Relativity and simple algebra II

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by ralfcis, Feb 6, 2021.

  1. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    It's a circle which can be linearized to an outbound path and a return path just like the twin paradox which results in permanent accumulating age difference that is not due to reciprocal time dilation which does not result in permanent age difference.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    Because I'm busy and I just answered you. You guys seem to think I work for you so where's my paycheck? If you don't think so then I will continue to work on my own schedule. I'd prefer answering James' last post because I think that will end us talking past each other.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    No it can't be made into an outbound and inbound path. At all times B has a fixed radial separation of r from A! Since you agree here permanent age difference applies to your preferred outbound + inbound situations, you have answered your own question I quoted as 2. What gives then?
    PS I composed my earlier reply and posted it before noticing your response in #241
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    What does this mean? What question as quoted in 2? How is there constant relative motion between the center and A if the distance between them is always the same. They should both feel a force which indicates a change in direction which is a change in velocity and, as I said, velocity change results in an imbalance of constant relative velocity between the two participants which results in permanent age difference during the imbalance period.
     
  8. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    I'm going out not if that's ok with you.
     
  9. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    As per #237. I thought that much would still be fresh in memory.
    ????? In #237 it's made crystal clear in the inertial frame of A, it's only B that orbits, at constant angular speed, about A lying on the axis of circular motion of B! The rest of your reply there is so disjoint I see no hope of getting anywhere. You give the impression of an absolute commitment to your take on relativity. That being evidently the case, I'm never one for endless go-nowhere-useful exchanges. Your other regular participant here is clearly the one for that. I'm out.
     
  10. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    Who cares. Whoever's at the center will age permanently less. You can't pay attention to the rest of the argument because I wasn't reading your tome with utmost attention to who's A and B?
    You got an impression? I thought it was crystal clear the purpose of this thread was to explain relativity (not the philosophy of SR) using new math. I presented the new math, you don't understand it then say how dare I refer to it in this example. You can lead a horse to quicksand but you can't make him sink. He's got to learn to sink for himself.
     
  11. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Making up pure BS there. You and James R are so much alike. Unfortunately each others lengthy reposes just get to be so boring and predictable there is scant entertainment value in following what may become a 50 or even 100 page saga. Bye - again.
     
  12. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    My goal is at least 200 unless you stay then 250 is highly achievable.
     
  13. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Good luck achieving that lofty goal. Ha ha ha ha. And for someone else's benefit here - no that was again not 'nervous' laughter.
     
  14. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    I'm sure if you are indeed Q-reeus, your Q-reeusity will bring you round again but I won't hold my breath.
     
  15. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Your choice has been to ignore the salient points pertaining to circular motion that bury your claims 1 and 2 quoted back in #237. Expected I suppose but worth a try.
    For sake of completeness, I forgot to add a link to a thread elsewhere on Loedel diagrams worth reading not skimming, well at least that passage in post #8 there containing green highlight:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...se-of-the-minkowski-spacetime-diagram.203490/
    Won't be back for commentary.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Q-reeus:

    Not having bothered to do your homework on this, it's not surprising that you're wrong again.

    If you don't want to put in the effort, don't inject yourself into the thread. Is that too much to ask?
    Let's not. Clearly, an object in circular motion has a non-inertial frame of reference as its rest frame, in the flat space of SR, which we have been discussing here.

    ralfcis is having enough trouble understanding inertial frames, without having to also deal with non-inertial ones. Let's do one thing at a time, okay? The circular motion thing is an unnecessary distraction at this point in the discussion.
    Not a bad question, although it might be easier to get rid of the circular motion aspect (which isn't needed). We could look at the attraction between two wires carrying parallel currents, for example.

    However, I think it is unlikely that ralfcis knows enough about electromagnetism to be able to discuss this intelligently, without being walked through the reasoning in detail.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Good. You're a toxic presence in every thread you post in.
    You just can't stop with the toxic personal attacks, can you?

    Are you like this in the "real world", too?
    And stay out!
     
  18. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Notwithstanding that demand next post of yours, I'm more or less forced to respond to that quoted above. SR is perfectly capable of handling accelerated motions in general:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity)
    Apart from the pedestrian analysis linked to here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...vistic-circular-motion-in-invariant-spacetime
    everything is worked out in the inertial frame of A, remembering acceleration per se does not directly contribute to time dilation (clock hypothesis).
    You are making it out to be difficult to deal with when in fact it's circular motion that nails the matter quickly and easily. But that has to be acknowledged, by ralfcis and you. No willingness evident from either.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I've never said anything to the contrary.

    You missed the point. There's no point in trying to "win" the argument with ralfcis by talking over his head. That might boost your own ego, maybe, but it will do nothing to change his mind about anything.

    If winning is what is important to you, Q-reeus, then you can take your "win" over ralfcis here, as far as I'm concerned.

    You've made a big point of saying how this whole conversation is below your lofty heights, and therefore it isn't worth having. That's all good, then. You're not needed in the conversation. Nobody asked you to come, or to stay once you came. You haven't bothered to follow the discussion so far, and you've clearly stated you're not interested in following it, so why are you still here?
     
  20. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    As usual putting words in my mouth never spoken or meant by me. The ace hypocrite who accuses me of 'toxic posts every thread'. Go back to your endless circular arguing with ralfcis. I'll wait in vain for the breakthrough moment when true agreement is reached.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Don't tell lies, Q-reeus. I quoted you, accurately, and responded. (You: "The sort of thing that bores me to tears and indicates discussion has long degenerated into a circular arguing impasse.")
    You're still at it. Why are you still in this thread? Isn't it too simple and time-wasting for your enormous ego brain?
    By your own admission, you don't know what you're talking about, with that. (You: "I could go on citing but refuse to plow through all of 12 pages of typically loooong posts back and forth.")
    What? Are you planning to follow the actual discussion, now? What changed your mind?
     
  22. ralfcis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    421
    I swear I'm coming and can't wait to get back into this but I fear my response will be much longer than usual.
     
  23. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    I think a nice simple way for ralfcis to explain his idea would be if he would address a simple one-way twins scenario where the stay-home twin stays home, and the traveling twin travels some distance away and then stops. Note that in this case, at the end of the trip, the traveling twin can measure their own deceleration using their accelerometer, but the stay-home twin's accelerometer would not register any acceleration at that time.

    According to SR, in this simple scenario, each twin has reason to believe the other twin is aging slower than their self during the trip, but which one actually ends up younger depends on which twin's accelerometer registers an acceleration when they are separated by the trip distance. Note that in SR it would not matter which twin's accelerometer might have registered an acceleration at the beginning of the trip, because there was no distance between them then.

    So, if ralcis does not like the idea that each twin has reason to believe the other twin is aging slower than their self during the trip, then he should say explicitly that both twins are the same age as each other until the final deceleration, at which time the traveling twin must become younger in the travelling twin's own rest frame, due to the accelerometer registering an acceleration while there is distance between them. If he accepts the bizarre idea that the traveling twin gets younger in their own rest frame, then he should say so explicitly.

    At least then we could see that his idea is not self-contradictory. But since I have a feeling he will not say those things explicitly, I think we are going to be stuck without any progress. The rest of us will go on believing that his idea is internally inconsistent, while he thinks it all works out fine, without clarifying any of those pesky details.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2021
    James R likes this.

Share This Page