Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
- Status
QQ:
No.
You only say that because it is easier to say that the Earth's centre is moving around the sun, and you, sitting on the Earth's surface, move around the Earth's centre. It is more convenient to analyse the situation than to take a you-centred frame of reference in which the Earth's centre revolves around you, and so does the Sun. But that's just a choice you make.
For many purposes, it is fine to ignore the motion of the Earth around the Sun, and even the rotation of the Earth. For example, you can assume the Earth is stationary if you want to calculate where a ball will land if you throw it. For other purposes, these things become important. If you want to launch an ICBM, you will need to worry about the Earth's rotation. If you want to launch an interplanetary spacecraft, you'd better worry about the Earth's motion around the Sun, too. If you want to launch an interstellar spacecraft, you probably shouldn't even use a stationary-Sun assumption.
But is the Sun really moving, absolutely? We can't tell. We know it moves relative to the galactic centre, which itself moves relative to other galaxies. Are any of those galaxies at rest? If so, which one, and how could we tell? There's no way.
The point is: all the laws of physics work equally well in all inertial frames of reference, so it is fine to take any inertial frame as stationary. There is no "really stationary", so there's no preferred frame of reference.
A rest frame is no illusion. As I sit at my computer, I am at rest relative to myself. In my rest frame, I really don't move. It is not an illusion.
No.
You only say that because it is easier to say that the Earth's centre is moving around the sun, and you, sitting on the Earth's surface, move around the Earth's centre. It is more convenient to analyse the situation than to take a you-centred frame of reference in which the Earth's centre revolves around you, and so does the Sun. But that's just a choice you make.
For many purposes, it is fine to ignore the motion of the Earth around the Sun, and even the rotation of the Earth. For example, you can assume the Earth is stationary if you want to calculate where a ball will land if you throw it. For other purposes, these things become important. If you want to launch an ICBM, you will need to worry about the Earth's rotation. If you want to launch an interplanetary spacecraft, you'd better worry about the Earth's motion around the Sun, too. If you want to launch an interstellar spacecraft, you probably shouldn't even use a stationary-Sun assumption.
But is the Sun really moving, absolutely? We can't tell. We know it moves relative to the galactic centre, which itself moves relative to other galaxies. Are any of those galaxies at rest? If so, which one, and how could we tell? There's no way.
The point is: all the laws of physics work equally well in all inertial frames of reference, so it is fine to take any inertial frame as stationary. There is no "really stationary", so there's no preferred frame of reference.
A rest frame is no illusion. As I sit at my computer, I am at rest relative to myself. In my rest frame, I really don't move. It is not an illusion.
thank you for taking the time to answer JamesR I realy appreciate it.
James R said:
Well I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of argueing. Prof Izen used the term "Symmetrical" in discussing this situation but I further have induced the term "Reciprocity". Unless you are prepared to claim there is no reciprocity in Relativity go take your negativisim elsewhere.
James R unresponsive AD HOC FIAT Declarations said:
Unfortunately your post (8) AD HOC FIAT Declarations as fact do not make the point you hoped to make. It actually shows you lack the capability to actually address this issue. Move on.
It seems I have made clear what I meant and it is not UT in the sense you use the word. Please address my statements and not your versions of my statements.
The only thing meaningless here has been your ridiculus response. Claiming two clocks comoving side by side must specify a reference to show no relative energy between them.
Please show us what reference frame you feel can show relative energy between two comoving objects with no relative velocity. LOL :bugeye:
You are a joke.
This is Math & Physics. I do develope ( 1 - v^2/c^2)^.5 from a concept of a dynamic field where (c+v) and (c-v) are simultaneously affective. Now either address that fact or withdraw your slander.
I haven't heard it say anything. I have only heard you and others say what it means. Unfortunately it confirms nothing. It is but one of many possible conclusions. You cannot confirm a physical impossibility by any experiment.
Pathetic. Experiments show no such thing. Even H&K which is highly dubius at best shows one clcok reading different. Unfortunately I don't see the traveling clock's view of Earth's clock having recipocated where the clock in the airplane has assumed it is at rest. (You did just tell QQ that either clock may assume the rest position did you not?) So show me where the Earth clock ran slower. Then we will have satisfied Relativity's reciprocity requirements.
Go ahead show me it displays its standard rest time and some other time as per the view of another observer in relative motion, at the same time. Go ahead wise guy. You cannot address only part of the issue you must address the full issue.
You now want to claim that I didn't and cannot calibrate two clocks at rest.??????? You continue to make AD HOC FIAT declarations and attempt to hijack the topic by asserting some unproven authority. You have none.
We all know what SRT asserts but invoking it as the answer is attempting to prove the theory using the theory. You are wasting our time James R. Get serious or get lost.
According to the guy that claims you cannot calibrate two clocks at relative rest to each other setting side by side. I'm impressed.
It should be clear by now who is in la la land.
I do say but unfortunately for you it isn't my word you must contend with. It is the many scientist that also say H&K is horseshit - fraud or grossly sloppy science which actually showed nothing - ZIP, NADA, ZILCH, NO TD.
Your failure to remain consistant to the totality of Relativity via reciprocity, and completely false comments shows you have no actual answer to this question.
Your repeated failure to address this issue from a basic physics view point and asserting SRT as the answer (where it conflicts with the first principles of basic physics) shows your complete lack of understanding as to what one should consider reality.
Now either show us in detail just how you claim that two clocks in constant light beam communication that use side band modulation to transfer information the the other clock as to their view of their local tick rate are not synchronized in the manner I proposed.
AD HOC FIAT Declarations that somehow simultaneity precludes it is insufficient since it is being done by the finite and invarient speed of light which is equidistant and equally temporal between clocks.
I have not circumvented Relativity. This proceedure includes Relativity and its mandated reciprocity. Now answer this question or admit failure.
Last edited:
MacM:
You misunderstand the nature of the symmetry you are talking about. I have explained to you in what sense the situation is and is not symmetrical. Relabelling "symmetry" as "reciprocity" doesn't change anything.
The only "declaration" made is the sensible one that your statements are all ambiguous, and therefore useless, unless you specify reference frames. Instead of addressing the issue, you choose to ignore it, which is just wilful blindness, as usual.
What kind of energy? You're so unclear that I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Show me your "development" from your "dynamic field". Address the fact, or withdraw your claim that you have one.
Another telling insight into MacM's world view.
You are now claiming that no experiment will sway you from your fantasy world. Once MacM has declared by AD HOC FIAT that something is impossible, no evidence will be accepted to say otherwise. And then you have the gall to accuse other people of your own failings.
The H&K experiment involved not only SR but also GR effects. Gravitational time dilation is not symmetrical. Not that you have the capacity to understand that.
Who are these mysterious "many scientist"? All you have produced so far is a single nutter.
Already done. Your memory is failing. Read the thread.
You don't know the first thing about relativity.
You misunderstand the nature of the symmetry you are talking about. I have explained to you in what sense the situation is and is not symmetrical. Relabelling "symmetry" as "reciprocity" doesn't change anything.
The only "declaration" made is the sensible one that your statements are all ambiguous, and therefore useless, unless you specify reference frames. Instead of addressing the issue, you choose to ignore it, which is just wilful blindness, as usual.
What kind of energy? You're so unclear that I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Show me your "development" from your "dynamic field". Address the fact, or withdraw your claim that you have one.
Another telling insight into MacM's world view.
You are now claiming that no experiment will sway you from your fantasy world. Once MacM has declared by AD HOC FIAT that something is impossible, no evidence will be accepted to say otherwise. And then you have the gall to accuse other people of your own failings.
The H&K experiment involved not only SR but also GR effects. Gravitational time dilation is not symmetrical. Not that you have the capacity to understand that.
Who are these mysterious "many scientist"? All you have produced so far is a single nutter.
Already done. Your memory is failing. Read the thread.
You don't know the first thing about relativity.
James R said:
Address the issue of reciprocity and stop bumping your gums.
Sensible to who? You. If you need step by step instructions let me suggest you are lacking something besides information.
Really? "Energy" due to relative velocity, or the lack of it. Now just how many kinds of energy fit that description? You are a waste of our time.
You, and anyone, are free to read the derivation on site in its fullest. I am not about to re-write what is already available just for your whim.
We note that your weapon of choice remains unsupported commentary and not actual evidence of any errors.
Well before you declare my view as being a failing, let me suggest you first present the data of any test which actually followed the reciprocity required by Relativity.
I want to see a clock which both ran slow as predicted by an observer and I want to either see the same clock display the time as viewed by a second observer at a different relative velocity or I want to see the observers clock as viewed by the clock that the observer claimed ran slow.
Apparently I understand a bit better than you. Of course H&K involved GR but it was the SRT aspect and your claims (and others here) that such clock experiment had proven SRT that is under question. Don't think you can switch the issue and ignore the problem you have. Unless you can produce the data requested, i.e. - A clock that displays BOTH its proper time and the time stated via SRT by an observer at a relative velocity, at the same time, don't claim you have no problem for you do.
Unfortunately you have deliberately lied here. There was no evidence that the article was by a nutter. Further there were 3-4 other names and comments by other scientist; including the guy that designed the clocks which said H&Kwere bullshit. If the data tables shown were infact H&K data tables (and I've seen no proof or evidence it was not the H&K data) then indeed they made gross manipulations and unsupported assumptions to arrive at conclusions which as published were unsuported by the test. Now before you go off on your usual verbal attack let me suggest you provide actual evidence that the data was not H&K data.
False. You have provided nothing but hot air and disjointed claims, falling back on your favorite proof of SRT wich is FIAT Declarations of SRT itself. Worthless circular logic.
And you have no idea just how ludricrus you are making yourself by crawling into the corner waving your arms and not providing the anwer to my most valid question:
"Where is the data for the other clock's view per Relativity?". I want to see two observers and two clocks that support both observers views at the same time.
Last edited:
AndersHermansson
Registered Senior Member
MacM said:
MacM:
You will have to start making yourself clear, instead of just rambling like this. WHICH "issue of reciprocity" are you referring to?
You should make yourself clear. Do you mean kinetic energy, or something else? And if you are referring to kinetic energy, please phrase your question in a clear manner. What is it that you are asking about kinetic energy?
You obviously haven't read this thread. Try again.
I have no idea what you mean by "reciprocity". Please explain.
You're rambling again. This sentence makes no sense. Do you want to try again?
No clock displays two different times at once. I've already explained that to you. Many times.
Are you now, finally, asking me how I would set up the two clocks with their monitors to display the correct times according to relativity? I can show you that, if you're interested. However, given that you object to "FIAT" declarations, I doubt it would be of much value to you. Of course, it would show that your understanding of relativity as a theory is fundamentally misguided, but you already know that.
You will have to start making yourself clear, instead of just rambling like this. WHICH "issue of reciprocity" are you referring to?
You should make yourself clear. Do you mean kinetic energy, or something else? And if you are referring to kinetic energy, please phrase your question in a clear manner. What is it that you are asking about kinetic energy?
You obviously haven't read this thread. Try again.
I have no idea what you mean by "reciprocity". Please explain.
You're rambling again. This sentence makes no sense. Do you want to try again?
No clock displays two different times at once. I've already explained that to you. Many times.
Are you now, finally, asking me how I would set up the two clocks with their monitors to display the correct times according to relativity? I can show you that, if you're interested. However, given that you object to "FIAT" declarations, I doubt it would be of much value to you. Of course, it would show that your understanding of relativity as a theory is fundamentally misguided, but you already know that.
James R said:
It might help if you read what has been posted. We are discussing the affect on clocks due to relative motion. Only during a test period one direction. It does not include acceleration/deceleration or turn around (3 frames of reference).
It involves only the claim that an observer causes a remote clock to actually tick slower by the formula t2 = t1 ( 1 - v^2/c^2 ) ^.5. You know and I know that Relativity holds that either clock can be stated as being at rest and the other clock in motion. That creates a reciprocity between affects on the clocks such that each clock must display its local proper time and also display the time as claimed by the moving observer to be phsically real and not some observational distortion.
I asked that you supply a list of energies that you think express "Relative Energy" between observers in relative motion or comoving with no relative motion. Don't be obtuse. It doesn't help you make your case.
No it has been stated repeatedly quite clearly. Just answer the question.
LOL. You explained that to me.
I've been explaining it to you for over a year now. You mean it is finally starting to sink in?Are you now, finally, asking me how I would set up the two clocks with their monitors to display the correct times according to relativity? I can show you that, if you're interested. However, given that you object to "FIAT" declarations, I doubt it would be of much value to you. Of course, it would show that your understanding of relativity as a theory is fundamentally misguided, but you already know that.[/QUOTE]
MacM:
And so...?
All energies are relative.
The question was not intelligible.
One would think that, after all this time, you would have begun to understand the twin paradox.
Instead, you continue to make idiotic claims like the one above.
No clock ever displays two different times at once!
And NOTHING in relativity says they do, either. This is all MacM's dream world.
And so...?
All energies are relative.
The question was not intelligible.
One would think that, after all this time, you would have begun to understand the twin paradox.
Instead, you continue to make idiotic claims like the one above.
No clock ever displays two different times at once!
And NOTHING in relativity says they do, either. This is all MacM's dream world.
James R said:
And so, reciprocity mandated by Relativity creases an impossible physical realiety.
Show me where I have ever said otherwise. It was you that questioned the issue of energy between moving observers.
You are being deliberately obtuse.
I do but it is apparent you do not. I would think a oerson claiming to be an expert onRelativity would understand the issue of reciprocity by now.
Instead you continue to address your own version of the issue or pretend dumb.
I do agree and point out that that is what I have said all along.
Then show a valid basis to exclude or ignore reciprocity in data when evaluating a two moving observer time dilations at constant relative velocity vs two different stated tick rates for each of the clocks.
Since yo claim the issue doesn't existjust explain how you write off the requirement that either A or B can be considered at rest and it is the opposite clock that runs slow. That is two different tick rates for each clock.
James R said:
And so, reciprocity mandated by Relativity creates an impossible physical reality.
Show me where I have ever said otherwise. It was you that questioned the issue of energy between moving observers.
You are being deliberately obtuse.
I do but it is apparent you do not. I would think a person claiming to be an expert on Relativity would understand the issue of reciprocity by now.
Instead you continue to address your own version of the issue or pretend dumb.
I do agree and point out that that is what I have said all along.
Then show a valid basis to exclude or ignore reciprocity in data when evaluating a two moving observer time dilations at constant relative velocity vs two different stated tick rates for each of the clocks.
Since you claim the issue doesn't exist just explain how you write off the requirement that either A or B can be considered at rest and it is the opposite clock that runs slow. That is two different tick rates for each clock.
Last edited:
MacM said:
Done, many times.
Here's three:
[post=674117]Pete spells out the Lorentz transform for the three clocks[/post]
[post=674637]James shows the spacetime diagram for moving clocks[/post]
[post=609407]Pete shows two spacetime diagrams showing events in two reference frames, elegantly illustrating the symmetry of SR[/post]
Pete said:
1 - All of which make declarations about SRT.
2 - None of which addresses the issue at hand.
ISSUE: The issue is extraordinarily simple.
a - Clock "A" is at rest.
b - Clock "A" ALWAYS ticks at it's local proper time rate.
c - Hence; clock "A" can NEVER tick at anyother rate than it's own proper time; regardless of how many different observers watch it from a distance at a muiltitude of different relative velocities.
d - Regardless of any number of tests, observations or evidence to the contrary, such evidence or observations clearly must be from causes other than a change in the reality of time for the clock based on others observations.
e - This has nothng to do with logic, counter-intuitive, understanding or not understanding any theory. It has to do with a first principle. That being nothing justifies an IMPOSSIBILITY.
Now address the issue. How do you justify claiming that any physical clock ever ticks at a rate different than it's own local proper time tick rate.
Understanding of course that tick rates translate into accumulated time intervals and hence display of different times.
Persol said:
I didn't forget anything. I still await you to show me the clock "A" that displays "B's" view of its time. I only ever see "A's" local time displayed.
You can wish and dream but that simply is not fact. It is sticking you head where the sun doesn't shine and pretending you know something nobodyelse does.
Persol said:
Good now you agree it is perceptional. Since upon returning clocks to their side by side origin after a given relative velocity test, shut down and returned, they will read the same.
Neither one will or can display a different time based on the perception of the moving observer.
We can explore such observations in a new light and understandings once you have mastered the ability to think rationally and accept the obvious.
Your rest clock and your moving clock will always display their accumulated time as a function of their local proper time which is always viewed as being at rest and unchanging by anothers view of it.
Show me your clock with multiple displays at the same time, then we can talk.- Status