Wow that pic of Alice is like looking in a mirror when I'm reading y'all's responses. Do you guys like cartoons? I bet you do. Here's one about my experiences on this forum:
There are only two rules of relativity club: First rule is there are no problems with relativity. Second rule is if you find a problem with relativity, there are no problems with relativity. That may sound like one of relativity's circular arguments but there are are no circular arguments in relativity. So, as Vic says, why wouldn't everyone just accept Einstein's theories? Okay, I'm going to explain what "I" means once again.
Because of relativity's definition of perspective time as the only type of time, present, or reality, in order for all perspectives to agree on a time difference between two parties engaged in relative motion, those parties must be co-located. They don't even need to stop their relative motion, they can pass by and be co-located for an instant in order for them to agree on what is the age difference between them. The time this comparison happens will be different from different perspectives, but the difference between their two times will be universal from all perspectives.
So in cartoon language, if Homer's time is 5 and Marge's time is 4, their time difference is 1 to them. That same time diff of 1 is seen by everyone in the room even though everyone in the room may have different times on when Homer and Marge compared watches. But the key is that Homer and Marge can only establish their time diff when they're side by side. Homer can't yell across the room to Marge to ask what time she's got. Then no one will agree on their time difference or when they compared watches. It's like relativity defines co-location as a super perspective of time, like a present that's more real than the normally real perspective present. (This was a simplified example of faulty watches causing time diff but, in relativity, the time diff is real, the watches only record it.)
So what does the "I" mean again? Relativity can only define age difference when Bob and Alice re-unite because not everyone will agree on their time difference so long as they remain separate. There's absolutely no reason for this rule except for how relativity defines time. It's a circular argument in a theory that can't have circular arguments so the rule must be correct. Yet what I'm showing is a method that allows one to establish age difference for whatever velocity change is made without ending in co-location. But this violates spacetime rules which are a cornerstone of the theory of relativity. If those rules are wrong, the entire theory is wrong. Therefore, invoking the first rule of relativity club, my math must be a trick because it's impossible to establish age difference for velocity changes that do not end with re-unification. It's not even worth setting up an experiment to determine who's right because the results of that experiment would be invalid if they proved relativity wrong. This reasoning makes perfect sense to everyone on this and every physics forum out there.
What does the "I" stand for again?
Edited by ralfcis, 24 April 2019 - 07:46 AM.