhile, then the other, for as long as you want, whatever.

 

Now, apriori, you know two things will be true, when you finally bring them back together.

 

A.  Each clock will show ONLY one time, 9:00 A.M. EST, March 10, 2020, for example.

 

As it happens, your claim is FALSE. There's no way around it,  What you claim is not an accurate representation of reality.  Time to read some more wikipedia articles.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

[Moronium]

Hey moron, luckily we needn't rely on hocus pocus. The test you require has been made

 

 

 

As it happens, your claim is FALSE. There's no way around it,  What you claim is not an accurate representation of reality.  Time to read some more wikipedia articles.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

 

 

Heh, you again, eh?  I've read the article, apparently you haven't.  Heres a brief excerpt:  

 

 

Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground.

 

 

 

For reasons I have addressed in detail in this and other threads, this shows that time dilation is NOT reciprocal and, furthermore, that SR cannot be used to make correct predictions.  Only a model with a preferred frame (the ECI) and which therefore posits absolute simultaneity (not relative simultaneity) can do that.

 

This experiment proves the accuracy of the LT, but disproves some of the fundamental assumptions of SR.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

Why the **** not?  SR can and is regularly used to make correct predictions.  You're blowing smoke and full of ****.  How do you account for the observations that are made by the GPS system if Special and General Relativity is not an accurate description of reality?

Edited May 4, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

Why the **** not?  SR can and is regularly used to make correct predictions.  You're blowing smoke and full of ****./

 

Read the thread if you want to know.  Well, nevermind, you would never understand it anyway.

[JMJones0424]

I cannot understand your claims that are easily shown to be false.  FFS, it's not like we're talking about bleeding edge scientific knowledge here.  Your claim is false, and was shown to be false almost 50 years ago.

Edited May 4, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

To briefly restate the main point here.  The Lorentz transformations makes some predictions, but it is a mistake to therefore claim that SR makes these predictions.  The LT are native to, and developed in conjunction with, a theory of relative motion which posits absolute simultaneity.  Einstein lifted these equations, whole cloth, from Lorentz' s theory.  Confirming the accuracy of the LT is NOT, therefore, confirming SR, per se.

 

You could only test SR versus a PFT (preferred frame theory) like the RMS model by testing cases where their predictions would differ.  Many such experiments have been done, beyond H-K  I recently cited one in another thread, let me take a minute and see if I can find it.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

 

B.  Whatever the two readings are, whatever you can conceive of them to be, both clocks will NOT display a time which is earlier than the other one does.  Only one can possibly be "earlier," even if both somehow went backwards in time.

 

Ergo, there is, and can be, no "reciprocal time dilation."

 

You don't need an experiment to prove this.

Or, you are a moron and can't wrap your head around observations that have been made for the last one hundred years that shows that your description of reality is not accurate.

 

You might as well claim that 2+2=5.

 

You are wrong.  There's no way to sugar coat this.  Decades of observations disprove your assertions.

[Moronium]

Heh, I see you've enthusiastically joined the chanting cheerleading squad, eh, JM?  Rave on

 

I'm still looking for that other post, but haven't found it.  But I did come across another one which I will repost here, because it relates to the current topic:

 

_______

 

It's best to go back to the beginning to understand the difference, I think.

 

1.  Since we (thought we) knew the earth was rotating and orbiting the sun, Michelson-Morley (MM) assumed we could measure this motion.  But we couldn't, so what now?

 

2.  Lorentz and others came up with an ad hoc hypothesis that that clocks slowed down and lengths shortened with increased speed. The exact equations formulated comprise the Lorentz Transformation (LT), which SR also uses.  This explains why we measure the speed of light to be the same when it "really" isn't.  Lorentz, Poincare, et al, posited a theory of relative motion which employed a preferred frame of reference and was therefore based on the assumption of absolute (not relative) simultaneity.  Such theories are sometimes called "AST's" (Absolute Simultaneity theories).

 

Such theories are just as viable as SR, and are still used today.  The GPS, for example, does not use SR as it's theoretical basis.  It can't.  It uses absolute simultaneity (with the ECI serving as the preferred frame and with all times times and speeds of moving objects measured with respect to the (non-rotating) "master clock" located at the ECI).

 

3. SR, as such, has never been proven empirically, notwithstanding many who claim the contrary.  What has been empirically confirmed is the accuracy of the LT.  The formula is the same for both types of theories, but the meaning of v (velocity) is different.   The "v" in an AST is absolute, in SR the "v" is relative.

 

To reiterate, the point is this:  The speed of light can be epistemologically (i.e., measured to be) the same in all inertial frames even if it isn't "really" (ontologically) the same.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/29314-strange-claims-about-relativistic-time-split-from-a-alternative-theories-thread/page-10  (post 156)

----

Edited May 4, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I had almost forgotten about the thread where Buffy chastised me for being "annoying" and then locked the thread.  Although not the one I was looking for, here's a post from that thread which was citing excerpts from a cite Buffy herself came up with.  The author there addresses some known problems with SR, too.  It pertains pretty closely to the current issues, so I re-post it here too:

 

----

 

Buffy, there's nothing extraordinary (it's all rather trivial, really) about the difference between relative simultaneity and absolute simultaneity.

 

SR posits relative simultaneity.

 

The GPS, astrophysicists, etc., employ an absolute simultaneity (preferred frame) model.  Do you dispute this?  Do you know the difference?  Unfortunately, many "scientists" have taken to calling what are PFT's (preferred frame theories) "special relativity" when it is actually antithetical to SR.  Or they call it "relativistic." implying that it is SR they're talking about when it isn't, whether they know it or not. They seem unable to understand that SR is NOT the Lorentz transforms.  Furthermore, they seem unable to comprehend that what is sometimes call "neo-lorentzian relativity" is also "relativistic" and also utilizes the Lorentz transforms (in fact, that where Einstein got the LT from).

 

I am perusing the paper you cited.  A few excerpts:

 

Quote

1.  Einstein commented on the M&M null result in 1952; “H. A. Lorentz showed that the result obtained at least does not contradict the theory of an aether at rest."

 

 

Quite true, then and now, whether you see the significance or not.  How did Lorentz "show" this?  By inventing the Lorentz transformation formulas, that's how.

 

Quote

2.  "The Keating experiment with atomic clocks on planes was expected to show no difference between the east and west bound clocks, but did not.."

 

 

This is a crucial failing of SR's prediction, which assumes that "relative" velocity is what determines time dilation. I have previously shown how the positing of a preferred frame was required by Keating, et al, to explain the  actual clock readings (which were not the ones predicted by SR, obviously).  Do you undertstand why this is the case?  I tend to doubt that you do.

 

3.  If you don't, then this paper which you have been kind enough to authoritatively cite, goes on to explain it, as I have, viz:

 

Quote

In 1972 Richard Keating sent two atomic clocks around the planet on aeroplanes, one east, one west, and left one at home.  In SR slowing would depend entirely on the relative velocity of the clocks. It did not. Both clocks slowed, but the rate was dependent on their absolute velocitythrough space, i.e. the speed of the aeroplane plus or minus the speed of rotation of the planet.

 

 

 

Italics in original.  So much for the ludicrous SR claim that time dilation is "reciprocal" rather than unidirectional.  That was empirically disproven many decades ago by Hafele and Keating (as it is disproven daily by the GPS)

 

Note that ABSOLUTE, NOT RELATIVE, motion was required to explain it.  That's all I have been saying, yet you come on in an extremely smug and condescending fashion insinuating that I'm some kind of idiot.

 

.

 

Thanks for providing the reinforcement for my posts via your citation, eh, Buffy!?

 

______

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31083-my-thread-just-disappeared-anyone-know-why/page-2  (post 22)

 

 

Another excerpt or two from the paper you cite, Buffy:

 

Quote

GPS time scale is defined in the satellites inertial system but observations are processed in a 'co-rotating Earth centred/Earth fixed' (ECEF) system...

 

 

The ECEF is, in fact, a preferred frame of the type strictly forbidden by the premises of SR, know what I'm sayin?  If not, ponder on what it meant when they say "but observations are processed in" for a spell, eh?  If it's still not clear, read one of my posts on the topic.

 

Quote

 

Epilogue:

 

During proofing of this paper in Dec 2009, results from the NASA lunar laser ranging test were published.  The thorough analysis given shows that the predictions of the Discrete Field Model are met. Lorentz invariance of 'c' is broken by some 200ms, equating to the Sagnac effect from the 'speed of the observatory along the line of sight due to rotation during measurement'. It is made clear that the result is not consistent with SR as formulated, but must have a preferred frame...

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

**** off with your bullshit.  You claimed that a thing which can be shown to be false is true.  I don't care what your problem is with Buffy.  You assert that something that is verifiably false is true.  It is a fact that accurate clocks sent in opposite directions around Earth do not measure the same time.  It is a fact that GPS systems work only because they account for time dilation due to satellite movement relative to base stations on Earth.  It is a fact that you are full of ****.

 

You might as well be arguing that the Earth is flat.

 

I don't know what craptacular reason you have for SR being an insufficient explanation of reality, and frankly, it doesn't matter.  SR accurately describes measurements we make, and where it isn't accurate, GR is an accurate description of reality.  You have already made a claim that is demonstrably false.  I don't know and frankly don't care what you assert is a replacement for GR, as you can't be bothered with observations.  I don't care what you presume to describe the fantastical world in your head.  You have failed to describe the world I inhabit, therefore you are a crank.

Edited May 4, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

During proofing of this paper in Dec 2009, results from the NASA lunar laser ranging test were published.  The thorough analysis given shows that the predictions of the Discrete Field Model are met. Lorentz invariance of 'c' is broken by some 200ms, equating to the Sagnac effect from the 'speed of the observatory along the line of sight due to rotation during measurement'. It is made clear that the result is not consistent with SR as formulated, but must have a preferred frame...

 

 

 

There's your cue, A-wal.  Time to scream:  "THERE ARE NO PREFERRED FRAMES!!  WE KNOW THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE SR SAYS SO!"

 

You too, JM.  You could do it in unison, harmonized, for an elevated proof of your positions, ya know?

Edited May 4, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

Let's peruse the excerpts of the moron.

 

 

 

The GPS, astrophysicists, etc., employ an absolute simultaneity (preferred frame) model.  Do you dispute this?  Do you know the difference?

Yes i do, and no, they do not.  If the speed of light is measurably the same regardless of one's velocity, then simultaneity can not be an absolute.  This is basic, moron.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, many "scientists" have taken to calling what are PFT's (preferred frame theories) "special relativity" when it is actually antithetical to SR.  Or they call it "relativistic." implying that it is SR they're talking about when it isn't, whether they know it or not. They seem unable to understand that SR is NOT the Lorentz transforms.

Well **** me running, thank god I've got Moron to correct the "scientists".  Oh wait, you made a claim that is both falsifiable and falsified.  I don't know what your problem is with scare quotes relativistic,  but given the fact that your claims of reality are false, I feel pretty good ignoring your claims.  Do the Lorentz transformations that describe why your claim was false.

 

I didn't cite a paper, I cited a wikipedia article on the observation of clocks moving at different speeds relative to the surface of the Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment, and the quotes you've made don't appear there.

 

What are you referring to?  Why does the MM experiment have anything to do with the fact that your claim is demonstrably false?

Edited May 4, 2018 by JMJones0424