The Twin Paradox Made Simple

[Moronium]

A repost (#26)  which has, no doubt, long been forgotten  

 

------

Posted 16 April 2018 - 03:34 PM

 

 

There is an interesting video on youtube where Hafele and Keating repeat their classical experiment with even more modern, more accurate, atomic clocks. 

 

At every stage of their journey they are (accurately) announcing the precise amount by which their (moving) clock differed, at that point,from the earth clock which it was synchronized with before they took off.

 

When they land, their final calculations do in fact agree with the observed difference in the clocks.

 

What the video does not reveal is that, in order to make their precise calculations, they assumed at all times that their clock was the one moving, and that therefore the earth clock was running FASTER, not slower, than their airborne clock.  In other words, they refused to adopt the "reciprocal dilation" assumption of SR and the concomitant  mandate that they "assume" that they are stationary.  That would have forced them to conclude  that the earth clock was running slower than theirs, not faster.

 

The narrator in the video says they are using "Einstein's equations."  But in fact they were using Lorentz's equations.

 

The narrator also says that the result was in accord with what "Einstein predicted."  This too is inaccurate.  Einstein would have told them to "predict" that the earth clock was running slower than theirs, not faster.

 

Another thing that this video doesn't reveal is that they were not using the "relative motion" of SR to reach their (accurate) conclusions.  They were using the "absolute" motion posited by Lorentz.  Their calculations were achieved by using the ECI as a preferred frame for calculating what the difference between the readings on the earth clock and their clock would be.  In this analysis, both the earth clock and the plane clock are moving, actually.  It is the one which is moving faster (with respect to the ECI, not each other), which will run slower

 

Of course they did use Einstein's equations from GR to calculate the effect that gravitational dilation (which is absolute, not relative) would have on both clocks, since that had to be factored in also.  I was referring the the speed dilation  (Lorentz transformation) in SR above. It was the "speed" component of dilation that the moving plane was designed to test.  Of course, since the plane was flying at a higher altitude, the experiment did serve to confirm both types of dilation effects.

Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2018 - 06:08 PM.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

To repeat:

 

David Morin, a professor of physics at Harvard who I have cited before, says this in his book on the topic, for example:

 

Quote

11.2 The postulates

 

Let’s now start from scratch and see what the theory of Special Relativity is all about. We’ll take the route that Einstein took and use two postulates as the basis of the theory. We’ll start with the speed-of-light postulate:

 

• The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame.

 

I don’t claim that this statement is obvious, or even believable. But I do claim that t it’s easy to understand what the statement says (even if you think it’s too silly to be true).

 

 

 

http://www.people.fa...orin/chap11.pdf

 

As I've said many times, today's prevailing model (RMS--for Robertson, Mansour, & Sexl) DOES reject this postulate, and all the (non-beliefworthy) baggage which comes with it, such as reciprocal time dilation, innumerable "paradoxes,"  relative simultaneity, etc.

 

Guess what?  It makes accurate predictions in experiments like the H-K and in practical uses like the GPS.  SR does NOT make accurate predictions.

 

From wiki:

 

Mansouri and Sexl spoke about the "remarkable result that a theory maintaining absolute simultaneity is equivalent to special relativity." They also noticed the similarity between this test theory and Lorentz ether theory of Hendrik Lorentz, Joseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_theories_of_special_relativity

 

 

All of the prominent physicists mentioned in this excerpt preceded Einstein, in producing their theories.

 

 

Sorry, A-wal, it aint the Koran.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's some excerpts from a wikiversity synopsis, which includes substantial footnotes citing  other scholarly papers.  There are many more similar papers out there, of course:

 

The extended special theory of relativity (ESTR) is the special theory of relativity (STR), derived in other axiomatics. The main difference of ESTR from STR is replacement of the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light and its independence on the motion of the sources of light and on the motion of the observer, by the postulate of the existence of an isotropic reference frame in which the speed of light is constant, depends neither on the direction of its propagation, nor on the velocity of the source of light. ESTR was developed by Sergey Fedosin in 2002 and is a special case of the metric theory of relativity. 

 

The analysis of the axioms and the results of SRT gives the following:

1. All inertial reference frames in STR are completely equivalent in the sense, that the kinematic characteristics of the physical processes in the moving frame are not identical but are similar to the characteristics of the same processes in the stationary reference frame. This means the Lorentz covariance of the mathematical form of physical laws.
2. All the effects of SRT in the final analysis are the consequence of the fact that the speed of light is limited.
3. The Lorentz transformations can be derived in different ways, in different axiomatics, including the use of representations of mathematical groups.

It is easy to see that the standard axiomatics of SRT is too rigid....And the principle of independence of the speed of light is very ill-suited for the role of the basic axiom of STR. 

 

The purpose of development of the new axiomatics of STR was to eliminate the above drawbacks – to find the internally consistent, coherent theory axioms, to overcome the relativism absolutization, to expand the possibilities of the theory in describing the reality, while retaining all the previously achieved in STR results, repeatedly proven in practice. The result of this search was determining such postulate of the theory, which would replace the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light for all observers.

 

...in STR one of the basic axioms is the constancy of the speed of light and its independence on the motion of the light sources and on the motion of the observer; in ESTR the axiom is used instead of it about the existence of the isotropic reference frame in which the speed of light is constant and does not depend on the direction of its propagation and on the velocity of the source of light....Based on the principle of relativity the effects of length contraction and time dilation are found. Thus, the formulas of STR and the postulate of constancy of the speed of light for all observers are derived in other axiomatics.

 

The advantage of ESTR is that all the results of the special theory of relativity are derived based on more intuitively comprehensible system of axioms. In ESTR it is possible to carry out the spacetime measurements not only by means of electromagnetic, but also any other waves (e.g. gravitational), provided that the used standards of length and time will be constructed on the basis of these waves. ^[12] Accordingly, in all formulas the speed of light should be replaced by the propagation speed of the used wave. ESTR is the basis for the Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation. In gravitational fields ESTR is replaced by the metric theory of relativity (MTR). ^[13] In ESTR it becomes possible to overcome the absolutization of relativity of the reference frames of STR, which is unacceptable from different points of view, including the philosophical point of view.

 

The theoretical approach developed by Robertson, Mansouri and Sexl (the references are provided in the article Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl framework) is close enough to ESTR. This approach suggests the possibility of existence of a preferred (privileged) reference frame as a reference frame with special properties (see the article preferred frame)...

 

 

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Extended_special_theory_of_relativity

 

I provide this excerpt  (and the post before it).for the benefit of "theorists" like A-wal, who insist that ONLY SR can explain the phenomenon..  Not that I really think it is possible for him to realize any benefit from it, but others might.  No amount of evidence would ever get him to reconsider his mistaken views, I've found that out.

 

Those interested can read the whole article at their leisure.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's some excerpts from another article by Prof. Muller entitled:  "The Problem of Reciprocity and Non-Reciprocity in Special Relativity Theory":

 

...the danger of all these mathematical myths is that, by taking them too seriously, (and isolating them from their referential meanings) the physical reality that they "signify" becomes more and more obscured , ignored and even confusing. This confusion applies especially to the concept of "event"....the residence of the unique physical reality that confers one frame the character of being "proper" and the other "non-proper". Even worse, by ignoring the residence of that unique physical event the primed/unprimed notation opens the way to the removal, altogether of the unique physical event. 

 

The world of relativity is, thus, a time-less, motionless world. And if we still remember Aristotle we will agree with him when he said that "if we do not understand motion we cannot understand Nature". So relativity does not "understand" Nature at all, since "nothing moves" in the relativistic eternal and timeless heavens.  

 

This critical comment, however, does not entail, in the least, that the effects experimentally tested like time dilation, mass increase, etc, are not real. But only that they cannot be predicted from a symmetristic, equivalential, reciprocating, version of relativity theory as Einstein's version. It seems that only the Lorentzian (non-symmetristic) version of relativity makes sense.

 

1 - The GPS community, for example, must use a reference frame fixed to the earth and not rotating with it, in order to account for the Sagnac effect that takes place between the GPS satellites and the terrestrial stations. This is an example of a preferred frame of reference, breaking all reciprocities and symmetries. Likewise, the gyrolasers, nowadays used in commercial aircraft, are based on the "asymmetric" times of flight of two opposing beams of light, S/(c+v) and S/(c-v), observed by proper observers corotating with the gyrolaser. Hence they can deduce the speed v from their observations. Again, Lorentz "wins" and Einstein "loses".

 

2 - In the Hafele-Keating experiment the results did not show the symmetry they were supposed to show. Any school boy knows that the term v²/c² has even parity (+v and –v yield the same result). So clocks flying to the East must have behaved exactly like those flying to the West. But they did not. The clocks that flew westward were accelerated (!) respect the resting Washington clocks, while the eastbound clocks did show the expected time dilation. To explain these asymmetric results the authors had to adopt the "viewpoint" of observers fixed to the North pole, (ie, not rotating with the Earth, just as the GPS community does).  Another triumph for non-reciprocal relativity. 

 

Final conclusion:  Einstein's symmetristic theory can never be proven right because of methodological impossibilities. But then it cannot be disproved either, for the same reason. Relativists will always supply, in their favor, what the "imaginary" observer "must" have seen. Hence, strictly speaking, applying Popper's falsification methodology, relativity theory is not a scientific theory at all. It springs from ideal, impossibly symmetristic, thought experiments."

 

 

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/episteme/epi6/ep6-mull.htm

 

I personally don't think that the tenet of reciprocal dilation is unfalsifiable, as this physics professor does.  On the contrary, it has been falsified.  I give no credence to allegations of "imaginary observers" and assertions of what they "must" have seen.  "Observers" do nothing to control matter in motion in the material world to begin with, so they're irrelevant.  The actual clock readings tell the full tale.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I had asked:

 

Does that distance, whatever ever it is, change if some rocket flies past near the speed of light?  Would that cause  the two posts to move closer together or farther apart from each other, do you think?

 

 

In response, A-wal said (in post 132)

 

 

Of course the distance between the posts is unaffected by a rocket flying past them, it's simply a different distance for an observer in the rocket who's in motion relative to the posts than it is for an observer on the ground who's at rest relative to the posts. The distance between objects doesn't change for an observer if another object is motion to them, that's not how time dilation and length contraction work. It's just that objects that are in motion relative to each don't agree about the distance of lengths in time and space, if they did then the speed of light couldn't possibly be the same for observers in motion relative to each other.

 

 

Your answer contradicts the one I was originally given, which is good.  For the first time you seem to be getting an inkling that there is an objective world, with tangible 3 dimensional objects (like posts) out there, and that such objects are not influenced by the opinions or perceptions of subjective observers.  Likewise, mathematical formulas don't make physical objects what they are.  It's the opposite.  It's "what they are" that makes any math applied to them either appropriate or inappropriate.  That's what Prof. Muller was getting at in that last post I made.

 

I agree that the "distance" doesn't change (the posts don't move).  It's only the (mis)measurement of that self-identical distance which changes.  This is merely an apparent effect, not a real one.

 

Again, It is NOT the distance which changes, it is the instruments used to measure that distance which change.

 

If I, here on earth, measure the distance, I will come to a different conclusion about the distance than will the high-speed traveller.  But that doesn't mean there are now two different distances.  The distance remains constant and unchanged at all times.  We merely have two different measurements (but only one distance).

Edited May 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

A-wal said:

 

It's just that objects that are in motion relative to each don't agree about the distance of lengths in time and space, if they did then the speed of light couldn't possibly be the same for observers in motion relative to each other.

 

 

 

And yet you continue to fail to make this crucial distinction between measurement and "reality" in your statements.

 

If you hadn't been sloppy (which ends up confusing you) you would have said  ".... if they did then the speed of light couldn't possibly be [MEASURED TO BE] the same for observers in motion relative to each other."  But you didn't say that.  Instead you omitted the part I inserted for you in CAPS and brackets.

 

The two different statements don't "boil down to the same thing."  They have radically different content and logical implications.

 

Saying the speed of light IS constant is (in this context) quite different than saying the speed is "measured to be" constant.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In previous posts it has been noted that, in physics, inertial frames, as a class  (i.e. all inertial frames), are PREFERRED frames (preferred over the class of accelerating frames).  This is because the laws of physics are simpler in inertial frames.  There is no need to account for "fictitious forces" (e.g., centrifugal force) and other phenomena (e.g., the Coriolis effect) caused by accelerating motion.  It should be noted, however, that this does not make the laws of physics, as altered, in accelerating frames, invalid or "wrong."  The are merely more complicated and different, that's all.  Even according to SR, the speed of light is not constant in an accelerating frame, for example.  That doesn't make the calculated speed "wrong," just different.

 

In the case of the two posts in the ground, the preferred frame is the one the posts "reside" in, i.e. the earth's surface, with respect to which they are motionless.  The distance measurement made on earth will therefore be the "real" distance, and measurements made by parties moving with respect to the earth's surface would merely be "apparent," not real, measurements.

 

So if I accurately measure the distance between the posts to be one mile, then that's what it "really" is.  It is not "really" 2 miles, just because someone moving relative to me might "think" it is.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Moronium

[sluggo]

Moronium;

 

A.  Each clock will show ONLY one time,

 

 

---

My mistake here. I misread that as both clocks reading one and the same time.

 

Somewhere along the way, the 'time jump' was mentioned. The erroneous interpretation in wiki type articles is the change in orientation of the mathematical Axis Of Simultaneity (red) at the instantaneous reversal of twin B (fig.1). The spacetime path is discontinuous and fictional. If the reversal is gradual and continuous (fig.2), as the path direction changes, there is no 'jump'.

All that is fluff, because the AOS is established for the convenience of the local frame B, and has no effect on the A clocks. What is important is the conservation of signals within a closed course. Both A and B will agree, A sent 10 signals while B sent 8 signals. None are lost and none are gained.

 

[Moronium]

 The spacetime path is discontinuous and fictional. 

 

 

Fictional, indeed.  Quite so.

 

If the reversal is gradual and continuous (fig.2), as the path direction changes, there is no 'jump'.

 

 

This is wrong.  Even a "gradual" turnaround supposedly produces a HUGE jump, which could, for example, supposedly "cause" one million years to pass on earth in a single day.  99.999% of all the time elapsed supposedly occurs "during the turnaround."  Totally beyond reason for anyone to believe that this is a "credible" explanation in terms of objective reality.

 

 

The Twin Paradox: The Spacetime Diagram Analysis:

 

Minkowski said "Henceforth Space by itself, and Time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."  Minkowski recast Einstein's version of Special Relativity (SR) on a new stage, Minkowski spacetime.  The Twin Paradox has a very simple resolution in this framework.  The crucial concept is the proper time of a moving body. 

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_spacetime.html

 

The Twin Paradox: The Time Gap Objection

 

Try this on for size.

 

Make the turnaround instantaneous.  Relativity puts an upper on speed, but no upper limit on acceleration.  An instantaneous Turnaround Event is the limiting case of shorter and shorter turnarounds, and so the theory should handle it.During the Outbound Leg, Terence ages less than two months, according to Stella.  (12 Stella-months / time dilation factor of 7.)  During the Inbound Leg, Terence also ages less than two months, according to Stella, by the same computation.  The Turnaround Event is instantaneous.  Total Terence ageing: less than 4 months, it would seem.  Yet Terence is supposed to be over 14 years older when Stella returns!  Where did the missing time go?

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_gap.html

 

 

The Twin Paradox: The Distance Dependence Objection

With our "standard example" (see the Introduction), Stella's accounting of Terence's ageing runs like this: one-seventh of a year on the Outbound Leg, one-seventh of a year on the Inbound Leg, and the rest — 14 years minus two-sevenths — during the turnaround.  You may recall she does the turnaround in a day, according to Terence, or about 15 hours by her own clock.  (Let's just say 15, and hang the minutes; the exact figure won't matter.)

 

Say Stella takes a longer journey, spending 2 years on both the Inbound and Outbound Legs, for a total of 4 years of her time, or 28 years according to Terence.  But she still takes the same 15 hours for the turnaround.

 

So when Stella and Terence have their joyous reunion, Terence is 28 years older (plus a day).  This time Stella's accounting of Terence's ageing runs like so: Terence aged two-sevenths years on the Outbound Leg, ditto for the Inbound Leg, and so Terence must have aged over 27 years during the [one day] turnaround.

 

Summing up: according to Stella, Terence ages around 13 years 7 months on the turnaround for the shorter trip, but over 27 years on the turnaround for the longer trip.  Yet Stella says the two turnarounds took the same time.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_distance.html

 

 

There are the types of problems that led Einstein to reject the "spacetime diagram" explanation as a legitimate resolution of the twin paradox. Because they make no physical sense.

 

Some people actually believe that some pointy-headed nerd with a retractable lead pencil, a piece of graph paper, and a slide rule can alter the whole universe, and the natural laws in it, if he just draws for a short spell.

 

I don't think so!   Homey don't play dat.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The time dilation caused by velocity (predicted by both SR and preferred frame theories) has been widely confirmed, to an extremely high degree of precision.  That's because it is predicted by a very exact formula, the Lorentz Transformation, which was designed for, and is native to, a preferred frame theory (with absolute simultaneity).

 

SR's first postulate, enshrining the "principle of relativity" (aka Lorentz covariance), has likewise been proven many times over.  It too originally emerged from a preferred frame theory.

 

SR's second postulate, the "light postulate" has never been proven and, in theory, it never can be.  A preferred frame theory rejects this postulate and incorporates a variable light speed hypothesis.

 

One of these makes accurate predictions in ALL frames of reference (both inertial and non-inertial).  One doesn't.  Try and guess which one doesn't.

 

It's kinda strange that advocates of SR who scream "THERE ARE NO PREFERRED FRAMES!!" 24/7 fail to recognize that each and every calculation made in SR adopts a preferred frame which it treats as being at "absolute rest."  Without doing that, it couldn't make any predictions whatsoever, not even wrong ones.

 

It doesn't take much thought to realize this.  Suppose two objects, A & B, are converging on each other at .8c.  That's the relative speed between them.   But how is it to be allocated?  Is each going .4c in the direction of the other, so that they will eventually "meet in the middle?"  If so there should be no  time dilation between them.  There are an infinite number of possibilities for allocating some or all of the speed of motion to either A or B.  Until you know what that is, you can't even begin to make a prediction about whose clock has slowed down, and by how much.

 

So, how, if you're A, do you allocate it in SR?  Answer:  You attribute ALL the motion to B, and claim that you are motionless.  OK, now you know who's travelling at what speeds, and you're in a position to use the LT to calculate the amount of time dilation, (since you know whose clock is slow).  But where does SR get this "knowledge" about who is moving, and how fast?  It "detects" the relative speeds by merely positing a preferred, motionless frame (that of A) from which to proceed.  But, wait, I thought that "THERE ARE NO PREFERRED FRAMES!!"

Edited May 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

So, how, if you're A, do you allocate it in SR?  Answer:  You attribute ALL the motion to B, and claim that you are motionless.  OK, now you know who's travelling at what speeds, and you're in a position to use the LT to calculate the amount of time dilation, (since you know whose clock is slow).  But where does SR get this "knowledge" about who is moving, and how fast?  It "detects" the relative speeds by merely positing a preferred, motionless frame (that of A) from which to proceed.  But, wait, I thought that "THERE ARE NO PREFERRED FRAMES!!"

 

 

It is an obvious fiction to just declare, without any kind of evidence, that A is "at rest" relative to every other object in the universe.  Yet posters like A-wal want to insist that SR is indisputably true, as a matter of fact.

 

That's bad enough, but it gets much worse.  As it turns out, B will insist that HE is the one at rest, not A.  So now there is a direct conflict between their respective claims, which are mutually exclusive.

 

It is bad enough that A-wal wants to declare (with no physical foundation whatsoever) that is TRUE that A is "at rest."  But now he will also tell that B is ALSO "absolutely correct," as a matter of objective fact, when he makes the opposite claim for B.

 

And all of these supposedly indubitable truth claims about the absolute motion of individual objects are made while also claiming that "you can never know who's moving."  Go figure, eh?

 

Anyone who thinks that any (let alone all) such claims MUST be true cannot be talking about objective physical reality.

 

As I've said before, if SR were to be true to its own premises, then it could only tell you that every possible question that could be asked about objects in motion can never be answered, because the answers are inherently unknown and unknowable.  Instead its proponents undertake to dispense "absolute truth" pertaining to such matters.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

I should not have encouraged you when I said that the beauty of scientific theories is that they're always being doubted and tested. I thought that was all you were doing. But now I see that you are in fact preaching your own unfounded, untested theories as if they are fact. I could point out the many mistakes you are making, but it is evident that are not here to have a discussion, only preach, so I will just ignore you.

[sluggo]

#137
 

What the video does not reveal is that, in order to make their precise calculations, they assumed at all times that their clock was the one moving, and that therefore the earth clock was running FASTER, not slower, than their airborne clock.  In other words, they refused to adopt the "reciprocal dilation" assumption of SR and the concomitant  mandate that they "assume" that they are stationary.  That would have forced them to conclude  that the earth clock was running slower than theirs, not faster.

 

---
I've never seen so much crap posted in the guise of science.
There is no polite way to put it. It isn't even worth a response.
From the original:

Hafele and Keating Experiment

"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."

J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The predicted values for both forms of relativity were in good agreement for a first time experiment.

The drawing may help visualize the motions of the objects involved.
The surface clock S at the surface origin is moving east at approx 1000 mph.
The clocks E and W are moving at approx. 500 mph relative to S. The net motion is:

W moving east at 500 mph, and E moving east at 1500 mph.

E and W are approx. 9000m (30,.000') altitude.

W is moving slower than S through space, and should lose less time than S

E is moving faster than S through space, and should lose more time than S.

Since E and W are at the same altitude, the GR components should be approx. equal.
The difference can be attributed to the W clock being in the air for an extra 7 hrs.
 

 

[Moronium]

I should not have encouraged you when I said that the beauty of scientific theories is that they're always being doubted and tested. I thought that was all you were doing. But now I see that you are in fact preaching your own unfounded, untested theories as if they are fact. I could point out the many mistakes you are making, but it is evident that are not here to have a discussion, only preach, so I will just ignore you.

 

 

 I have given reasons and authoritative sources for everything I've said, here, Popeye.  I realize that it would be a tremendous burden to respond in kind to even a single word of what I've said.  Maybe someday some posters here will actually catch up to the well-established modern science I have been citing, even it is inconsistent with what they know they know to be absolutely true.  If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would realize that the theories I have been discussing are NOT (1) mine; (2) unfounded; or (3) untested.

 

If you're looking for a person who is "not here to have a discussion," check a mirror, eh?

Edited May 7, 2018 by Moronium

[sluggo]

Mo;

 

For anyone interested in the experimental support for SR,

www.edu-observatory.org has a FAQ page on SR.

 

You have failed to show us anything new or any revelation that would overthrow an established theory. 

[Moronium]

These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."

 

 

 

This is the modern method of purportedly "resolving" the paradox, i.e., to totally ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. Pretend instead that the "paradox" is time dilation itself, which it (the paradox) never has been and never will be.  The cheapest straw man tactic in the book. 

 

Calling the predictions of the LT "predictions of SR" is a mistake.  Yes, clocks do slow down with increased speed.  But this is just what RMS predicts, also.  But the two theories would not make identical predictions about what the specific readings of all three clocks would end up being.  The predictions of the LT were accurate, when using a preferred frame to apply them.  The predictions of SR, which misuses the LT, were NOT.

 

You obviously have no clue about the difference between SR and a theory which employs the LT while adopting the premises of absolute simultaneity.

 

You're not alone.

 

Using the "stationary clock" to do calculations would have predicted, under SR, that each plane would lose time with respect to it, equally.  That didn't happen.

 

2.  Using the Eastbound clock as to do calculations would have predicted that both the earthbound clock would show less elapsed time than it, but with the dilation on the westbound clock being twice as much.  That didn't happen either. In fact, both clocks ran slower than it, not faster, as SR would predict.  Notice that this also disagrees with the predictions generated by using the naval station clock, so they don't even agree with each other, let alone with the actual clock readings.

 

As several authors that I've quoted have noted (as as anyone can see), "relative motion" is not what causes time dilation, and the predictions of SR were not accurate.  The prediction generated by the LT WERE accurate, but only if assessed by doing all calculations from a preferred frame and, therefore, by positing absolute motion.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The surface clock S at the surface origin is moving east at approx 1000 mph.

The clocks E and W are moving at approx. 500 mph relative to S. The net motion is:

W moving east at 500 mph, and E moving east at 1500 mph.

E and W are approx. 9000m (30,.000') altitude.

W is moving slower than S through space, and should lose less time than S

E is moving faster than S through space, and should lose more time than S.

 

  Every single sentence here is referring to ABSOLUTE, not relative, motion.  Can't anybody understand that?  Does anybody here actually know how to apply the LT in an SR context?   What does in mean to say that one object is "moving slower through space" than another?  Is absolute space the thing that is "truly" motionless?

 

" The surface clock S at the surface origin is moving east at approx 1000 mph." What is the surface clock moving east moving with respect to?  How does SR know that speed is 1000 mph?  SR would require the surface clock to assert that it was motionless, NOT "moving east at approx 1000 mph."

 

For that matter, SR would require that all three clocks assert that they are motionless, and that none of them slowed down.

 

In fact, all three slowed down, and all three were moving, relative to the clock in the preferred frame.

 

It is so typical of an SR advocate to employ the notion of absolute motion throughout an analysis and then, at the end, shout  "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE MOTION."   Cognitive dissonance never preys on them, that's for sure.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Moronium