Personal Topic

[Moronium]

If I'm standing at my window, looking out at my car and then move over one foot, then I have "changed frames."  As a result I will see my car from a slightly different perspective.

 

But me moving one foot caused absolutely no change to the car.  Nor would it effect a star millions of light years away, if that was what I'm am looking at.

 

The notion that "changing" frames can have any physical effect on distant objects is ridiculous.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

What are you even trying to say here?  Whose time in dilated?  Certainly not the earth twin's.  He is not "in motion," he is treated as being at rest.  I agree that, per SR, the space twin is FORCED to claim that he is at rest, but he is WRONG.  He aint.

Each are time dilated and length contracted in the frame of the other.

 

If you understood SR at all, then you would know that "changing frames" has nothing to do with anything, as I've told you.  According to the mathematically-formulated lorentz transformations, it is the moving clock which will run slow.  Those transformations say nothing about "changing frames, nor should they.  It is irrelevant.  Motion is what causes the difference.

When objects are in motion relative each other then each is time dilated and length contracted in the frame of the other.

 

The point is the same no matter how much you talk about non sequiturs like changing frames.  One twin is younger, one is older.  The "resolution" gives you an absolute answer, not a relative one,.

Changing frames causes the other observer's watch to speed up from the perspective of the accelerating observer. This is why a different amount of time has passed once their back in the same frame.

[Moronium]

Each are time dilated and length contracted in the frame of the other.

 

 

So SR claims, but SR is wrong and it admits it in the twin paradox.  Each twin is not younger than the other when they re-unite.

[Moronium]

When objects are in motion relative each other then each is time dilated and length contracted in the frame of the other.

 

 

You repeat yourself, so I'll repeat myself. That's a mistaken premise of SR, sure.  But it is wrong, as SR itself is forced to admit in the twin paradox.

[Moronium]

Changing frames causes the other observer's watch to speed up from the perspective of the accelerating observer. This is why a different amount of time has passed once their back in the same frame.

 

 

It has been proven many times that acceleration, per se, has nothing whatsoever to do with time dilation.  That is a function of instantaneous speed only.  Irrelevant perspective aside, changing frames does NOT "cause the other observer's watch to speed up."  The notion is ridiculous, as I've already said.  Perspective is irrelevant.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

If I'm standing at my window, looking out at my car and then move over one foot, then I have "changed frames."  As a result I will see my car from a slightly different perspective.

That's not an inertial fame of reference. It has nothing to do with it.

 

But me moving one foot caused absolutely no change to the car.  Nor would it effect a star millions of light years away, if that was what I'm am looking at.

 

The notion that "changing" frames can have any physical effect on distant objects is ridiculous.

Changing frames doesn't have any physical effect on other objects, it causes the accelerating observer's watch to slow down, thereby causing the inertial observer's watch to speed up from the perspective of the accelerating observer.

 

So SR claims, but SR is wrong and it admits it in the twin paradox.  Each twin is not younger than the other when they re-unite.

Of course they're not both younger than the other. Only one changes frames and that's the one that ends up younger.

 

You repeat yourself, so I'll repeat myself. That's a mistaken premise of SR, sure.  But it is wrong, as SR itself is forced to admit in the twin paradox.

No it isn't, that's a really stupid claim.

[Moronium]

Changing frames doesn't have any physical effect on other objects, it causes the accelerating observer's watch to slow down, thereby causing the inertial observer's watch to speed up from the perspective of the accelerating observer.

 

 

 

To begin with you contradict yourself.  First you say "Changing frames doesn't have any physical effect on other objects,"  Then you claim it effects TWO objects, i.e., both clocks.  Changing frames does NOT cause my watch to slow down, let alone the watch of a distant observer.

[A-wal]

 Please stop multi-posting. It's infuriating!

 

It has been proven many times that acceleration, per se, has nothing whatsoever to do with time dilation.

True but it has everything to do with the difference in age in the twin paradox.

 

That is a function of instantaneous speed only.  Irrelevant perspective aside, changing frames does NOT "cause the other observer's watch to speed up."  The notion is ridiculous, as I've already said.  Perspective is irrelevant.

Yes it does cause the other observer's watch to speed up from the perspective of the accelerating observer. This is what causes the difference in age in the twin paradox. If you're just going to deny the explanation what's the point? I'm out.

[Moronium]

Of course they're not both younger than the other. Only one changes frames and that's the one that ends up younger.

 

 

Of course.  I just said that.  The one who is moving ends up younger.  As an irrelevant incident to moving, he also changes frames.  The one who is moving is the one that ends up younger, ONLY because he is moving, not because he changes frames.

[A-wal]

Stop multi fcuking posting!

 

To begin with you contradict yourself.  First you say "Changing frames doesn't have any physical effect on other objects,"  Then you claim it effects TWO objects, i.e., both clocks.  Changing frames does NOT cause my watch to slow down, let alone the watch of a distant observer.

It causes the watch of the accelerating observer to slow down from the perspective of the inertial observer and the watch of the inertial observer to speed up (by a greater amount than their watch is slowed down from the perspective of the inertial observer) from the perspective of the accelerating observer.

[A-wal]

Stop multi fcuking posting!!!

 

Of course.  I just said that.  The one who is moving ends up younger.  As an irrelevant incident to moving, he also changes frames.  The one who is moving is the one that ends up younger, ONLY because he is moving, not because he changes frames.

No, While they are in motion relative to each other, each is time dilated and length contracted from the perspective of the other.

 

The one who changes frames ends up younger once they're back in the same frame. It's very simple and now I'm done with you because it's like trying to explain the offside rule to an American.

[Moronium]

Stop multi fcuking posting!

 

It causes the watch of the accelerating observer to slow down from the perspective of the inertial observer and the watch of the inertial observer to speed up (by a greater amount than their watch is slowed down from the perspective of the inertial observer) from the perspective of the accelerating observer.

 

 

Perspective is totally irrelevant to what "really" (physically) happens.  When will you understand that?    All this talk about "perspective" is idiotic.  The question is:  What really happens?

 

The answer:  The earth twin is older.  The space twin is younger, EVEN IF his "perspective" told him otherwise.  That perspective was simply WRONG, and must be disregarded.

 

You can drone on saying "from the perspective of" for eternity, but it won't change anything in the physical world.  "Perspective" simply can't change physical reality.  Even a 10 year old kid can understand that.

 

But I guess someone like you, who doesn't even have a grasp on fundamental concepts like "cause and effect," could never understand it.  You think changing frames "causes" clock retardation. Wrong.  Increased speed causes it, nothing else.  At least that's what SR says. If you understood  SR you would know that. I happen to agree with that part of SR.

 

You might just as well say that the space twin ages less because he is wearing a space suit, while the earth twin isn't.  That would be a "difference" and would be just as likely to "cause" an age difference as would "changing frames."  In each case the relationship of the supposed "cause" to the observed effect would be the same, i.e. ZERO.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Perspective is totally irrelevant to what "really" (physically) happens.  When will you understand that?    All this talk about "perspective" is idiotic.  

 

You might just as well say that the space twin ages less because he is wearing a space suit, while the earth twin isn't.  That would be a "difference" and would be just as likely to "cause" an age difference as would "changing frames."  In each case the relationship of the supposed "cause" to the observed effect would be the same, i.e. ZERO.

 

.Anyone who understands the theories involved knows why SR advocates try to drag a red herring across the trail to distract the dogs by pretending that "changing frames" is somehow relevant when it absolutely is not.  The reason is simple and it is this:

 

They are trying to obscure the true reason for clock retardation, i.e., increased speed, because they don't want to admit that absolute motion is involved.  The only people who don't understand that are SR parrots who merely regurgitate what they've been told without the slightest understanding of what they are even saying or why they are saying it.

 

Wise up, Awol.

 

.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

.Anyone who understands the theories involved knows why SR advocates try to drag a red herring across the trail to distract the dogs by pretending that "changing frames" is somehow relevant when it absolutely is not.  The reason is simple and it is this:

 

They are trying to obscure the true reason for clock retardation, i.e., increased speed, because they don't want to admit that absolute motion is involved.  The only people who don't understand that are SR parrots who merely regurgitate what they've been told without the slightest understanding of what they are even saying or why they are saying it.

 

Wise up, Awol.

Lol!

 

"Trying to obscure the true reason, red herring, parrot, blah blah", So you don't think it could possibly be because IT'S THE FCUKING ANSWER!

 

Someone obviously can't stand being shown up for the dishonest dumb dumb he really is. :)

Edited March 18, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

 So you don't think it could possibly be because IT'S THE FCUKING ANSWER!

 

 

It's an answer, sure, but only one which a complete fool would give.  It is the WRONG answer, as anyone with a lick of sense would know, Awal.  That aint you.  

 

Such an "answer" only exposes your total lack of sense and understanding, sorry.

[A-wal]

It's an answer, sure, but only one which a complete fool would give.  It is the WRONG answer, as anyone with a lick of sense would know, Awal.  That aint you.  

 

Such an "answer" only exposes your total lack of sense and understanding, sorry.

Can't refute the answer so just attack the answer and the messenger, I see.

 

Good luck with your hilarious denialism Moronium, so long, and thanks for all the fish.

[Moronium]

Can't refute the answer so just attack the answer and the messenger, I see.

 

Good luck with your hilarious denialism Moronium, so long, and thanks for all the fish.

 

 

Heh, nice try, chump.  I gave you many reasons why your "answer" is absurd.  I notice you have made no attempt whatsoever to address those comments.  Try to explain HOW "changing frames" causes clock retardation, why doncha?  What's the cause and effect relationship there, exactly?  Or is it just "magic?"  Do you think increased speed has anything to do with it, I wonder?

Edited March 18, 2019 by Moronium