The Twin Paradox Made Simple

[marcospolo]

marcospolo;

 

 

---

In the 1905 paper, Einstein used electromagnetism to demonstrate the 'principle of relativity', that a current was formed whether the magnet moved or the coil moved, and only required relative motion between the 2 objects. Based on similar physical processes, he could find no reason for a special frame of reference for rules (human concepts of laws) of physics. All inertial frames were acceptable.

---

---

The Minkowski diagram or an equivalent is the geometric expression of the Lorentz/Einstein coordinate transformations. It's the adage 'a picture's worth a thousand words'. Graphics show multiple relationships much easier than a page of text. Minkowski only generalized SR with  'time' as a dimension, but only in a mathematical sense. He made it a lines on paper theory with all lines being equal. The return of the signal is part of the clock synch convention, which an observer at A would use to determine distance of a remote event.

---

---

Look again! The U time for light arrival at B is 1.73. The LT transforms the U data to the A data correctly. The point was to show all 3 approaches produced the same results.

---

Before SR, Lorentz realized Maxwells equations required modifications of time to make them invariant. Einstein dismissed an ether as unnecessary, and developed coordinate transforms  identical to those of Lorentz.

----

---

You are condemning something you don't understand.

 

Well its not just me that "doesn't understand" I'm in good company here. We have rational, sensible arguments from people who use sound logical arguments, Relativists have only their religious beliefs to support their ideas. Everyone know how hard it is to argue with a Mormon, well a Relativist is twice as unreasonable!

 

In Einsteins light clock experiment, the photon arrives at the top mirror for both observers at the same time, whether going diagonally or vertically.

But in my experiment the light fails to reach the sensor B at the same time for both observers, because its simply can not do two things at once.

This is the error of Einstein.  

 

Also, Clearly if there is a problem in Maxwell's equations, that prompted Lorentz to invent a fudge factor, then what SHOULD have happened is that we agreed that Maxwell's equations are not representative of what we observe in the real world, so they are simply wrong, and should have been dropped.

 

The Minkowski diagram is simply a graphic illustration of two theories that have grave errors, nothing more. Its not useful if the theories that it tries to illustrate are wrong, which they most certainly are.

Einsteins method of syncing clocks is problematic and has been explained before by others.

 

Relativity relies on an endless loop of claims that are only based on prior assumptions that are demonstrably false.

 

So, in my video, how would Einstein explain the fact that the event where the light can never reach the sensor B for both observers, whereas in Einsteins similar light clock experiment he shows that the light DOES reach the mirrors simultaneously?   Can you explain that?

 

The ONLY reason turns out to be that Einstein's light clock (which is based on Maxwell's electrodynamic equations,) contains a fundamental error.

 

Relativity is based on a fudge factor and that is the reason why its impossible to explain in a rational manner.

 

Einstein started all this fog of uncertainty and nonsensical thoughts, because he could not accept that there may be some absoluteness to the universe?

Or he at least could not figure out how to explain it!   Sound like he was trying to twist science to support his religious beliefs, to which is is very dedicated.

 

And now we have the mess that is Relativity.  To this day, there will never be a consensus about the validity of Relativity, because peoples Religious beliefs override common sense.

[marcospolo]

No, obviously in these kinds of thought experiments it's assumed that none of the clocks are crappy.

 

Of course all the speedos are correct, this part has nothing to do with relativity. If there's a speedometer at the side of the road that measure a bike traveling along the road at 100mph then a speedometer in a car that's traveling at 50mph in the same direction will measure the bike moving at 50mph.

 

I'm not quite sure about you wording here. Did you mean, ' if we assume that the other frames do not have the same absolute time as the ship then which one is reality?' The reality is that objects in motion relative to each other are length contracted and time dilated from the perspective of the other frame and neither has a privileged perspective because all inertial frames are equally valid, because there's no absolute inertial motion as I explained earlier using the relative motion of the Earth, sun and galaxy.

 

In all inertial frames yes, it slows if you accelerate.

 

Relative to their own frame of reference. In the example of the ship moving at half the speed of light relative to an observer, the light beam on the ship will be moving at the speed of light relative to this observer, so will be moving at half the speed of light relative to ship from this observer's frame (assuming that the light beam is moving in the same direction as the ship of course, 1.5c relative to the ship if the light beam moving in the opposite direction of the ship).

 

No that's not what's responsible for the age difference once they're back in the same. While they're in motion relative to each other they are both length contracted and time dilation from the perspective of the other observer's frame. It's changing your frame of reference that causes you to experience less time passing for you compared to an observer who stays in the same frame.

 

No, classical physics (I think classical physics actually includes relativity but not QM but I know what you meant) is like the bike/car/road example I used. The bike is traveling at 100mph relative to the road and the car is moving at 50mph relative to the road, so the bike is moving at 50mph relative to the car. Now if we increase the speed of the car to half the speed of light relative to the road and replace the bike with a light beam then the light beam is moving at c relative to the speedometer at the side of the road but it's not moving at 0.5c relative to the car, it's moving at c. Time dilation and length contraction are the only way this makes sense. They prevent a paradox, not create one.

 

Also there are no stationary or moving guys unless you define a frame of reference for their motion to be measured.

 

If observers in any frame look at the clock on board the ship they will see that it took one millisecond to cross the ship according to the ship's clock, but longer than that according to their own watches and the faster the ship is moving relative to the observer, the longer the light will take to reach the other side of the ship according to their own watches (because the speed of the light beam relative to ship is slower the faster the ship is moving relative to the observer because of the consistency of the speed of light).

 

No he doesn't.

 

No it isn't.

 

Of course you can't. If it reaches the other side of the ship then it reach it in all frames and will take one millisecond on the ship's clock in every frame.

 

The ships length will be less in a frame in which the ship is moving, the faster it's moving relative to the observer the shorter the ship will be in it's direction of motion in the same way that its clocks slow down as its relative velocity increases.

 

No because for one thing the speed of light would not be constant and various experiments have shown that it is and also it would require a privileged frame of reference and there's no reason why one frame would be special.

 

SR is the simplest model that's consistent with a constant speed of light for all inertial observers. In fact I think it's the only one, at least the only one that makes sense.

Except that it can't be demonstrated that the speed of light IS always measured at c in ANY frame, regardless of its velocity. It seems correct to claim that its a constant speed in an absolute sense, but not when measured from moving observers. That is an illogical and incorrect assumption. And the root error of Einstein.

 

Anyway, what you claim is this:

 

A > B AND B > A.  Can you not see the error with relativity when expressed in this simplest form?

 

In Einsteins light clock, the photon arrives at the top mirror at the same instant for any observer, but in my light clock, it does not!   How can you explain that?

What I'm saying is that in Einsteins light clock experiment, he makes an incorrect assumption, so his conclusions about "time must shrink" are also incorrect.

Edited October 20, 2018 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

To prove that the math involving Maxwell and all that follows along Einstein’s path is incorrect, consider this:

 

In a Minkowski diagram, or any graph showing distance over time, if we set the units of one axis to be years, and the other to be the distance light travels in one year, we will get a vector of 45 degrees representing the speed of light. This is standard.

 

Now Special relativity claims that if I go almost the speed of light, the ratio I need to use to translate my time into true relativistic time, increases all the way up to infinity.

But lest stop short of going at light speed. Say I only go 90 odd percent of the speed of light, where the ratio is something like 20 to one.

 

20 Earth years elapse but only one year for the spaceships occupant... This is well within the realms of Einstein’s claims. Others have gone to thousands to one ratio.

 

How is the ratio calculated?

 

Lorentz did that very thing to develop his transform equation.    

Lorentz used Pythagoras theorem on a right angled triangle.

 

So lets draw a triangle where you have the maximum speed possible, c, and see what happens.

 

That means one year on one axis and one light year on the other scale, with the vector of light speed being 45 degrees.

 

A quick check using Pythagoras reveals a ratio of exactly 1.4142135624  to 1.

 

That is the MAXIMUM ratio possible between the side of the triangle  (representing time) and the hypotenuse (representing the speed of light)

 

So if I traveled at near the speed of light, I would never get to the point where one of my seconds was the same as 20 of Earth seconds, would I?

 

It could only ever be a maximum of 1.4 Earth seconds equals one of my seconds.

 

Any speed less than light speed gives less than 1.4 ratio. 

 

How can you say that we can ever get to infinity? where one axis is either zero length or an infinite length?

 

The only way this can happen is if you have math errors, based on incorrect assumptions.

 

The first incorrect assumption was that you could explain time and light with a triangle.

That the hypotenuse represented one persons view of light speed, and the vertical triangle side represented another observers view of light speed.

This is the height of stupidity.

[Vmedvil2]

Alright relativity, basically Lorentz in-variance is a differential equation that is the derivative of COS(F(x)), This is special relativity of a triangle and the Pythagoras theorem, which is the distance traveled by the object in a 2-D vector system.

 

 

Here is the geometry of a light cone in SR which s = d where h and r are a and b in this equation.

 

[marcospolo]

Too bad the logic is wrong to start with.

 

No light photon will ever do the zig zag, under any circumstances. And also, one photon going somewhere will be observed to have done just one thing from any point of view.

So math may seem OK, but its BS based on an error of reason.

 

[sluggo]

marcospolo;

In Einsteins light clock experiment, the photon arrives at the top mirror for both observers at the same time, whether going diagonally or vertically.
But in my experiment the light fails to reach the sensor B at the same time for both observers, because its simply can not do two things at once.
This is the error of Einstein. 

---
Observers A and B have a relative motion. In the 1905 paper (have you read it?), Einstein says there is an A time and a B time, but no common (universal) time. The reason being, light speed was discovered in the 1600's (through astronomical observations) to be finite.
Given A and B have identical light clocks, at rest the measured transit time for a photon to the mirror is .5 units. If the B-clock moves away from A, its photon will have to compensate for the motion of the clock (like a hunter leads the target). Since the photon speed is constant and (more importantly) independent of its source, it will intercept the B- mirror after the A-clock interception. In terms of energy, the B photon uses some of its energy compensating for the clock motion, with the remainder as the clock component, i.e. the clock process runs slower.
If the times were equal for A and B, there would be no need of coordinate transformations.

Clearly if there is a problem in Maxwell's equations, that prompted Lorentz to invent a fudge factor, then what SHOULD have happened is that we agreed that Maxwell's equations are not representative of what we observe in the real world, so they are simply wrong, and should have been dropped.

---
The work of Maxwell and Lorentz was a good 1st approximation for the physics of that era, but was lacking when considered in a 'relativity' framework. GR explained the anomaly of Mercurys orbit, where Newtons gravity could not. It's a case of constant refinement.

 

 

 

[sluggo]

 

this graphic was a response to Moronium that two observers with relative motion and synched clocks would each calculate the other clock to run slow (red lines).

The vertical axis is ct, the horizontal axis x=vt. The slanted line is thus vt/ct=v/c (speed).

Edited October 22, 2018 by sluggo

[marcospolo]

marcospolo;

---

Observers A and B have a relative motion. In the 1905 paper (have you read it?), Einstein says there is an A time and a B time, but no common (universal) time. The reason being, light speed was discovered in the 1600's (through astronomical observations) to be finite.

Given A and B have identical light clocks, at rest the measured transit time for a photon to the mirror is .5 units. If the B-clock moves away from A, its photon will have to compensate for the motion of the clock (like a hunter leads the target). Since the photon speed is constant and (more importantly) independent of its source, it will intercept the B- mirror after the A-clock interception. In terms of energy, the B photon uses some of its energy compensating for the clock motion, with the remainder as the clock component, i.e. the clock process runs slower.

If the times were equal for A and B, there would be no need of coordinate transformations.

---

The work of Maxwell and Lorentz was a good 1st approximation for the physics of that era, but was lacking when considered in a 'relativity' framework. GR explained the anomaly of Mercurys orbit, where Newtons gravity could not. It's a case of constant refinement.

 

You watched the video but your thinking was switched off.

There is no sound reason to claim two different times. That is his postulate, his guess.  If the B clack moves away, then sorry, but its clear and rational and logical and sensible to say that they photon WILL never "compensate" so that it follows the target mirror.Has it got a tracking device? How does it know where the top mirror is moving to?  You are talking physical garbage to suggest such a thing. So it uses some of its energy now?  Thats a new one.   Does it have little thruster jets to change course in transit?

 

Time is just time, its not different here or there, its not different anywhere. You can have calculation to measure the positions of the relative objects, by time is not an object, so proceed with your coordinate transformations, but forget about time.  Time is not a coordinate. 

 

GR explains Mercury's orbit, but so does the theory that god or his fairies account for the abnormality.  Having a theory does not mean the theory is correct, or even sane.

There are other classical physics theories that explain Mercury's orbit, that don't have to invent curving space-time, length contracting or time shrinking.

 

 

 

[marcospolo]

synched clocks-35.gif

 

this graphic was a response to Moronium that two observers with relative motion and synched clocks would each calculate the other clock to run slow (red lines).

The vertical axis is ct, the horizontal axis x=vt. The slanted line is thus vt/ct=v/c (speed).

Wow, that's one really crappy graph isn't it?

Is it modern art maybe? because it sure does not show anything real.

 

Whats the vertical axis again? ct? what is that exactly? time or speed or distance? it can only be distance right? ( v*t=distance)  And the horizontal axis is distance, too, so it is a position map, of x,y coordinates, time is not mentioned on this plot, nor is speed. Only distances, its a map.

 

What is wrong with your head? You think that two guys with identical clocks can claim that each others clock is slower than their own, and both be correct? 

 

A>B   and B>A   is just impossible logically, or in reality.   Unless you prefer to work in the irrational imaginary wold where there are fairies and unicorns and there is no rational thought or logic.

[A-wal]

Except that it can't be demonstrated that the speed of light IS always measured at c in ANY frame, regardless of its velocity. It seems correct to claim that its a constant speed in an absolute sense, but not when measured from moving observers. That is an illogical and incorrect assumption. And the root error of Einstein.

I don't know what you mean by 'constant in an absolute sense, but not when measured from moving observers'? Either the relative velocity of light depends on the relative velocity of the emitter or it doesn't, if it doesn't it's constant.

 

You're correct that if the speed of light isn't the same in all inertial frames then SR isn't a true description of reality. SR is based entirely on this postulate and is an accurate description of the implications of it.

 

The consistency of the speed of light is well established. Of course it can't be tested in every frame because there's literally an infinite number of them and it can only be tested in very specific situations but it has been shown that the speed of light is unaffected by the relative velocity of the emitter, which means it has to be the same in all inertial frames.

 

Anyway, what you claim is this:

 

A > B AND B > A.  Can you not see the error with relativity when expressed in this simplest form?

 

In Einsteins light clock, the photon arrives at the top mirror at the same instant for any observer, but in my light clock, it does not!   How can you explain that?

What I'm saying is that in Einsteins light clock experiment, he makes an incorrect assumption, so his conclusions about "time must shrink" are also incorrect.

The photons don't arrive at the top mirror at the same instant for any observer, that statement doesn't even make sense because there's no way to define 'the same instant' in two different frames. They have their own measurements of time, that's the whole point.

 

What you can do is compare the time duration between two events from different frames, like the light being emitted from one side of the ship and that light reaching the other side of the ship. The time between those two events will be different in every frame of reference. The greater the observer's motion relative to the ship, the longer it will take for the light to cross the ship. The time it takes in the ships frame is what determines whether the bomb detonates so different tick rates (and lengths) in no way cause any kind of paradox, they resolve the apparent paradox of light moving at the same relative velocity in all inertial frames.

 

 

Look at the bike/car/road example again. The speed of the bike is 100mph relative to the road, the speed of the car going in the same direction is 50mph relative to the road so the speed of the bike is 50mph relative to the car. This is without time dilation and length contraction, actually there is a small amount but not enough to effect measurements.

 

But if the bike is now a light beam then the speed of the light beam relative to the road is c, the car is moving at 0.5c relative to the road. Without length contraction and time dilatation the speed of the light beam relative to the car would be 0.5c but it's not 0.5c because the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames, it's 1c. This means from the car's perspective, the speed of the light beam relative to the road is 1.5c. The light beam has a different velocity relative to the road from the car's perspective and the only way that can possibly work is with time dilation and length contraction.

[sluggo]

Wow, that's one really crappy graph isn't it?

Is it modern art maybe? because it sure does not show anything real.

 

Whats the vertical axis again? ct? what is that exactly? time or speed or distance? it can only be distance right? ( v*t=distance)  And the horizontal axis is distance, too, so it is a position map, of x,y coordinates, time is not mentioned on this plot, nor is speed. Only distances, its a map.

 

What is wrong with your head? You think that two guys with identical clocks can claim that each others clock is slower than their own, and both be correct? 

 

A>B   and B>A   is just impossible logically, or in reality.   Unless you prefer to work in the irrational imaginary wold where there are fairies and unicorns and there is no rational thought or logic.

If you don't understand the math (algebra) or the graphics, then you won't see any of it as proof.

fig.1 ann: lite clock at rest, 1 unit of time from emitter (ED) to mirror M.

fig.2,bill: clock moving at .6c, light moving at an angle gets 80% of distance to M, as seen by ann.

fig.3 bill:reads .8 on his clock, but does not question it since his biological clock agrees.

[marcospolo]

If you don't understand the math (algebra) or the graphics, then you won't see any of it as proof.

lite clock.gif

fig.1 ann: lite clock at rest, 1 unit of time from emitter (ED) to mirror M.

fig.2,bill: clock moving at .6c, light moving at an angle gets 80% of distance to M, as seen by ann.

fig.3 bill:reads .8 on his clock, but does not question it since his biological clock agrees.

 

 

You seem to have your own twisted logic wrong, even when explaining it to me.

 

What Ann "thinks" she sees, (which is IMPOSSIBLE as per my video) has no effect on Bills measurements. So even if this light clock thought experiment were possible, Bill will measure the clock working normally, and Ann will measure the light traveling further than it would had the clock been stationary, so will not experience any time dilations and she will never think that Bill will either.  She will just see the light going at c, aver a longer distance.  You must now say that the time must change, BECAUSE the light did arrive at the top mirror, for both obd=servers, so something must change, and we know it cant be the speed of light......

 

but you are wrong, the light does NOT arrive at the top mirror at the same time for both observers......(because this scenario is fundamentally one big error, see my video which shows the ONLY thing that will happen to that light when the clock is moved sideways very fast.)

 

Don't believe me? 

 

Well look at the last post by  A-Wal, where he says:

 

"The photons don't arrive at the top mirror at the same instant for any observer, that statement doesn't even make sense because there's no way to define 'the same instant' in two different frames."

 

So he is claiming that the light can NOT arrive to the top mirror at the same time, but in your explanation of SR, the light MUST arrive at the same time.  Without this synchronization of the lights arrival at the top mirror, you can not derive any tine dilation can you?

 

You and A-wal, as staunch Relativists, need to get together and figure out how relativity is supposed to work, before you both start trying to explain it to people who know better.

[marcospolo]

I don't know what you mean by 'constant in an absolute sense, but not when measured from moving observers'? Either the relative velocity of light depends on the relative velocity of the emitter or it doesn't, if it doesn't it's constant.

 

You're correct that if the speed of light isn't the same in all inertial frames then SR isn't a true description of reality. SR is based entirely on this postulate and is an accurate description of the implications of it.

 

The consistency of the speed of light is well established. Of course it can't be tested in every frame because there's literally an infinite number of them and it can only be tested in very specific situations but it has been shown that the speed of light is unaffected by the relative velocity of the emitter, which means it has to be the same in all inertial frames.

 

The photons don't arrive at the top mirror at the same instant for any observer, that statement doesn't even make sense because there's no way to define 'the same instant' in two different frames. They have their own measurements of time, that's the whole point.

 

What you can do is compare the time duration between two events from different frames, like the light being emitted from one side of the ship and that light reaching the other side of the ship. The time between those two events will be different in every frame of reference. The greater the observer's motion relative to the ship, the longer it will take for the light to cross the ship. The time it takes in the ships frame is what determines whether the bomb detonates so different tick rates (and lengths) in no way cause any kind of paradox, they resolve the apparent paradox of light moving at the same relative velocity in all inertial frames.

 

 

 

Well you made a boo boo here.

 

But first, what don't you get about imagining , in an imaginary thought experiment, that there is an imaginary absolute static frame used for the purpose of comparing motions of imaginary objects in our other imaginary frames, in our imaginary thought experiment? 

 

There is some numerical limit to your imagination? 

 

The speed of light in all inertial frames.... you or anyone else has ever tested the speed of light in any more than ONE frame. Thats the frame we are in now. We cant step out of it, we must always be in the frame we are in. Even If we are standing on the foot path, then hop into a car, then from lights point of view, we are still in the one frame, thats the frame where there are people, an Earth and some cars. You can even add in the Moon and Sun, these things all exist in a little frame called the solar system, where the motions of everything is easily explained from light point of view.  From Light s point of view, it is absolute.

 

And even if you could have measure lights speed as c in a number of different frames, that does not mean it will be measure as still the same speed if you are moving alongside it at almost light speed.  How could it be? Can you provide a mathematical and geometrical illustration as to the physicality of that process?

 

Now, the BooBoo.

 

You said: "The photons don't arrive at the top mirror at the same instant for any observer, that statement doesn't even make sense because there's no way to define 'the same instant' in two different frames.".

 

So now given this revelation, you have just totally destroyed Einsteins Hypothesis yourself.  

How?  well, as light does NOT reach the top mirror at the same time for both observers, (according to your statement) can you now run quickly through the zig zag Vs vertical path of the photon proof of Lorentz, using Pythagoras theorem as embraced by Einstein, (a core aspect of his theory) now that the photon/light is NOT making the trip and arriving at the same spot on the top mirror? You have no triangle now.  There is nothing in common between the two observers that can be uses to form a hypothesis.

One guy says the light has arrived,, i have my data, including the time, but the other guy says, well you must be gathering data about some other experiment, because from here, the light is still in transit, the experiment is still running, and I don't have any final results to share with you. How can we do a comparative experiment involving the sensitive measurements of time and velocity, when one observer cant agree that the critical experiment duration event to conclude the experiment, (and the starting event) are not common to both observers?

 

The only way this can occur, is that one observer is using the equipment at a different time, the two observers are talking about two separate tests, run on different days maybe.

 

But I submit that the reason for all this confusion is simply because the whole hypothesis you are trying to test is one big error from the get-go.

 

See my video again on how a light clock will function if moved really fast sideways, and it is clear that no triangle will ever be formed, so there can never be any math derived from Pythagoras theorem, and the ships observer will only be watching a clock that is not functioning.

 

Watch it again, but this time think about it.

 

R.I.P. Special Relativity.

[A-wal]

Well you made a boo boo here.

 

But first, what don't you get about imagining , in an imaginary thought experiment, that there is an imaginary absolute static frame used for the purpose of comparing motions of imaginary objects in our other imaginary frames, in our imaginary thought experiment? 

 

There is some numerical limit to your imagination?

Of course you can use an absolute static frame and SR obviously won't be consistent with that model. You can't use one model to refute another completely different model, that's absurd. There is no absolute frame in SR, you have to specify which frame you're using because objects in motion relative to that frame are time dilated and length contracted, so a single event happening 'at the same time' in two different frames doesn't even make sense.

 

The speed of light in all inertial frames.... you or anyone else has ever tested the speed of light in any more than ONE frame. Thats the frame we are in now. We cant step out of it, we must always be in the frame we are in. Even If we are standing on the foot path, then hop into a car, then from lights point of view, we are still in the one frame, thats the frame where there are people, an Earth and some cars. You can even add in the Moon and Sun, these things all exist in a little frame called the solar system, where the motions of everything is easily explained from light point of view.  From Light s point of view, it is absolute.

No, of course objects in motion relative to each other are in different frames, that's how frames are defined.

 

If a bike is traveling at 100mph relative to the road then it's traveling at 50mph relative to a car traveling along the road at 50mph, 100 - 50 = 50. Light on the other hand is moving at the same velocity from the perspective of the bike, the car and the road. The only way that can happen is with time dilation and length contraction.

 

And even if you could have measure lights speed as c in a number of different frames, that does not mean it will be measure as still the same speed if you are moving alongside it at almost light speed.  How could it be? Can you provide a mathematical and geometrical illustration as to the physicality of that process?

That's exactly what SR is! A description of how measurements of time (dilation) and space (contraction) of objects in motion relative to every frame have to vary if light moves at the same speed in all of them.

 

Now, the BooBoo.

 

You said: "The photons don't arrive at the top mirror at the same instant for any observer, that statement doesn't even make sense because there's no way to define 'the same instant' in two different frames.".

 

So now given this revelation, you have just totally destroyed Einsteins Hypothesis yourself.  

How?  well, as light does NOT reach the top mirror at the same time for both observers, (according to your statement) can you now run quickly through the zig zag Vs vertical path of the photon proof of Lorentz, using Pythagoras theorem as embraced by Einstein, (a core aspect of his theory) now that the photon/light is NOT making the trip and arriving at the same spot on the top mirror? You have no triangle now.  There is nothing in common between the two observers that can be uses to form a hypothesis.

One guy says the light has arrived,, i have my data, including the time, but the other guy says, well you must be gathering data about some other experiment, because from here, the light is still in transit, the experiment is still running, and I don't have any final results to share with you. How can we do a comparative experiment involving the sensitive measurements of time and velocity, when one observer cant agree that the critical experiment duration event to conclude the experiment, (and the starting event) are not common to both observers?

 

The only way this can occur, is that one observer is using the equipment at a different time, the two observers are talking about two separate tests, run on different days maybe.

If you're talking about the light clock thought experiment where on board a ship the light in the clock moves vertically up and down but follows a longer zigzag path (so is time dilated) from the perspective of an observer in a frame where the ship is motion because the light has to travel a further distance in each 'tick' of the light clock then I don't understand your objection.

 

If the observer in the frame where the ship is moving has a light clock as well then that light will have to cover a further distance at the same constant speed so will have longer between 'ticks' from the perspective of the ship. Both are time dilated and length contracted from the perspective of the other because both are in motion relative to each other.

 

For the two to compare notes about timings they would have to be in the same frame so one would have to accelerate and that observer would see the other's clock speed up as they do. Once they've stopped accelerating and they're in the same frame as the other observer who didn't accelerate they can compare notes to see that their own clock was running slowly while they were in motion relative to this frame and is now running behind the clock that didn't accelerate. This works in exactly the same way whichever one accelerates into the other's frame.

 

But I submit that the reason for all this confusion is simply because the whole hypothesis you are trying to test is one big error from the get-go.

Every time you get into a muddle with SR you think that it's the model that's at fault rather than your own understanding of it. You'll never get anywhere close to understanding what the model actually describes with that mindset.

 

See my video again on how a light clock will function if moved really fast sideways, and it is clear that no triangle will ever be formed, so there can never be any math derived from Pythagoras theorem, and the ships observer will only be watching a clock that is not functioning.

 

Watch it again, but this time think about it.

I don't need to watch it again. You're claiming that the difference in the time it takes a light beam to cross a ship from the perspective of an observer in motion relative to the ship somehow causes a paradox, which is ridiculous because the light always takes the same amount of time to cross the ship on the ship's clock whichever frame you're in.

 

R.I.P. Special Relativity.

Yea okay. :)

[sluggo]

marcopolos;

 

What Ann "thinks" she sees, (which is IMPOSSIBLE as per my video) has no effect on Bills measurements. So even if this light clock thought experiment were possible, Bill will measure the clock working normally, and Ann will measure the light traveling further than it would had the clock been stationary, so will not experience any time dilations and she will never think that Bill will either.  She will just see the light going at c, aver a longer distance.  You must now say that the time must change, BECAUSE the light did arrive at the top mirror, for both obd=servers, so something must change, and we know it cant be the speed of light......

but you are wrong, the light does NOT arrive at the top mirror at the same time for both observers......(because this scenario is fundamentally one big error, see my video which shows the ONLY thing that will happen to that light when the clock is moved sideways very fast

 

–-

While (simultaneously) Ann’s clock reads 1, she observes (via light signals) Bill’s clock read .8, i.e. his clock running slow, and requiring 1/.8 = 1.25 A-clock units for the light at the mirror. Bill’s perception is altered by his speed so he accepts his reflection event as B 1.0 time. Both perceive a reflection at t = 1, but each will perceive the other clock as slow. All observers are moving, but they do not perceive their own time dilation. That is why physics is the same for all observers in constant (inertial) motion.

Your assessments of the situations are faulty because you don’t comprehend the basic principles involved.

Edited October 24, 2018 by sluggo

[sluggo]

marcospolo;

 

 

A quick check using Pythagoras reveals a ratio of exactly 1.4142135624  to 1.

 

That is the MAXIMUM ratio possible between the side of the triangle  (representing time) and the hypotenuse (representing the speed of light)

 

So if I traveled at near the speed of light, I would never get to the point where one of my seconds was the same as 20 of Earth seconds, would I?

 

 

Ed on earth watches Art leave at .9c to a destination 9 light sec distant. Ed records Arts arrival there at 10 sec.

All EM processes on Arts ship slow to 44% of their earth rate. He records arrival time of 4.4 sec. He also assumes a pseudo rest frame since his speed is constant. He concludes the destination arrived early (compared to earth charts) due to length contraction of the outside world as it flew by at .9c. Arts world is 44% the size of Eds world. The blue lines are light signals sent by Art to reflect from the destination, as seen by each observer.

[marcospolo]

Of course you can use an absolute static frame and SR obviously won't be consistent with that model. You can't use one model to refute another completely different model, that's absurd. There is no absolute frame in SR, you have to specify which frame you're using because objects in motion relative to that frame are time dilated and length contracted, so a single event happening 'at the same time' in two different frames doesn't even make sense.

 

No, of course objects in motion relative to each other are in different frames, that's how frames are defined.

 

If a bike is traveling at 100mph relative to the road then it's traveling at 50mph relative to a car traveling along the road at 50mph, 100 - 50 = 50. Light on the other hand is moving at the same velocity from the perspective of the bike, the car and the road. The only way that can happen is with time dilation and length contraction.

 

That's exactly what SR is! A description of how measurements of time (dilation) and space (contraction) of objects in motion relative to every frame have to vary if light moves at the same speed in all of them.

 

If you're talking about the light clock thought experiment where on board a ship the light in the clock moves vertically up and down but follows a longer zigzag path (so is time dilated) from the perspective of an observer in a frame where the ship is motion because the light has to travel a further distance in each 'tick' of the light clock then I don't understand your objection.

 

If the observer in the frame where the ship is moving has a light clock as well then that light will have to cover a further distance at the same constant speed so will have longer between 'ticks' from the perspective of the ship. Both are time dilated and length contracted from the perspective of the other because both are in motion relative to each other.

 

For the two to compare notes about timings they would have to be in the same frame so one would have to accelerate and that observer would see the other's clock speed up as they do. Once they've stopped accelerating and they're in the same frame as the other observer who didn't accelerate they can compare notes to see that their own clock was running slowly while they were in motion relative to this frame and is now running behind the clock that didn't accelerate. This works in exactly the same way whichever one accelerates into the other's frame.

 

Every time you get into a muddle with SR you think that it's the model that's at fault rather than your own understanding of it. You'll never get anywhere close to understanding what the model actually describes with that mindset.

 

I don't need to watch it again. You're claiming that the difference in the time it takes a light beam to cross a ship from the perspective of an observer in motion relative to the ship somehow causes a paradox, which is ridiculous because the light always takes the same amount of time to cross the ship on the ship's clock whichever frame you're in.

 

Yea okay. :)

Frames are inventions of fantasy. they do not exist. So the absolute frame is as valid in your relative world as any other frame.

all those individual frames you invent in your head, ARE all contained in one all encompassing frame.  This is not a difficult thing to imagine.

 

In fact that frame is the domain of light.  This is what you think. You just don't went to verbalize it.

Now you said it again: "so a single event happening 'at the same time' in two different frames doesn't even make sense.".

 

You cant even understand that if you think that, then you can never work through the light clock in a spaceship thought experiment.

You cant even see why this claim of yours make the light clock proof of time dilation, impossible.

 

You even agree that you don't understand it, you don't understand my objection.

 

You may have watched the video, buy cognitive dissonance has affected your ability to comprehend.

 

Ill go slow for you...

 

First, if as you claim, 'nothing happens at the same time".... then for both observers, the photon arrives at the top mirror as different events.

But Einstein requires the photon to arrive at the top mirror at exactly the same instant for both observers, otherwise you can not start comparing the lengths of the triangles height Vs the Hypotenuse. So you have no basis of geometry to develop the Lorentz equation. therefore no Special Relativity.

 

Second, 

You keep repeating the same error after its been proven to be an error of rational thought.

The stationary observer is not going to see a diagonal path, and the ship observer is not going to see his clock working period.

 

This is the facts of real physics.

 

The photon wont follow the ship to create a zigzag, and the photon won't reach the top mirror when inside the ship, it will crash into the clocks side containing walls. (assuming it is constructed like a tube with mirrors at each end)

 

And finally there is another problem for you.  Einstein in his paper on SR does indeed make use of an absolute frame of reference, but he only focuses on the stationary and moving frames.   However when you read the paper, it is clear that he sets up the whole thought experiment using a preferred, absolute stationary frame.