Personal Topic

[ralfcis]

I guess I've said all I could say here. I need to find a forum with experts and stay long enough to get my answers or propose my alternate theory without getting banned.

[Moronium]

I guess I've said all I could say here. I need to find a forum with experts and stay long enough to get my answers or propose my alternate theory without getting banned.

 

 

Bye.

[OceanBreeze]

I guess I've said all I could say here. I need to find a forum with experts and stay long enough to get my answers or propose my alternate theory without getting banned.

 

Right. Go to the next town over and ask who is their fastest gun, try to shoot him in the back then run away again.

Repeat over and over.

[ralfcis]

I'll do whatever it takes to get at the truth but I haven't tried that method yet. "Shoot in the back"? Is that what you were trying to do thinking I wouldn't check back in to see if phyti might have brought KJW in here? So you thought you could safely get off a parting shot? Hypocritical no? The only one, between us, that has shot in the back and run away from the discussion is you. I hope we can at least agree on that because you've been quite silent on what your disagreements with me actually are. Thanks for the GPS clarification though.

Right. Go to the next town over and ask who is their fastest gun, try to shoot him in the back then run away again.

Repeat over and over.

 

Edited January 25, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I guess my physics quest is over, I found the correct answer on physics stack exchange under the link What is the proper way to explain the twin paradox? in case anyone's interested. You have to be an advanced mathematician to understand it and be familiar with the terms. Relativity has been so dumbed down no wonder people think they see holes in the theory.

[Moronium]

I found the correct answer on physics stack exchange

 

 

What's always missing from this type of elaborate mathematical sleight of hand is an explanation of how any mere means of calculation actually affects clocks in the real world.

 

This is all designed to show how the travelling twin purportedly "calculates" the net accumulated time difference.  But what's happening with the clocks?  What is the physical, as opposed to mathematical, explanation for the fact that one twin is younger?

 

If you want to take the travelling twin's calculations as being in any way indicative of physical reality, then here's what you have to believe:

 

 All during the inertial stages of the traveler's journey, both outbound and inbound, the spacetwin is actually aging at a faster rate than the earthtwin, i.e., he is older than his twin, and getting more older with every mile he travels.  However, at the moment(s) he turns around, years, decades, or even centuries (depending on the speeds and distances involved) pass on earth instantly.  As a result, when you net it all out, he says he returns younger than his earthtwin.

 

But clocks (calendars) never show such radical discrete jumps in practice, and the whole suggestion is prima facie absurd to begin with.  An individual making a turn many light years away cannot possibly, by any conceivable cause and effect relationship, cause decades to magically pass instantly on a distant planet. 

 

The upshot of all this mathematical hocus pocus is that the traveling twin ends up saying--"hey, I now agree that I am younger."  Good for him, because he is indeed younger, but not because he turned around, and not because of the math concepts he chose in order to formulate his agreement. He is younger because he traveled at a higher speed.  This has been empirically demonstrated many times.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

This is how I phrased my question to the physics stack exchange:

0

 

I have been to many forums asking this question and I can't get a final answer where there are no contradictions.

The best answer so far is the two parties must co-locate at the start and end of a journey at a relative velocity where one makes a change in that relative velocity to re-unite. If they do not re-unite there can be no universal agreement from all perspectives on the parties' permanent age difference while they are separated.

 

The problems I have with this answer are:

 

1.There is nothing stopping any of the perspectives to use relativity to calculate what the parties' age difference will be once they re-unite. So at what point in the spacetime path can this call be made? One guy's expert opinion was the turnaround point invokes non-inertial acceleration or a gravity equivalent in GR and so the actual source of the age difference happens at the turnaround and you use GR formulae to come to the answer. They still need to re-unite anyway to turn the calculations into one common reality from all perspectives. The problems I have with this answer are:

 

      a) A clock info handoff scenario has no acceleration involved but there is age difference at the end when the info gets back to the source.

 

      b) If one of the parties relatively stops at a distance and doesn't re-unite, the result due to acceleration can never be validated by a re-unification of the two parties. There is no valid closure to the spacetime path despite there being an answer from the acceleration at the turnaround point and imposing a mathematical limit as v-> 0 to get an answer. The relative stop scenario also aligns the same lines of simultaneity between the two parties so at least there is no perspective conflict between the two and yet a conclusive answer is forbidden.

 

    c) The GPS example involves using GR to calculate how gravity slows the earth clocks relative to the near non-gravity and free fall no force of acceleration on the satellites in orbit, and SR to calculate the age difference due to relative velocity with turnaround per orbit. Each orbit is a valid spacetime path with valid start and stop, a relative velocity and a turnaround. The problem is there is no force of acceleration or gravity at the turnaround and yet age difference still results.

 

     d) If GR non-inertial acceleration is not the cause of age difference in SR, then what connection does SR have with GR? Time dilation due to relative velocity is not equivalent to age difference caused by gravity. Length contraction in SR is not related to space contraction due to gravity in GR. I thought this GR explanation for age difference was a good connection between related theories but now I see none.

 

 

2.  Abandoning GR's non-inertial acceleration as the cause of age difference, if one party relatively stops but drifts slowly back to re-unification, a universal call can be made on the final age difference. But if it's a perfect stop or the parties drift away from each other, no universal call can be made due to a violation of spacetime path rules. This means that if instead of a stop or turnaround, the change in relative velocity of a slow down or a speed up away from each other cannot result in age difference due to the fact they can't re-unite. The math can determine an universal answer from all perspectives in the same way a universal answer can be calculated for a stop but relativity also voids it due to spacetime path rules. Yet a testable answer does result from a slow down or speed up (instead of a turnaround).

 

 

3.If non-inertial acceleration is not the cause of age difference, I have seen too many other explanations of what is. The most popular one is you just count up the reciprocal time dilation for both legs of the journey and that gives you your age difference result at the end. The 2nd most popular is the swing of the line of simultaneity shows the one not causing the swing ageing while the other doesn't. Another is the one who changes the relative velocity becomes the preferred frame and establishes he was the one moving all along so his reciprocal time dilation becomes real. Another is age is what clocks measure but there is also an equivalent time value for the distance separation between the two that doesn't register on the clock. The distance becomes a hidden storage device for the time difference between the two. None are correct right?

 

 

Is there an answer from relativity addressing these apparent contradictions when trying to determine age difference?

 

 

P.S. I have found it impossible on other forums to convince people reciprocal time dilation, the doppler shift ratio and age difference are not all the same thing. So, please, no answers that confuse age difference with the other two.

 

 

Of course none of these questions were answered as the discussion invariably descended into not understanding the difference between time dilation and age difference. None of these questions can be answered in the fairy tale version of relativity. I never even knew a real version of relativity existed. All those people I talked to over the years never let on that I wasn't even in the right ball park. All the stories they told people that weren't in the know were just BS. Do I even want to continue to try and understand the real math and translate into English what it is actually about? Not at this moment.

 

Edited January 26, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

You're making it all too complicated.  The fundamental theory of SR gives you the quick and reliable answer without need for further investigation.

 

The LT clearly hold that the moving clock runs more slowly.  Ignoring gravitational dilation, if one clock has accumulated less time, then it is because it has been moving at a higher rate of speed than the other.

 

Moving clocks run slower--ask any physicist.

 

SR's problem is that it doesn't want to have to admit that the spacetwin is moving, so it resorts to the most obscure, specious, and misleading sophistical arguments in an attempt to avoid this admission.  Nice try, SR.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Another is the one who changes the relative velocity becomes the preferred frame and establishes he was the one moving all along so his reciprocal time dilation becomes real. 

 

 

Yes,  except you have your preferred frames backwards.  It is the stationary twin who is in the preferred frame (which gives the correct predictions--whereas as the traveler's frame, if used, gives the wrong predictions).  It is also erroneous to call his time dilation "reciprocal."  It aint.  It's unilateral and asymmetrical.  His time dilates, his twin's doesn't.  Why?  Because he's the one moving.  It's really not complicated.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

As I have said before, SR imposes upon the space twin the unjustifiable duty to claim that he is motionless while traveling inertially.  That's why his predictions are wrong.  He starts his deductive process with unsound premises.  He is moving, not stationary, but he is forced to claim otherwise.

 

It also helps explain why SR wants to fallaciously deny that he is moving, notwithstanding the fact that, ex hypothesis, it has already been conceded that he is the one who is moving (faster) relative to his twin.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

As I have said before, SR imposes upon the space twin the unjustifiable duty to claim that he is motionless while traveling inertially.  That's why his predictions are wrong.  He starts his deductive process with unsound premises.  He is moving, not stationary.

 

 

 

If he were simply allowed to acknowledge his motion, he would reach the exact same conclusions that his earth twin does, instead of opposite conclusions.  He would then realize that it is HIS time that has slowed down, not his twin's. He would adjust the erroneous measurements of his speed (comprised of time and distance factors) given by his distorted clocks and rods, and, after correction, they would completely agree with his twin's (correct) measurements.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

All the "paradoxes" and seemingly inconsistent propositions of SR result from the dubiously posited "relative simultaneity" adopted by SR.

 

None of these problems arise in conjunction with the (superior) alternate theories of relative motion which posit absolute simultaneity.  That's why the GPS uses them, not SR.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I can't even read your stuff it is so wrong. You have no idea what your terms mean. Please stop. Please go to another thread and make your arguments with like-minded individuals. It will be far more satisfying for you and that's what anyone in physics wants, satisfaction that their beliefs are correct, which here, yours are not even close. You can't even grasp the first concept that time dilation is not the same thing as age difference. Nothing I can say will convince you of that because the brain wants what the brain wants. At least 99% of the world can't grasp that concept because they have been brainwashed by a fairy tale. The people who know the real story must think we're all cavemen so they've convinced us all we can build a jet fighter out of stone using stone tools and as cavemen we have all nodded our heads compliantly. Some of us have become expert stonemasons and scoff at the notion that a stone plane can't fly if you put enough dragon fire in the tail to propel it. I just learned last night that this has all been a made up story. The truth behind relativity is far more complex than they led us to believe. Acceleration turns out to be the cause of age difference (not time dilation) if you define it as the Rindler metric causing a rise in flat space geometry that requires 4-vector transform from a minkowski metric (paraphrasing of course). Did you see what their definition of time is?  All of this stuff happens under the rules of spacetime and none of these rules are available to the general public. They don't provide the actual plans for the jet fighter and their proof of concept is a flat stone flies farther when thrown. So stop! I'm not interested in discussing why that is or is not true.

Edited January 26, 2019 by ralfcis

[OceanBreeze]

You're making it all too complicated.  The fundamental theory of SR gives you the quick and reliable answer without need for further investigation.

 

The LT clearly hold that the moving clock runs more slowly.  Ignoring gravitational dilation, if one clock has accumulated less time, then it is because it has been moving at a higher rate of speed than the other.

 

Moving clocks run slower--ask any physicist.

 

 

 

 

Yes, but velocity is not a satisfactory explanation of why moving clocks run slower AND clocks in a higher gravitational field run slower. Something more fundamental must link velocity time dilation with gravity time dilation.

I believe it is the equivalence of mass and energy as Einstein showed with e=mc^2

The Lorentz transform contains the c^2 term as does the gravitational transform, which is just

(1 + gh/c^2) which derives from gravitational potential energy mgh

The similarity in form to the LT is striking, is it not?

I am not smart enough to tie them together and say that THIS is the fundamental cause of time dilation, but somebody surely will do this.

[ralfcis]

Yes this connection is explained, although with advanced math, in the link I posted here to an article on the physics stack exchange. 

[OceanBreeze]

Yes this connection is explained, although with advanced math, in the link I posted here to an article on the physics stack exchange. 

 

I missed that link. OK I will take a look at it and see if I can make sense of it. I am not a total stranger to advanced math, as long as it doesn't end up looking like something from our friend Dubbelosix! :eek_big:

 

Are you satisfied that you understand the answer posted there?

[ralfcis]

No I have an intuition that it will prove correct if I put effort into understanding it. I can sense when a true expert is telling me something I don't yet understand mostly because I know everything I've heard before has proven to be false. So I'll listen to new stuff and give it a chance.