It can be clearly seen that if the distance between "A" and "B" is reduced to 1/2 that
traveling at the same speed, the traveling twin completes the trip in 1/2 the accumulated
time. But nothing about the clock changes. Both twin clocks MUST tick precisely at the
same rate and accumulate time equally such that upon the traveling twins return the
resting twin's clock will also display 5 hours and no time dilation can have occured.
This is inconsistant with empirical data and falsifies the assertion in Special Relativity.
that time dilates in one frame view while distance contracts in the other.
Except that isn't what relativity says. You have, as I said, created a strawman. Find me a book on relativity which says that, rather than you
claiming that is what relativity says. The simplest way to see you are wrong is to draw a space-time diagram. Draw the worldline of the moving person with respect to the at 'at rest' person's frame and
then apply a Lorentz transform to the axes. The (x',t') axes will, in the 'at rest' persons frame, form an angle of less than 90 degrees and the worldline of the moving person will cross the t' axis at a smaller value of t' than the value of t where it crosses the t axis. QED. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
Self-serving rhetoric and false negative innuendo.Your math and physics skills have nothing to do with resolving the above situation. It involves 3rd grade arithmatic and common sense.
I hope you realise how hypocritical the highlighted text is. And while I didn't need any of my maths and physics skills to come up with the demonstration you are incorrect the fact I have them means at least I know what I'm talking about.
It requires that for the first time as an educated man you be honest with yourself and not waive the right to think for yourself and just recite SR theory as the answer. You must think about what SR wants you to accept as a scientific person.
Oh please, you are not being honest with yourself. You refuse to accept that perhaps someone, somewhere, knows a little bit more about a theory you've never done, never studied, have no experience with, than you. I'm sure I'm
decades younger than you but my working experience with
basic calculus is clearly more than yourself and my experience with how to go about extracting physical predictions from both the quantitative calculus and the qualitative implications of a physics model greatly exceed yours too.
You only assume my experience is irrelevant. I suggest that if you can't properly refute my charge then my experience must be superior to your own.
I keep asking you to tell me what, in your electical engineering work, is relevant to this. And it took me about 11 seconds to come up with a simple pictorial way (so you don't even need to know any calculus) to illustrate why you are wrong and 7 of that was working out $$\gamma=2$$ implies $$v = \sqrt{3}/2$$, not that its relevant.
I have NO idea what you are talking about here
Yes, algebra and quantitative stuff does seem a little too much for you.
But whatever it is NONE of my views or opinions have come from somebodyelse much less from some forum.
So where precisely are you getting the idea that relativity says :
1. Relative motion is a sufficient condition for measuring different periods of time.
2. Person A moving relative to inertial Person B such that $$\gamma=2$$ over a return trip over some distance which B sees as L implies the same measured periods of time.
It seems to me those form the core of your complaints about special relativity and yet neither of them are claims
of special relativity. Your lack of actual knowledge about SR and your unwillingness to be honest enough to spend time learning enough SR to know what it says means you're attacking strawmen of your own making.
Since I don't even know what you are saying how could I quote a book that says it. What the hell do you mean by "Relative motion always gives different measured time periods"?
Give references for any and all cases where you say "Relativity says...." because it seems you're implying it says things it does not.
And what I mean is it seems that you're claiming relativity says the following :
Persons A and B sync their clocks and undergo some motion such that they are in
relative motion for some period of time. They meet up and compare clocks. They find they measure different periods of time.
Is this what you think relativity says? If not, clarify. If so, provide a reference.
If you don't understand SR then how can you be sure you are not attacking a strawman you've made?
I do not mean to imply any commonality here but I must remind you that when Einstein published Special Relativity he was a lowly clerk in the Swiss Patent Office.
With a degree and PhD in physics and whose work allowed him to read all the latest journals and keep in regular correspondence with the people at the forefront of physics research of the day. He had much more education in physics than
me and I'm in a bloody physics department.
You are looking at it. If you can't properly refute it I'd say I've done rather well.
You do know what
practical means, right?
As noted many times now the issue is not about some unique knowledge about relativity but about applying basic physical realities without turning a blind eye to discrepancies produced by the ludricrus arbitrary merger of time & space into time-space.
Nice attempt to avoid admitting I'm not lying about myself.
ATotally not true. You post your mathematical proof refuting the above diagrams. I don't mean post SR mathematics because reciting a theory does not prove a theory. You must demonstrate via your exceptional math abilities that somehow clocks in CASE 2 above tick asynchronously such that they match SR's assertions.
This is just your way of saying you won't accept any mathematics which shows you are not getting your claims about SR right, because you'll just say "Oh you're just repeating rhetoric!", as if
you getting it wrong and needing to be corrected is
my fault.
No SR is an arbitrary mathematical construct based on misunderstood observations. SR is a concept of flat space-time where Einstein himself say does not exist in the universe. That it is only true in absence of gravity. Since gravity prevails everywhere SR is no valid anywhere.
*sigh* The fact you've never done any relativity means you're simply stating your misconceptions as fact. Here's some mathematics which I'm certain you won't understand and will thus ignore but which demonstrate
curved space-time possesses the Lorentz symmetries of special relativity.
$$\eta_{ab}$$ is SR metric. $$g_{\mu\nu}$$ is curved metric. Define a vierbien (also known as a tetrad) $$e^{a}_{\mu}$$ by $$e^{a}_{\mu}e^{b}_{\nu}\eta_{ab} = g_{\mu\nu}$$. From this you can build spin connections and couple spinors to gravity (See Green, Schwarz & Witten Chapter 12) but you can also show g has Lorentz symmetry. $$\Lambda^{a}_{b}$$ is a Lorentz transformation which has defining property $$\Lambda^{c}_{a}\Lambda^{d}_{b}\eta_{cd} = \eta_{ab}$$, so use this on g, $$ g_{\mu\nu} = e^{a}_{\mu}e^{b}_{\nu}\eta_{ab} =e^{a}_{\mu}e^{b}_{\nu} \Lambda^{c}_{a}\Lambda^{d}_{b}\eta_{cd} = e'^{a}_{\mu}e'^{b}_{\nu}\eta_{ab} = g_{\mu\nu}$$. All information about the curved space-time metric g is encoded in e, which possesses Lorentz invariance. QED.
again.
Useable certainly if as Einstein said gravity is sufficently weak so as to be able to ingore it. But ignoring it doesn't make it not there and it does not make SR valid. It merely makes SR have utility as long as you NEVER think of it as being physically valid. Hence it must be treated with very careful gloves and not applied in any unlimited manner.
Again, your utter lack of hands on experience makes this attempt by you to seem like you know how to use SR very stupid. For instance, quantum field theory is the combination of quantum mechanics and special relativity. Quantum field theories for the 3 non-gravitational forces have been
massively successful.
And besides, all physics theories/models are 'approximate'. Cars and planes are built on 'effective theories' (look up what that means), which are not exactly correct but none-the-less are deemed 'valid'. The theory of fluids, used in aerospace, is Navier-Stokes equations. They aren't quantum theories, they don't include a multitude of additional effects but they are very useful. You claim to have done work for NASA. They'll use Newtonian gravity to launch a rocket into space, despite knowing GR is better, because the calculations are easier and the end result
close enough. Furthermore, because gravity is often very weak
but not ignorable, you use special relativity's flat metric as a background about which to do your perturbative theory. This is another
enormous area of research, where special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics can all be put together to result in some extremely accurate models of nature. Not that you'd know, you're too dishonest a person to have an open and enquiring mind.
