The Twin Paradox Made Simple

[A-wal]

You don't get any "longer distances" that light must travel for one person compared to any other person.

The whole argument that light must go in two paths to get where its going is FALSE.  This never happens in reality. There is absolutely no basis for that claim. NONE.

 

Your whole base for this physics is only existing inside a madman's head. (Einstein)

You have allowed yourself to get caught up in his delusion.

 

Meanwhile in the real world, physics carries on regardless. Light does the same thing for everybody. There is never a longer and shorter path for one pulse of light.

 

You cant get around that fact.

If you can't even grasp this then you've no chance of understanding the rest of it, and certainly not in any position to pass judgement on its validity.

 

Of course the light in the light clock will follow a WWWWWWWWWWWW from the perspective of an observer in a frame where the light clock is in motion because it's moving vertically in alternating directions and horizontally in a constant direction. This has nothing to do with relativity, this would be just as true if light didn't move at a constant speed in every inertial frame.

 

What it won't do is hit the side of cylinder from the perspective of an observer in a frame where the light clock is in motion as you claimed.

 

To further illustrate the fact that Einstein's Special Relativity is error, (and noting the lack of slap down arguments proffered by the Relativists) I have another observation that demonstrates the insanity that is Relativity.

 

I expect that no supporters can work around this one either, other than by twisting their own theories into knots in a tortured dance of the desperate.

 

Kinematics:

 

Two planets are about to collide.

 

Which planet is moving faster? Which planet is not moving at all? Maybe they are both going the same direction, but different speeds?

Relativity says we can’t tell.

 

Now according to Special Relativity, when the planets collide, the results MUST be identical under any relativistic framework, or if not, then we can tell who is moving and how fast, which proves relativity is wrong.

 

But we can easily figure out what happened by observing the result of the collision, assuming we know the mass of each object. And the vectors involved at the time of the collision.

 

Kinematics will quickly show us which planet was doing what, based on what will happen to the planets after the collision.

A fast moving planet that hits a stationary planet will react differently than is both planets were moving on their own trajectory and each had a velocity. 

If you don’t set up an Absolute frame of reference for this scenario, you cant calculate anything much about the trajectories of the planets, their velocities, and what happens after they collide.

 

No Absolute frame means no complete Physics can be done.

 

This proves that there is no such thing as pure relativistic motion, all motion must be related to an absolute frame of reference, which is static for the conditions under consideration. Such as, the Earth is a local, absolute frame for everything happening nearby or on the earth.

 

Einstein’s thought experiments involving a stationary and a moving frame, actually have by inference, an objective,hidden, absolute frame that sets the origin and condition, (stationary) of the guy on the platform. Without this unmentioned by real 3rd imaginary, absolute frame Einstein has no hypothesis.

 

But don't go looking for the absolute frame of reference with your interferometers. The Absolute Frame of reference is as imaginary as all other frames of reference are. They exist only as Math constructs, that are used to help calculate results of physical objects in motion.

 

Imaginary frames don't affect physical objects, bend space, dilate time or shrink distance in one axis.  They are imaginary.

This is complete bullshit! What on Earth makes you think that it's possible to establish a distinction between the motion of object A and object B by examining a collision? Are you just making any **** up out of thin air now?

 

Do you really think for even a moment that if it were that simple to establish a preferred frame, nobody would have noticed?

 

Frames are imaginary, in that sense they do not exist in Physics, they are a math construct, in Math they are concepts.

'In a different frame' just means the objects are in motion relative to each other. In a absolute frame (known not to exist since the speed of light couldn't possibly be the same in all inertial frames if it did) is one where there's an objective measure of absolute motion.

 

So you claim your imaginary frames exist, but not my imaginary frame, the absolute one?

The consistency of the speed of light shows it to be the case.

 

And the whole problem of Einstein’s thought experiment is BECAUSE he only includes half of the NECESSARY information required to do physics!

There is no actual problem with the thought experiment. Your problem is that you're trying to use an absolute frame refute it when the model doesn't use one, so of course it's going to create a contradiction.

 

If “others” understand it no worries, why do they have so much trouble explaining how it works? Half of them contradict the other half. And according to Einstein, “if you can’t explain it to a 6 year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”  I believe he was thinking of you.

I think most six year olds would have no trouble understanding that a bike going down a road at 100mph would be moving away from a car at 50mph if the car is going down the road at 50 mph but the fact that light is moving away from both at the same speed even if they're going down the road really, really fast means that you have to use some other kind of maths to work of speed when it's super-duper fast. And then show them that speed is actually a measurement of distance over time and if they disagree with each other about these then it explains why light is moving away from each one at the same speed despite any motion relative to each other.

 

He didn't specify that it should be explainable to somebody with the mental capacity of a retarded six year old.

 

Exactly, BECAUSE Einstein claimed that there is no such thing as “at the same instant” you cannot then use the exact opposite of that claim in the light clock experiment can you?

 

The stationary observer can NEVER observe the photon arrive at the top mirror “at the same instant” as the moving observer, SO, therefore, and because of this fact, you can’t generate the Pythagoras triangle can you?   (in case you don’t understand why, here’s why….  The top of the triangle represents the top mirror, WHEN the photon arrives at that spot FOR BOTH OBSERVERS. Who ARE in different frames!

 

 It MUST be the same instant in time. If not, then the hypotenuse is of unknown relationship to the height, because you don’t have a triangle anymore! And so no Lorentz type equations can be invented.

The hypotenuse is not a time, it's an event, the light reaching a certain point of the cylinder.

 

Here you are just plain wrong.wrong. A ball on a train will prescribe a parabola when viewed from a stationary position, IF the observer mentally blanks out half of the real world he is in!

 

A normal stationary observer will tell the truth.  The ball is going up and down, AND the train, man and his ball are going horizontally. The motion of the ball is a combination of two separate forces. Only if the man on the ship IGNORES his horizontal motion, can he as a Physicist claim that his ball is ONLY going up and down.  This is physics, we apply ALL known forces and circumstances to the situation, not only half of them.

 

With the light clock, please show how the motion of the ship horizontally can impart any second force on the photon, that can make the photon move diagonally compared to its original vector.

 

What is that second force that works with light, which no one knows about?  Are you sitting on some new and amazing new discovery?   Do tell.

If you can't see how a back and forth vertical 'I' path becomes a WWWWWW if the light clock is in motion relative to the observer (and how this in no way depends on anything in SR) then this is just pointless, you simply don't have the capacity to comprehend but would rather believe you're in ownership of some greater level of understanding to avoid facing up to the much simpler truth of being a bit of a moron.

 

Clearly you have never read his paper, or you have not understood it.

I assure you, there's no absolute frame of reference in SR. That's kinda the point of it although it's actually from an earlier theory of relativity, by Galileo.

[marcospolo]

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.

Sorry, but your logic is now also failing/

No light clock, then no SR.

 

The LC provides the mechanism that was used to develop time dilation.  If the mechanism has no possible way to function even in theory, then there is no justification to proceed with a formula to calculate its imaginary effects on time or distance or mass.

 

The hypothesis is impossible, so the conclusions are error.  You have no basis for claiming that there is SR, period.

 

And you have no solid evidence for SR, none.  GPS can be nicely shown to be a good example why SR can NOT work, rather than the claimed evidence for it working.

 

But once again, you jump from having NO RATIONAL HYPOTHESIS, to "here's evidence to support my false hypothesis."

 

And if you want to play with fake evidence, please cite the evidence for length contraction, and explain where all that mass disappears to, when the object shrinks to a 2D planar object at light speed...... there is not a scrap of evidence that length contraction could work, and there is no explanation as to what happens to that mass.  You cant say it converts magically into energy, as just a tiny bit of mass turned into magical energy according to Einsteins equally magical e-mc2 would produce enough energy to start a new universe, just from my space ships mass alone!  And when I slow down, does the mass return? or do I stay in flatland?  When you talk about these effects, don't you realize how stupid and delusional you sound?

 

Its BS, from start to end.  

 

But at least you have admitted that Einsteins thought experiment is fake.  No one else would admit that, as they know that without it, even as a possibility, they cant keep SR.

 

You have taken one step towards realizing that SR is 100% BS.

[marcospolo]

And even if you toss out the light clock as being a crap thought experiment by the greatest Zionist Genius of all time, you have the same problem with his first thought experiment, that of the "rigid rod" with clocks on each end.

If we examine that little bundle of nonsense, we will see that it too is a false hypothesis.

 

You problem as a Relativist church member, is to convince me, an Atheist, that somewhere in all Einsteins ramblings, there actually exists a rational logical and sound hypothesis somewhere.  I've never found 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!

 

 

[marcospolo]

You are caught up in a delusion big time.

The delusion prevents you from seeing the obvious.

I could go through every one of your objections and painstakingly explain why they are false. But its like trying to explain to a Mormon why the Book of Mormon is crap.  You get nowhere.

 

But I will leave you with a practical way to prove that in fact, real scientists actually employ as needed, "imaginary ABSOLUTE frames of reference", even when claiming to be doing Special Relativity Math.  An imaginary absolute frame is necessary in every real scenario of Physics, and exists even in Einsteins own thought experiments if you read between the lines.   

 

So here is my example.

 

GPS

 

IF as you claim GPS was proof of SR time dilation, then WHY do they employ an ABSOLUTE FRAME OF REFERENCE when doing the math?

WHY?

 

As you are especially brain dead due to your extreme indoctrination into the CULT of Relativity, Ill have to spell it out for you.

 

IF SR was true, (which is absolutely is NOT) then the SR theory REQUIRES that the satellites (moving observer) is relative to the stationary observer, the GPS receiver.

IF GPS truly did this, I would have no  argument.

 

BUT IT DOES NOT.

 

GPS instead, employs an imaginary, localized but ABSOLUTE reference frame! Its called the Earth Centered Inertial Reference frame. ECIF.

 

This absolute (absolute for the intended scope of the scenario. )  frame is centered at the Earth center, BUT DOES NOT SPIN WITH THE EARTH!

It remains ABSOLUTELY STATIONARY.

 

Its axises are fixed, and never change orientation,, the frame does not have any motion.  ITS THE IMPOSSIBLE "PREFERRED FRAME!"

 

Then the fake relativist professors pull a swiftie on you, (as you are gullible and will just lay back and take it from them), they DO NOT calculate the relative motions between the GPS satellites, and the receiver!  That was what SR was supposed to be for!  But they do not do this.

They compare the satellites with the absolute ECIF, then the receivers relative position to the ECIF, 

 

THIS MY FRIEND, IS NOT SR! 

IF SR WERE TRUE, they would simply use the rotating earth and the rotating satellites and use relativistic math, (easy with computers) .  Lets PRETEND and IGNORE the little fact that the Earth and its satellites are NOT EVEN INERTIAL!   (talk about having your cake and eating it!)

 

Its Newtonian and Galilean Physics, pure Classical Physics. 

 

And by the way, there is NO evidence anywhere that light goes the same speed as measured from any fame, even if that frame is moving. 

The is no evidence, and its irrational as well.

 

At best, you can only say that light goes the same speed in a vacuum, but you need an absolute frame of reference, as how can you measure speed of only one object?

 

We measure the speed of sound in air at sea level, relative to the Earth, which we have assigned as required, as the Absolute frame for this experiment.

 

If you don't have a reference, and only one object, you don't get to say it has the velocity of "c".  DO YOU?

 IF you say like a brainwashed moron, that light speed is relative to every object, then your head is too stuffed up with s@#t to know your left hand from your right.

That would mean that A>B AND B>A.

This is simple logical, and practical IMPOSSIBILITY.

 

You you have to accept this impossibility if you insist on clinging on to your religion. Look at it as test of your faith.  It make no sense at all, but you can believe it by faith alone, and Einstein will give you treasures that he is keeping for you in his Lab.

 

You are a religious nut, i'm afraid. 

 

 

If you can't even grasp this then you've no chance of understanding the rest of it, and certainly not in any position to pass judgement on its validity.

Of course the light in the light clock will follow a WWWWWWWWWWWW from the perspective of an observer in a frame where the light clock is in motion because it's moving vertically in alternating directions and horizontally in a constant direction. This has nothing to do with relativity, this would be just as true if light didn't move at a constant speed in every inertial frame.

What it won't do is hit the side of cylinder from the perspective of an observer in a frame where the light clock is in motion as you claimed.

 

This is complete bullshit! What on Earth makes you think that it's possible to establish a distinction between the motion of object A and object B by examining a collision? Are you just making any **** up out of thin air now?

 

Do you really think for even a moment that if it were that simple to establish a preferred frame, nobody would have noticed?

 

'In a different frame' just means the objects are in motion relative to each other. In a absolute frame (known not to exist since the speed of light couldn't possibly be the same in all inertial frames if it did) is one where there's an objective measure of absolute motion.

 

The consistency of the speed of light shows it to be the case.

 

There is no actual problem with the thought experiment. Your problem is that you're trying to use an absolute frame refute it when the model doesn't use one, so of course it's going to create a contradiction.

 

I think most six year olds would have no trouble understanding that a bike going down a road at 100mph would be moving away from a car at 50mph if the car is going down the road at 50 mph but the fact that light is moving away from both at the same speed even if they're going down the road really, really fast means that you have to use some other kind of maths to work of speed when it's super-duper fast. And then show them that speed is actually a measurement of distance over time and if they disagree with each other about these then it explains why light is moving away from each one at the same speed despite any motion relative to each other.

 

He didn't specify that it should be explainable to somebody with the mental capacity of a retarded six year old.

 

The hypotenuse is not a time, it's an event, the light reaching a certain point of the cylinder.

 

If you can't see how a back and forth vertical 'I' path becomes a WWWWWW if the light clock is in motion relative to the observer (and how this in no way depends on anything in SR) then this is just pointless, you simply don't have the capacity to comprehend but would rather believe you're in ownership of some greater level of understanding to avoid facing up to the much simpler truth of being a bit of a moron.

 

I assure you, there's no absolute frame of reference in SR. That's kinda the point of it although it's actually from an earlier theory of relativity, by Galileo.

Edited October 28, 2018 by marcospolo

[Maine farmer]

What I find interesting is that time dilation has been demonstrated using atomic clocks.  How would the thought experiment look using an atomic clock?

[Maine farmer]

 greatest Zionist Genius of all time

I don't remember ever learning that Einstein was a Zionist.  Even if he was, what would that have to do with Relativity? 

[marcospolo]

What I find interesting is that time dilation has been demonstrated using atomic clocks.  How would the thought experiment look using an atomic clock?

 

What I find interesting is that gullible people believe anything that come from the mouth of their religious leaders.

 

If you can still think critically, which would be amazing considering the lifetime of indoctrination you have been subjected to, 

 

please  dig up ALL the material relating to atomic clocks and their experiments, 

 

NOT JUST THE PAPERS THAT ARE APPROVED BY YOUR CHURCH LEADERS!  

 

 then we find that nothing is a clear cut as they make out, quite the opposite in fact.

 

There is not ONE single clear cut experiment that supports SR, not a one.. Every claimed result can and has been contested to the point that the experiment can not be held up as supporting anything useful.

 

Cant you read?  I asked for the hypothesis that explains what happens to all that mass of my ship as it gets to relativistic speeds finally getting to a hypothetical 2D flat-land spaceship.

 

The hypothesis should include a scenario that can be tested in repeatable experiments, (not requiring a billion dollar LIGO or Hadron collider, whose results are the extracted from the tail end of computers...) 

 

By what physical mechanism can matter with mass compress to zero?  And how to demonstrate that?

 

See my earlier post.

 

Also, where is the experiment that demonstrates that distance actually gets shorter?  How does that Physically work?  What happens to the matter to force it to shrink, but only on one plane? What happens when the ship changes course, does the length pop back to normal for a while? Does this hurt?

 

Don't go trying to enlist the silly putty of the other great lie of modern religious science, Quantum Mechanics... that a whole other level of BS right there.

 

SR must stand alone against critical review.  It fails miserably.

 

So, no, time dilation has never been demonstrated, ever.  

 

At the very best, but still doubtful we may have some evidence that supports the claim that physical CLOCKS cant keep accuracy under different conditions. But a "clock", is NOT TIME, its a machine, even atomic clocks are machines, and they are subject to the same laws of CLASSICAL PHYSICS, gravity, inertia etc.

[marcospolo]

ignore this baffoon. 

You have lost this argument, and its showing.

Best you drop out silently, save some face.

 

byeBy.

[exchemist]

I don't remember ever learning that Einstein was a Zionist.  Even if he was, what would that have to do with Relativity? 

Relativity is "Jewish Physics", you know. 

 

We have a real box-of-frogs situation here. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by exchemist

[marcospolo]

Relativity is "Jewish Physics", you know. 

 

We have a real box-of-frogs situation here. 

Its got nothing at all to do with Physics,

I just don't like the agenda of the Zionists.

 

Einstein had strong political beliefs, and was a Zionist.  Funnily enough, his first paper, which was not peer reviewed, and cited no references, was published in a Zionist publishing house, and Einstein's "discovery" was pushed very hard worldwide by Zionist owned news-papers, after his bum buddy Eddington, cherry picked the data after taking crappy pictures of the Eclipse.

 

But there is nothing sus about this.... maybe...

 

Subsequent studies have shown that light indeed bends around big firery things that have an atmosphere, which classical Physicists call refraction. You can see refraction when you see a mirage, so is a mirage also caused by curved space-time?

 

Zionism is a whole other nest of worms, mostly parasitic worms, but that topic is not for this thread.

 

 

Jews?  forget them, they are not important.

[OceanBreeze]

This appears to be Moronium II.

 

Moronium at least had a few working brain cells and could post some reasonable arguments, even though wrong.

 

I was sort of hoping this was Moronium ll, but if it is, he must have fallen on his head or had a lobotomy.

 

Either way, nothing worth responding to.

[OceanBreeze]

ignore this baffoon. 

 

yup.

[marcospolo]

Typical of religious nutters.

When confronted wit the cold hard facts, and you have no answers remaining, you duck and dodge, then pretend that nothing happened.

 

You may be hiding with your heads in the sand, but the problems I raised with SR are still there, gnawing away at you brains like little mice.

One day, some of you or other readers will put it all together and realize that Relativists have no solid ground under them, and their stories are like straw houses.

 

Anyway,  as there is now no one here with any ability to give any rebuttals to the arguments I made I'm going to leave you all with your ignorance.

 

Enjoy your pathetic lives, based on nothing but lies and Bull ****.  It works as intended, to keep you ignorant and chasing rainbows, while the Zionists continue to own you.

 

Nothing like slaves that think they are free. Requires no chains, and they work without the whip.  Just feed them sports, sex and fantasy stories about time travel and spooky action at a distance and they are amused for the rest of their miserable lives.

[marcospolo]

And you shills can go try to explain to your superiors why you should still get paid to keep Einsteins crap alive against anyone who realizes its BS.

 

The Facts are that both Moronium and now I have twisted your knickers so bad that your only response to our statements such as: 

 

"Special Relativity would mean that A>B AND B>A.

This is simple logical, and practical IMPOSSIBILITY."

 

with your typical clear believable reply such as "ignore this buffoon".

 

I think I see who has the sane argument... and so will other readers.

[exchemist]

 

....[snip]....

 

I think I see who has the sane argument... and so will other readers.

 

Something on which all here can probably all agree. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by exchemist

[Maine farmer]

while the Zionists continue to own you.

 

 

I am quite glad that Einstein was not an Aryan.  It could have really changed history for the worse, potentially.

]

[marcospolo]

I am quite glad that Einstein was not an Aryan.  It could have really changed history for the worse, potentially.

]

You are truly ignorant of the historical facts there.  And extremely racist.

 

What you are saying as a racist, is that because of a political party and of one leader, and the ideology of the era, where all scientists were applying the theories of eugenics, in all civilized countries, that the leader and his picked cabinet, are representative of all Germans.  Thats like saying that all Chinese are mass murderers because they are all little Chairman Mao's.

 

Or all Americans are idiots because Bush was an idiot.

 

And there is a good case to present that if Germany had won the war against the Zionist controlled Russian Military which was the immediate threat to Germany, then things would be much BETTER today.  Conditions today certainly are not rosy for the bulk of the worlds population.

 

Please recall that in a worldwide depression, caused by Zionist bankers, Hitler raised Germany from utter devastating financial ruin, to be the worlds most financially strong country bar none.  Because Hitlers party removed the Zionists from key positions in government, and closed their banks, outlawed the evil practice of money lending for the sole purpose of making profit, Germany recovered from depression in a couple of years, whilst England, The USA and every other country was a miserable failure.

Thats why he was man of the year on the Time magazine.

 

So try to have some balance, despite the barrage of lies and half truths told to you by mainstream Zionist controlled media and education.

 

But anyway, I don't much care about old history, now I'm most interested in fake pseudo science.

 

None of my criticisms have been addressed by you lot, you just step to one side and hope no one will notice.

 

Also, I note that the main contributors to this forum must be doing it full time, as the same few guys are in every section of the forum, and have thousands of posts each.  Don't you have a life? Ever been outside?  have girlfriends?