Personal Topic

[Moronium]

But, in the twin “paradox” the symmetry is broken because B returns to A’s frame of reference and then we can see that B is the one who aged less. The symmetry is broken just by switching frames, whether that involves acceleration or not is irrelevant. 

 

 

Of course the symmetry is broken.  It is only the moving clock which runs slow.  Moving "breaks the symmetry."

 

If the symmetry were never broken, there would be no age difference at all.  They would age identically.  But I can't see why this is relevant to the issue of reciprocal time dilation.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The problem I have with the twin paradox, as it is generally recounted, is that it involves one twin leaving earth in a space ship and returning. I see that as never having any symmetry to begin with!

 

Well, yeah, they did have symmetry to "begin with."  They had symmetry for all those years they lived on earth together and aged at identical rates while they did.

 

Some people think the "return" is somehow relevant.  It isn't.  The whole experiment can be framed in terms where the twin never returns (a third party does).  And the theory predicts the exact same aging difference, even if he never returns. The clock slowing aspect of the LT does not say "but only if one returns and the two clocks can be directly compared."  The slowing of a moving clock is predicted by the LT even if the two observers in question never met, and never do.

 

That whole "issue" is an irrelevant red herring trotted out by relativists hoping to confuse you, that's all.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[sluggo]

theory

n

1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a particular subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice

economic theories

 

2. speculation: abstract thought or contemplation

 

3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture

She believed in the theory that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

4. hypothetical circumstances: a set of circumstances or principles that is hypothetical

That’s the theory, but it may not work out in practice.

 

5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena

 

[Late 16th century. Via late Latin from Greek theōria “contemplation, theory,” from theōros “spectator.”]

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

 

[Moronium]

theory

n

 

5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena

 

 

Thanks for the definitions, Sluggo, but is there a point?  I notice you have put the word "principle" in red, presumably to draw attention to it. But, even seeing that, I still can't see a point.

[sluggo]

Ralfis 343;

PS. Despite what exchemist said about sluggo and oceanbreeze, I don't believe either have the knowledge I'm searching for. It'd be nice if they could openly admit that. If they can't then the only conclusion I could draw is that they find my questions have no merit and they believe I'm prejudiced in what answers will suit me. Well the answer of "acceleration" didn't suit me at all and yet I'm trying to pursue it as vigorously as I can. I was immediately able to recognize KJW as a person of the knowledge level I required and anything less would be a waste of time like accepting relativity's definition of time. That's just a deal breaker for me.

 

[if you don't understand SR, how can you judge the correctness of what is presented to you? The following was intended for KJW, but not posted when your topic went to the trash!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The SR simultaneity convention assumes a constant velocity for a pseudo rest frame. Any velocity change requires a resynch. The 'twin' scenario (1st graphic) being considered contains a discontinuous profile and doesn't qualify.

 

The 2nd graphic shows the result of a continuous radar application from B. The problem occurs in the interval containing the reversal. The outbound signal occurs while A and B are diverging, but the inbound signal occurs while A and B are converging. There is a gain and loss which cancels, resulting in a parallel motion, and not a mirror image. This is caused by the lack of a realistic curved transition between the inertial segments.

 

If you are waiting for someone to say what you want to hear, there goes another year.

[sluggo]

Moronium;

392

SR postulate 1 states: physics is the same in all inertial frames. Therefore no special frame, which allows an observer in any of those frames to consider themselves at rest or not, and perform experiments independently of other frames. A pseudo rest frame is not mandatory, just optional.

 

The sun-earth system is a GR environment, an absolute earth centered frame. The complications of an earth centered system is evident with the epicycles required to reproduce the perceived motions by the earth observer.. There is no reciprocal frame for the earth relative to the sun.

 

399

Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein were all working on a 'relativity theory'. All three had to include the established work of others such as Maxwell, thus it should be expected that the theories should yield similar results. The primary difference was the exclusion of an ether medium in the Einstein theory. It was necessary to include the notion of a 'local time' in all three, and length contraction as a result of the MMX, and the work of Heaviside. Poincare corrected a few details of the Lorentz theory to make it comply to the relativity principle.

In SR 1905, par 3, Einstein derives the coordinate transformations from scratch, with the requirement they don't violate the postulates. If the mathematical formulation is equivalent in all three theories, the experimental results must be the same.

[Moronium]

.Therefore no special frame, which allows an observer in any of those frames to consider themselves at rest or not, and perform experiments independently of other frames. 

 

Your claim that "no special frame" exists merely dutifully recites the substance of SR first postulate.  It does't "prove" it, or for that matter provide even a scintilla of evidence in support of it.

[Moronium]

. If the mathematical formulation is equivalent in all three theories, the experimental results must be the same.

 

 

No.  The math is not the theory, and the theories have radically different premises  They are not the "same theory" just because they share some math in common.

 

The fact that they share the same math may lead to identical "results" (predictions) is some cases, depending on the circumstances, sure.  But not in all cases, because they are not identical theories.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 A pseudo rest frame is not mandatory, just optional.

 

No, it is not "optional,"  It is a necessary condition of ever being able to make any kind of predictions, however accurate or inaccurate they may be, to begin with.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[sluggo]

As the world population grew, there were multiple people searching for answers to common questions regarding the physical behavior of the universe they are born into.

Life doesn't come with an owners manual. In a quest for knowledge, it's left as an exercise for the individual.

Human life forms are thus totally ignorant of this behavior, not being present when the universe was formed. Their only recourse is speculation in the form of mental constructs that model the physical behavior observed, a representational methodology. This human activity is philosophy, an attempt to acquire an understanding of how the world works.

 

Study of the human mind has revealed an image oriented organ in conjunction with sensory input via vision. In the course of processing images, the mind searches for patterns that suggest relations among physical entities.

Perception is defined as the act of observation and accompanying analysis.

There is a common misconception in science evident in the use of 'objective vs subjective'. Perception involves the mind, which is primarily biological, which classifies it as chemistry, which is a subclass of physics, involving the interactions occurring within the electron cloud surrounding an atomic nucleus. Note the use of conceptual models (italics). Perception involves real images formed via real neural networks activated by real weak electrical currents, i.e. matter in motion.

Perception's definition can then be extended to 'reality confined to the mind'.

The theory of Relativity reveals, motion alters measurement and perception. This idea was and still is shocking to a society weaned on overly simplistic concepts of instantaneous light speed, universal time, and a deterministic world.

[Moronium]

I don't disagree with much, if anything, of what you said in this post, Sluggo, at least up to this point:

 

The theory of Relativity reveals, motion alters measurement and perception. This idea was and still is shocking to a society weaned on overly simplistic concepts of instantaneous light speed, universal time, and a deterministic world.

 

 

That may somehow "sound" good and erudite, but so what?  Again, what's the point?

 

I agree completely that motion alters measurement and perception. So what?  You seem to be trying to suggest, notwithstanding the previous parts of your post, that "perception" alters external "reality," rather than external reality affecting perception.

 

A funhouse mirror alters perception.  So what?

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[sluggo]

Your claim that "no special frame" exists merely dutifully recites the substance of SR first postulate.  It does't "prove" it, or for that matter provide even a scintilla of evidence in support of it.

You claim to know our motivation for posting specific replies, which is your attempt to hide your ignorance of the subject. Your ideas have been excluded long ago. 

[Moronium]

 

The sun-earth system is a GR environment, an absolute earth centered frame. The complications of an earth centered system is evident with the epicycles required to reproduce the perceived motions by the earth observer.. There is no reciprocal frame for the earth relative to the sun.

 

 

 

I agree that the frames are not reciprocal.  Now we're getting somewhere.  But what's up with the "GR environment?"  Why bring that in? According to GR, everything is a "GR environment."  But we're talking about the postulates of special relativity here, not general relativity.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[sluggo]

I don't disagree with much, if anything, of what you said in this post, Sluggo, at least up to this point:

 

 

That may somehow "sound" good and erudite, but so what?  Again, what's the point?

 

I agree completely that motion alters measurement and perception. So what?  You seem to be trying to suggest, notwithstanding the previous parts of your post, that "perception" alters external "reality," rather than external reality affecting perception.

 

A funhouse mirror alters perception.  So what?

Not what I said, 'reality confined to the mind' from 585

[Moronium]

Not what I said, 'reality confined to the mind' from 585

 

If that's not what you were trying to suggest, then how is anything you said at all, as interesting as it might be in other contexts, relevant here?   What's the point of saying it here in this discussion of SR?

 

Do you have a point?

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

This whole "perception" issue is indeed rather fundamental to a critical analysis of SR, Sluggo.  But what is your point?

 

The sun "appears" to rise in the east, move across the sky, and then set in west.  From that sense perception, we might conclude that the sun is moving and we aint.

 

But does our "perception," or more precisely, the conclusions we draw from our perceptions, in any way actually affect the sun?  Or the earth?  Or the relationship between them?

 

This sun/earth example pertains to the same issue raised by looking at light clocks.  Suppose instead that we assumed that we were moving, and the sun was stationary.  Would it look any differently, then?  No, it wouldn't.  The sense perception would be the same.

 

Then what changed?  The conclusion we drew from our perception, that's all.  Still no effect on the sun or earth.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The sun-earth system is a GR environment, an absolute earth centered frame. The complications of an earth centered system is evident with the epicycles required to reproduce the perceived motions by the earth observer.. There is no reciprocal frame for the earth relative to the sun.

 

 

As usual, you don't even recognize your own self-contradictions.  You just told me that there are no "special" frames, that I was an uneducated fool  for even thinking that it could be otherwise, and that long-established dogma was on your side.

 

But here you are, a minute later, talking about an "absolute earth frame."

 

You used the word "reciprocal," but what you meant, in SR jargon, is "equivalent."

 

And indeed, the two frames (earth and sun) are NOT equivalent, and they are not "equally valid" for purposes of determining which one is (effectively) orbiting which.  Only one of those possibilities makes sense, not both.  And, needless to say, it couldn't be both (as SR would have it), even if they seemed equally plausible.  Either the earth orbits the sun or vice versa.  Actually each revolves around the center of mass of the entire solar system (the barycenter), but that aint the point.  The barycenter is generally located at a point in the sun itself, so it's close enough to say that the earth orbits the sun, rather than the barycenter.

 

And you certainly don't even realize that you have just repudiated SR.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium