Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 1 votes

The Twin Paradox Made Simple

Special Relativity Twin Paradox

  • Please log in to reply
295 replies to this topic

#256 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3494 posts

Posted 26 October 2018 - 05:37 PM

Why are you applying some strange a irrational math to the real times on everyone's clocks?

Are you insane? We already have accurate clocks and correct records of the times on each clock.

 

Art went on a 9 year trip so is 9 years older due to the little known fact that it takes 9 years for 9 years to elapse!

 

In no universe is Art 4.4 years older.

 

And I called no one stupid,....

 

 

 

People should ignore him. He is being disisngenuous. 



#257 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 26 October 2018 - 06:11 PM

 

Why are you applying some strange a irrational math to the real times on everyone's clocks?

Are you insane? We already have accurate clocks and correct records of the times on each clock.

 

Art went on a 9 year trip so is 9 years older due to the little known fact that it takes 9 years for 9 years to elapse!

 

In no universe is Art 4.4 years older.

 

And I called no one stupid,....

 

 

 

People should ignore him. He is being disisngenuous. 

 

Great, when Relativists have no answer, the final solution is the big ignore.... typical.

 

Actually, it is you who are disingenuous. 

 

Ive gone to great lengths to point out line by line why you cant say that your theories are rational. 

At no point have I read a solid argument in favor of relativity, in reply to the issues raised.

 

In previous posts I have shown that you can not derive time dilation length contraction or mass increase using the thought experiments of Einstein.

No one has been able to demonstrate how it could work, unless you ignore half of the facts pertaining to the experiment.

 

Maybe "people" should ignore you, unless you have something to say that is logical and can be used to support the claims of Relativity.

It's no point repeating the same old stuff  we learned at high school. You need to show why the issues I raised are invalid.

You have not adequately done that.

 

 

 

 


Edited by marcospolo, 26 October 2018 - 06:31 PM.


#258 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3494 posts

Posted 26 October 2018 - 07:22 PM

You need to brush up on some language skills, like the definition of  duplicitous nature because they will ignore the evidence and important facts, to experiments, yet here we are, the greater amount of scientists, living in a kingdom of the blind.... newflash, the daily hilarity of hearing your arguments again, its so weak it boggles the mind, why you haven't got up of your fat arse and go learn this ****ing stuff? Or what it is the other deal, turned out too stupid to even understand that!

 

 

This is why I implore people to ignore you. You are a crank and a toiler and have no place here as an ani-scientist unless you want to take your views to pseudoscience, which i WOULD fully support for you. 


Edited by Dubbelosix, 26 October 2018 - 07:24 PM.


#259 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3494 posts

Posted 26 October 2018 - 07:29 PM

you have the video, go ahead, refute it blow by blow, we shall see if your arguments are  rational and logical. 

 

 

You know what... after our conversations, I will not. And I know your immediate immature response will be ''because you can't.'' I've never met anyone like you, its a great waste of time explaining anything in the video to you, because time and time and time again, you have shown to be incapable of understanding it So m answer is no, not because I cannot, but because I will not. 


Edited by Dubbelosix, 26 October 2018 - 07:29 PM.


#260 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 26 October 2018 - 09:13 PM

You know what... after our conversations, I will not. And I know your immediate immature response will be ''because you can't.'' I've never met anyone like you, its a great waste of time explaining anything in the video to you, because time and time and time again, you have shown to be incapable of understanding it So m answer is no, not because I cannot, but because I will not. 

 

You are clearly an ignoramus.  You think every argument I mentioned is all my own idea?  Its information gleaned from researching material from actual Physicists, and hundreds of academics from the last 100 years who do not agree with Einstein's Relativity.

 

This is not a race to compare the credentials of the people who first put their thought on paper, as the argument from authority is a fallacy.

 

If you can't understand the points I am making, then thats nothing to do with me, as most of the stuff I refer to is not my material.

 

So are none of these other guys able to understand relativity also? and none have been to University or studied  Relativity? 

 

Your ad hominem  attack on me is pathetic, and it really is indicative of the fact that you have no solid case to present. Period.

 

Who is going to believe you when your response to critical review of Relativity, with....  " You don't understand it, and you are immature, you are too stupid to understand."   

 

Great work there Einstein.

 

  Apart from name calling, which always works really well in an argument, your only response is that lots of people believe Einstein, and you have some experiments that you like to think support the theory.

 

Sorry, thats not good enough when your hypothesis is challenged, not where I come from.

 

I'm fairly sure no many people reading this thread is much interested in your comments anyway, given the caliber of your thoughts. 



#261 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1170 posts

Posted 27 October 2018 - 04:13 AM

You are half right.

 

Your mistake is in the incorrect assumption that light is like a cheap hooker, and will trot off with anyone, in any frame, for free!

 

 

 

Hold on, you said "cheap" not "free" make up your mind.

 

 

The truth is that light demonstrably only functions according to its own rules,, that involve its own "frame of reference" totally independent of any imaginary subordinate  temporary frame made up to suit subjective pretend frames of reference, which as you say, in which the laws of physics all work the same.

 

For simplicity lets call lights frame, the "absolute, stationary fixed, static frame of reference". For want of better words.

Now rethink my video, and you will see that this is the only scenario where all physics as we observe, work out correctly.

 

 

Well, maybe I will see it, if you can show me. So far, you haven't shown much of anything

 

 

Your assumptions lead to logical contradictions, so must be wrong.

Your setup says that given an million observers, all with different velocities, the photon will oblige each one of the million observers by doing one million different physical actions.  

 

 

 

No, in fact what I said is exactly the opposite! I said that a million different observers, in a million different frames of reference, must get the SAME result when performing the same experiment. In this case, all observers in any reference frame see the photon hit the top plate and none of them see the photon miss it.

 

AND you even say this yourself!   "We could never do coherent science, or any kind of science at all, in such a universe where an infinite number of inertial frames yield an infinite number of different results for the same experiment."

 

You cant seriously believe that this is reality.  Math maybe, but Physics, not.

 

 

I do not think that is the reality. It would be the reality if what you are saying is true. It is you who is claiming the photon hits the top plate in some frames and misses it in others.

 

 

 

In your scenario, (Einstein's) the claim is that the photon in any frame arrives at the top mirror simultaneously [after having proved that there is no such thing as simultaneity!} BUT never the less, the photon takes a different trajectory!   So this is surely contradicting your rule that the laws of Physics must be the SAME in all frames?

 

SAME, if you don't know, means that not just the arrival times coincide, but the rest of the physics must also coincide.  The trajectories in all frames MUST also be identical, according to the 1st postulate. 

 

 

 

What? I said nothing at all about simultaneity! The arrival of the photon at the top plate will NOT be simultaneous in all frames because of the relativity of simultaneity. Are you responding to my post, or something in your own head? I suggest you read my post again and show me where I even mention simultaneity. I didn't.

 

Make a claim of Physics , you need to stick to it, and apply it without prejudice.

 

If the EVENT of the photon arriving at the top mirror at exactly the same time in any frame is true, THEN applying the exact same laws of physics, the event involving TRAJECTORY, and VELOCITY must likewise be identical in any frame. If not, Einstein's first postulate is incorrect.

 

 

Again, it seems you are arguing against some demon in your head and not responding to anything I wrote.

 

I suppose any sort of rational discussion with you is impossible.

 

Maybe you should find another forum where your strange ideas will be better accepted. You are not having much luck here!



#262 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts

Posted 27 October 2018 - 10:16 AM

This appears to be Moronium II.


  • exchemist likes this

#263 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 27 October 2018 - 12:29 PM

Well, maybe I will see it, if you can show me. So far, you haven't shown much of anything

‚ÄčThis is cognitive dissonance here. the video surely introduces a totally different aspect to the light clock. Why you just pretend its not happened? How does SR explain the physical principlal that the photon will not strike the top mirror? You have not shown how this can fit in with your hypothesis.

 

 

 

No, in fact what I said is exactly the opposite! I said that a million different observers, in a million different frames of reference, must get the SAME result when performing the same experiment. In this case, all observers in any reference frame see the photon hit the top plate and none of them see the photon miss it.

 

OK, I agree.  But now you have a problem of self contradiction.  You insist on the one event becoming two events but only sometimes.

1.  ALL observers see the photon hit the mirror.  Physics is identical in every frame.

2. ALL observers see the photon do different things on the way to the top mirror.  Take different trajectories,, and arrive at different times.  So the Laws of Physics are NOT identical in every frame.

3. Conclusion; there is as many different Lawa of physics as there are observers with different motion.

 

And as a result, you can never derive the Lorentz transform for time or distance.

 

Lorentz relies on the fact that the photon DOES hit the top mirror as you say, BUT ALSO the photon MUST get there AT THE SAME INSTANT.  But you say now that it does NOT arrive at the same time.  So the Lorentz transform is impossible. 

 

If the photon arrives at the top mirror at totally different times for each observer, then there is no correlation between what each observer is seeing.

One observer says, "the photon has arrived, and I have recorded its arrival"  the other observer says, "In my experiment, the photon is still on its way, i'm still timing it."

 

The first observer will say, "you are timing some other photon, cause the one I'm watching has already departed the target and is on to some other place. "

 

How can you compare the lengths of the triangle height with its hypotenuse when the distance is calculated from the  velocity equation, d=v*t...  when the two observers are not witnessing the same event?

 

Explain this rationally and Ill give up posting here.

 

 

 



#264 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1170 posts

Posted 27 October 2018 - 01:51 PM

No need to give up on posting here as long as you are willing to at least consider that you may be wrong and relativity may be right.

 

Your posts are interesting anyway as they force people to think about things that they think they know, and that is a good thing.

 

Anyway, the answer to your question is that all observers observe the exact same trajectory in their own frames of reference, and that is vertical.

 

The triangular waveform would only be seen (if indeed it can be seen) when an observer looks from his frame to what is happening in another frame. For example, the observer in a stationary frame were to observe the light bouncing in a moving frame, sees the triangle. And even that is consistent with the laws of physics being the same in all frames because if the observer in the moving frame were to look across to the experiment in the stationary frame, he would see the triangle too!

 

Do you understand that now? If not, let me know where your confusion lies and I will try to explain it again.

 

Actually, the light clock is a dodgy way to explain relativity because it has its own problems, but I will not get into that until you get this reference frame thing clear in your mind.

 



#265 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts

Posted 27 October 2018 - 02:44 PM

 

Well, maybe I will see it, if you can show me. So far, you haven't shown much of anything

‚ÄčThis is cognitive dissonance here. the video surely introduces a totally different aspect to the light clock. Why you just pretend its not happened? How does SR explain the physical principlal that the photon will not strike the top mirror? You have not shown how this can fit in with your hypothesis.

 

 

 

No, in fact what I said is exactly the opposite! I said that a million different observers, in a million different frames of reference, must get the SAME result when performing the same experiment. In this case, all observers in any reference frame see the photon hit the top plate and none of them see the photon miss it.

 

OK, I agree.  But now you have a problem of self contradiction.  You insist on the one event becoming two events but only sometimes.

1.  ALL observers see the photon hit the mirror.  Physics is identical in every frame.

2. ALL observers see the photon do different things on the way to the top mirror.  Take different trajectories,, and arrive at different times.  So the Laws of Physics are NOT identical in every frame.

3. Conclusion; there is as many different Lawa of physics as there are observers with different motion.

 

And as a result, you can never derive the Lorentz transform for time or distance.

 

Lorentz relies on the fact that the photon DOES hit the top mirror as you say, BUT ALSO the photon MUST get there AT THE SAME INSTANT.  But you say now that it does NOT arrive at the same time.  So the Lorentz transform is impossible. 

 

If the photon arrives at the top mirror at totally different times for each observer, then there is no correlation between what each observer is seeing.

One observer says, "the photon has arrived, and I have recorded its arrival"  the other observer says, "In my experiment, the photon is still on its way, i'm still timing it."

 

The first observer will say, "you are timing some other photon, cause the one I'm watching has already departed the target and is on to some other place. "

 

How can you compare the lengths of the triangle height with its hypotenuse when the distance is calculated from the  velocity equation, d=v*t...  when the two observers are not witnessing the same event?

 

Explain this rationally and Ill give up posting here.

 

 

 

 

Slow things down to speeds that we actually experience and replace the light with a bouncing ball, just for the purpose of visualization.  The mirror gets hit because it is also moving.  Now to complicate things, speed things back up and realize that since time approaches zero as you close in on the speed of light, so actually the light and the mirrors at the speed of light would not experience any time at all, and , from their perspective, they would all be at every point in their path at once.  The line becomes a point.



#266 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 27 October 2018 - 03:23 PM

Slow things down to speeds that we actually experience and replace the light with a bouncing ball, just for the purpose of visualization.  The mirror gets hit because it is also moving.  Now to complicate things, speed things back up and realize that since time approaches zero as you close in on the speed of light, so actually the light and the mirrors at the speed of light would not experience any time at all, and , from their perspective, they would all be at every point in their path at once.  The line becomes a point.

False argument here. 

You cant claim "time dilation" as a factor in the same hypothesis that is trying to establish that tie dilation exists.

So no points for this.



#267 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 27 October 2018 - 03:53 PM

No need to give up on posting here as long as you are willing to at least consider that you may be wrong and relativity may be right.

 

Your posts are interesting anyway as they force people to think about things that they think they know, and that is a good thing.

 

Anyway, the answer to your question is that all observers observe the exact same trajectory in their own frames of reference, and that is vertical.

 

The triangular waveform would only be seen (if indeed it can be seen) when an observer looks from his frame to what is happening in another frame. For example, the observer in a stationary frame were to observe the light bouncing in a moving frame, sees the triangle. And even that is consistent with the laws of physics being the same in all frames because if the observer in the moving frame were to look across to the experiment in the stationary frame, he would see the triangle too!

 

Do you understand that now? If not, let me know where your confusion lies and I will try to explain it again.

 

Actually, the light clock is a dodgy way to explain relativity because it has its own problems, but I will not get into that until you get this reference frame thing clear in your mind.

This is not any explanation.

 

You are using a maths construct, the concept of reference frames, as the basis of Physics, which is not correct.

The most basic law of physics that exists is that if one event occurs, then indeed only one event occurred. Not an infinite number of different events as is the claim of SR.

So I reject your premise about frames having anything to do with the explanation about a single physical event.

 

But additionally, according to the laws of Physics regarding the motion of Light, the ONLY possible result for the light path is where the "light clock" is going to fail to work if its moved perpendicular to the light vector, at a fast enough speed, so that the photon can no longer strike the top mirror.  

This is the only possibility in this scenario.  If you deny this then you are no longer doing Physics.  This is the issue. The hypothesis about who see what is irrelevant when neither of the two options proffered is correct, but a third option is the true result.  So you have no hypothesis.

 

It does not matter what an observer "sees" or think he sees in his frame in another frame or in his imagination.

And even if it could magically make some difference ( and it does not) to the Physics of whats going on, then Observer A is not able to measure anything about the event that can be compared to Observer B. as they both are saying that two different events are occurring.    As I said, one observer has completed his experiment, and gone home, but somehow, through Einstein's magical, mysticism, the second observer is still waiting for the experiment to finish, so he can take his measurement!

 

Therefore its not possible that they are measuring the same event, so no maths nut is going to be able to use Pythagoras math  on a single triangle and come up with time dilation.  

 

If the experiment has stopped for one guy, then the second guy must stop at that instant as well, and take his measurement, where he will find that the light has NOT YET reached the top mirror, but it has for the moving guy.

 

He therefore will conclude that whatever he thought he was doing , must be wrong.  After some reflection he MUST conclude that both he and the moving guy, are both measuring a fantasy, because the photon actually never moved along with the moving clock, and the clock never functioned once it moved so fast that the photon had yo fail to strike the top mirror.

 

This is the only rational way to resolve the light clock experiment. using simple Physics, and applying it to both observers, and applying tit to all parts of the experiment, including the trajectory of light and the time taken.

 

The only reason Einstein gets his discrepancy of time, (and distance)  is because his setup is fatally in error.

 

And anyway. even if you think SR is correct, and if you apply Einstein's time dilation to the light clock experiment, you do indeed come up with a balance again, due to the notion that time has been experienced as shorter for the moving guy.

 

BUT here is the catch 22.

 

IF you apply time dilation to fix up the discrepancy, you also MUST also apply Length contraction as well, so now you have a double dose of fixes, which results in a discrepancy again! 

 

Applying both time dilation AND length contraction causes Einstein's hypothesis places the observers back in the same position that began in, however, all you can then say is that observer A measures one second, and one meter, on his ruler and clock, AND observer B measures one second and one meter in his clock and ruler. None can detect anything different, but you are now unable to justify the claim that there is some difference between observer A's  and Observer B's seconds and lengths.

 

Special Relativity is built on fantasy, not Physics. Its magical not logical.



#268 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 27 October 2018 - 03:58 PM

And why should I be wiling to admit that I'm wrong? 

 

Why don't you admit that you may be wrong?

 

I'm not proposing any theories.

 

I'm just saying that your arguments in support of your claims are irrational, and are so weak, that they are not worthy of belief.

 

If you could overcome all the issues and weaknesses of your theory, I would be happy to accept it, and then go looking for evidential support.

 

But your hypothesis is flawed, and impossible.  Your arguments are circular and don't address the issues. The only results are a collection of Paradoxes.



#269 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 27 October 2018 - 04:14 PM

The underlying issue is Einstein's false reapplication of the Engineers maths construction called " frames of reference".

 

Einstein replaces the study of objects called Physics, with the Maths constructs called frames of reference, and pretends he is still doing Physics.

 

If anyone is going to believe in a frame centered universe, where imaginary maths constructs ACTUALLY have a physical effect on real objects, then he MUST PROVE THAT FIRST!

 

Before you go off on a crazy track where time and distance shrink but only for some, you must demonstrate that your frames of reference actually exist, and really do effect material objects, and time.

 

No one has EVER done that or even has proposed an hypothesis that it is a "scientific principal", underlying all other principals of Physics.

 

Engineers know how to use the Maths construct of placing at will, an imaginary origin and orientation and how to re zero their stop watch so that they can compare how a particular part of a mechanism will react in relation to another part of their machine.  It was used a lot in the design of the steam engine, you know, back in Einsteins day. Its still useful now for Engineers.  That is refereed to as a "frame of Reference".   But no engineer is stupid enough to say that if he changes the location of a frame, then the steam engine will do something different in reality.



#270 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts

Posted 27 October 2018 - 05:19 PM

 

 

But additionally, according to the laws of Physics regarding the motion of Light, the ONLY possible result for the light path is where the "light clock" is going to fail to work if its moved perpendicular to the light vector, at a fast enough speed, so that the photon can no longer strike the top mirror.  

 

The light is moving perpendicular to the mirror, but the light and the mirror are also traveling with the same velocity parallel to the mirror, just as a ball bouncing would be.  The measurements of the events would be different for the different frames of reference even for only one event.  Both frames of reference would be using different clocks to measure velocity.  You could calibrate both clocks at the start of the experiment, and the moving clock will have measured less time.  That much has been verified by experiment.



#271 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 27 October 2018 - 11:06 PM

The light is moving perpendicular to the mirror, but the light and the mirror are also traveling with the same velocity parallel to the mirror, just as a ball bouncing would be.  The measurements of the events would be different for the different frames of reference even for only one event.  Both frames of reference would be using different clocks to measure velocity.  You could calibrate both clocks at the start of the experiment, and the moving clock will have measured less time.  That much has been verified by experiment.

This is counter to Physics of Light.  Light can NOT be imbued with the motion of any imaginary frame or even the motion of the source.

This is the Laws of the Physics of Light 101.

 

You fail Physics here I'm afraid. 0/100

If light could be influenced by the motion of the source, then this directly contradicts Einstein's 2nd Postulate that it can not be.

 

And it would mean that a head light on a space ship would have a velocity of c PLUS the ships velocity.

 

I wish you Relativists would stick to your claims, and stop hopping between contradicting claims, as it suits you. Pick a side, for gods sake! and stick with it.


  • OceanBreeze likes this

#272 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1170 posts

Posted 28 October 2018 - 03:19 AM

This is counter to Physics of Light.  Light can NOT be imbued with the motion of any imaginary frame or even the motion of the source.

This is the Laws of the Physics of Light 101.

 

You fail Physics here I'm afraid. 0/100

If light could be influenced by the motion of the source, then this directly contradicts Einstein's 2nd Postulate that it can not be.

 

And it would mean that a head light on a space ship would have a velocity of c PLUS the ships velocity.

 

I wish you Relativists would stick to your claims, and stop hopping between contradicting claims, as it suits you. Pick a side, for gods sake! and stick with it.

 

Congratulations! You have correctly identified the problem of the Light Clock that I was alluding to earlier.

 

But, as I said earlier, saying that the LC will not work in practice does not detract from its value as a simple way to demonstrate velocity time dilation. That is all the LC was meant to be; a thought experiment for demonstration purposes only. Throw out the LC if you want, but don't throw out SR!

 

We have plenty of evidence that SR is correct, for one thing, the GPS system would not work if we did not take velocity time dilation into account.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Special Relativity, Twin Paradox