The Twin Paradox Made Simple

[marcospolo]

True, it doesn't have anything to do with it. Just pointing out that it's totally meaningless to claim that only one is moving, it makes no sense at all.

 

No, there is no contradiction. It's the watch in the ship's frame of reference that determines whether the bomb goes off. Yes a greater amount of time passes for an observer in the other frame before the light beam reaches the other end of the ship but that doesn't effect the outcome, how could it? The same amount of time passes on the the ship's watch before the light beam reaches the other side whatever frame you're in so the bomb either goes off or it doesn't, in all frames of reference.

There is NO watch or time device in the ship.  Light, which always goes 300 meters in one millisecond, for everyone, anywhere, determines if the detonation takes place.

The paradox is due to Einstein saying that light wont reach the sensor B simultaneously for both observers, that is the core of SR.   Einstein claims that, not me. And if we apply Einstein's  rules, then we still have a dead but alive space man.

(Unless you agree that both observers will record exactly the same things and times, in which case, you have just destroyed SR yourself.)

 

So in your little not-quite Einsteinian universe, what is the final outcome?  Is the space man alive or dead? And why? Please don't say both are true! We are not into Schroedinger yet.

 

And I nearly forgot.  Both earth guy and space ship guy, agreed prior to departure where the ship would be located at the one millisecond mark, so the light should be at the 300 meter position, or in other words still not at sensor B which had moved ahead by 150 meters by that time.

 

So now the somewhat stupid space guy STILL gets in the ship, KNOWING that the detonation MUST occur according to his calculations, which were checked by the Earth guy, and departs to do his flyby. 

But somehow, we are supposed to believe that now light will oblige, and get carried along with the ship, thereby ensuring that the space ship does not explode. Very convenient.

 

But meantime, the Earth guy sees light doing something entirely different!  So light, which it is claimed ALWAYS does exactly the same thing, is now NOT doing the same thing?

 

You see the issue yet?

 

Light cannot be doing an infinite number of things for an infinite number of observers. It, like everything else in the whole universe that has velocity, MUST be seen to be doing only the one action, regardless of your peculiar perspective.  If it SEEMS to be doing something different, then CHANGE your perspective, move to a place where you get a better view!

 

Perception does not necessarily equal reality.  

Edited October 17, 2018 by marcospolo

[A-wal]

There is NO watch or time device in the ship.  Light, which always goes 300 meters in one millisecond, for everyone, anywhere, determines if the detonation takes place.

You need to define exactly what determines whether or not the bomb detonates. If it's dependent on the time that light takes to reach the other side if the ship then presumably it's the time as measured by an observer on the ship.

 

For it to be a paradox, the time it takes for the light to reach the other side of the ship on the ship's watch would have to change in other reference frames, but that never happens. The the time shown on the ship's watch when the light reaches the other side of the ship is always the same regardless of the frame of reference of the observer.

 

You could set it up so that the time on a watch when the light reaches the other side of the ship in another frame determines if the bomb goes off but there's still no paradox. Whichever frame you want to use, the bomb either goes off or doesn't based on the amount of time that's passed in that frame, so no paradox.

[marcospolo]

You need to define exactly what determines whether or not the bomb detonates. If it's dependent on the time that light takes to reach the other side if the ship then presumably it's the time as measured by an observer on the ship.

 

For it to be a paradox, the time it takes for the light to reach the other side of the ship on the ship's watch would have to change in other reference frames, but that never happens. The the time shown on the ship's watch when the light reaches the other side of the ship is always the same regardless of the frame of reference of the observer.

 

You could set it up so that the time on a watch when the light reaches the other side of the ship in another frame determines if the bomb goes off but there's still no paradox. Whichever frame you want to use, the bomb either goes off or doesn't based on the amount of time that's passed in that frame, so no paradox.

Nope, you just don't get it do you. The guy on the ship will see the light getting the 300 meters as expected so he is safe.

But the guy on the earth, will see that the same light did not make it to the sensor B in the allotted one millisecond, so he will know for sure that the bomb must explode, because he is watching the light NOT get to where it MUST be  in the one millisecond. Even allowing for time dilation and length contraction, there is STILL a discrepancy in the two times observed, therefore someone is expecting an explosion, but the other is not. 

If the bomb fails to explode after one millisecond when the earth observer can see it failed to get to sensor B, then he must conclude that the sensor failed to function, not that time on the ship has shrunk.

 

But if the sensor is functioning, then we certainly do have a paradox.  

 

Einstein is saying light will do two totally different things for two different observers watching the one burst of light. This is the paradox.

All I am doing here is illustrate that if you think Einstein is correct, then this MUST have huge effects to the physical world.  That is exactly what Relativity claims, it claims time slows, length shrinks, and mass increases, not that they just 'seem" to happen.

So if they really do happen, and this example is using Einsteins own thought experiment with some embellishment, then really the space man both dies and lives. That is the only conclusion you can make here.  If nothing happens different to Galilean physics in this experiment, then nothing is happening at all with time or with length or with mass.

So there is no Special Relativity.  Whats the point if nothing is different? That is not what Einstein is saying.

[A-wal]

Nope, you just don't get it do you. The guy on the ship will see the light getting the 300 meters as expected so he is safe.

But the guy on the earth, will see that the same light did not make it to the sensor B in the allotted one millisecond, so he will know for sure that the bomb must explode, because he is watching the light NOT get to where it MUST be  in the one millisecond.

No! It's the time on the ship's watch when the light reaches the other side of the ship that determines whether or not the bomb goes off. The time it takes for the light to cross the ship in other frames of reference will necessarily be different but that in no way effects the bomb, obviously. The bomb doesn't go off if the light takes one millisecond to reach the other side of the ship on the ship's watch and it does take one millisecond on the ship's watch whichever frame you're in.

 

For the bomb to go off in some frames and not others to create a paradox, the time it takes for the light to cross the ship in the ship's frame would have to vary between different frames of reference but that's not how it works.

[sluggo]

 

There are three ways to respond to the video.

1. The first postulate of SR: 'the rules of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference'.

If the light requires 1 millisec to move the length of the container while at rest, then it requires 1 ms at any constant speed, recorded by a clock in the container.

 

2. The spacetime graphic.

It shows a 1 light ms container length contracted as a result of accelerating to .5c.

The U clock records the light at the B sensor at U1.73 ms. The red lines of constant time indicate the B clock is synchronized (green line) to the A clock which reads A1.00 ms.

If the signal were to return to A at A2.00 ms, A would conclude the B sensor was at a distance of 1 light ms.

 

3. Using the LT:

 

x'=g(x-vt)=1.15(1.73-.865)=1

 

tx'=g(t-vx)=1.15(1.73-.865)=1

forum anti SR.gif

 

And all 3 ways are invalid.  And as all three ways are totally different, which is f any are THE way to prove me wrong?

 

1. The experiment is set up exactly the same way as Einstein's experiment, which clearly REQUIRES a difference between the two observers data. What you have done with this first excuse is to say that there is no Special relativity, Einstein is wrong, with this I agree, well done.

 

2. You show with your weird and unproven Minkowski diagram, which can't actually be used to prove me wrong, as we have not even shown that Einsteins thought experiment is useful, (that is the original purpose of his thought experiment) and anyway, the Minkowski Diagraam requires Space-time which was not yet invented. SR must stand on its own, so spacetime cant be used to back it up. also, you say IF the signal were to return to A,  ... but it did not.  and so there IS a difference in the two times, ONLY ONE IS EXACTLY ONE MILLISECOND, so spaceman is dead, and not dead.

 

3. and LT is saying that both observers will measure 1 milisecond? so that is no transform at all is it? everyone says its one milisecond. But the lorentz transform was invented to fix up the problem of the variance of Maxwell's equations, which don't work when velocity is considered, and lorentz REQUIRED AETHER  in his equations!

 

So you cant say that two observers will NOT agree on the time, hence we have SR time dilation, then in the next breath claim that the two times ARE equal!, so this is not a paradox!  If SR is real  then the spaceship guy is dead and alive at the same time.  So clearly this shows the insanity of SR.

 

 

 

It is simple to explain if you know how SR works. You don't!

Maybe you are a Moronium stunt double. 

[marcospolo]

No! It's the time on the ship's watch when the light reaches the other side of the ship that determines whether or not the bomb goes off. The time it takes for the light to cross the ship in other frames of reference will necessarily be different but that in no way effects the bomb, obviously. The bomb doesn't go off if the light takes one millisecond to reach the other side of the ship on the ship's watch and it does take one millisecond on the ship's watch whichever frame you're in.

 

For the bomb to go off in some frames and not others to create a paradox, the time it takes for the light to cross the ship in the ship's frame would have to vary between different frames of reference but that's not how it works.

So you are correct!   Thereby PROVING yourself, that there can be only one way for this to work, that everyone will see one event, and only one possible outcome, the detonation either occurred, OR it did not occur.  Every frame observer will come to the same conclusion.   BUT THIS IS NOT SPECIAL RELATIVITY NOW IS IT?

 

Simply because the Earth observer's laws of physics tell him that the millisecond HAS expired, YET the light clearly has not made it to the sensor B, so now the explosion MUST occur, because of the laws of physics.  You can not get the laws of physics to function perfectly well for the space guy, but than say that the Earth guys physics can not work using the exact same rules of physics!  

 

According to the Earth guys immutable laws of physics, the detonation MUST occur, yet you claim that he will witness no explosion.  Maybe we stick to this track, where ship guys physics allow no explosion, and now we MUST have Earth guy having no explosion too,    So now you need to explain HOW that could possible happen?

 

To recap, the Earth guy times one millisecond, observes that the light FAILED to reach sensor B, so the ONLY result SHOULD be that there is an explosion, but no there is not?  

 

WHY? His math, laws of physics is PERFECT, as is his observation.  So how to explain this?

[marcospolo]

It is simple to explain if you know how SR works. You don't!

Maybe you are a Moronium stunt double. 

Another one that "knows" but seems incapable of putting it into words.  Weird.

[marcospolo]

No! It's the time on the ship's watch when the light reaches the other side of the ship that determines whether or not the bomb goes off. The time it takes for the light to cross the ship in other frames of reference will necessarily be different but that in no way effects the bomb, obviously. The bomb doesn't go off if the light takes one millisecond to reach the other side of the ship on the ship's watch and it does take one millisecond on the ship's watch whichever frame you're in.

 

For the bomb to go off in some frames and not others to create a paradox, the time it takes for the light to cross the ship in the ship's frame would have to vary between different frames of reference but that's not how it works.

And even more puzzling, if I had not added the explosive device, you would be saying that because of SR, there IS a real difference in length, time and mass from frame to frame.  So if you are having trouble rationalizing this explosive detonation thing, what say we swap the experiment around a bit, to see what happens.

 

We let the Earth guy trigger the explosives on the passing ship, depending on what he sees occurring, which should be fine for the Space guy, because the laws of physics work exactly the same for all inertial observers.  So you say the light pulse will reach sensor B in one millisecond, so space guy is happy with that.

 

 

But still the Earth guy will say that the light FAILED to reach sensor B in one millisecond, so he orders the ships destruction.  Space man dies. Yet both spaceman and the earth-man are using the exact same unchangeable laws of physics, but coming up with different answers.

 

The problem is that you cannot have two observers "see" one event that gives two contradictory results. 

[exchemist]

Another one that "knows" but seems incapable of putting it into words.  Weird.

Post 197 would seem to have plenty of words in it. 

[A-wal]

So you are correct!   Thereby PROVING yourself, that there can be only one way for this to work, that everyone will see one event, and only one possible outcome, the detonation either occurred, OR it did not occur.  Every frame observer will come to the same conclusion.   BUT THIS IS NOT SPECIAL RELATIVITY NOW IS IT?

This is exactly how special relativity works. If the light beam reaches the other side of the ship in one millisecond on the ship's watch then the bomb doesn't detonate, and it does reach the other side of the ship in one millisecond on the ship's watch in all frames of reference.

 

Simply because the Earth observer's laws of physics tell him that the millisecond HAS expired, YET the light clearly has not made it to the sensor B, so now the explosion MUST occur, because of the laws of physics.  You can not get the laws of physics to function perfectly well for the space guy, but than say that the Earth guys physics can not work using the exact same rules of physics!  

 

According to the Earth guys immutable laws of physics, the detonation MUST occur, yet you claim that he will witness no explosion.  Maybe we stick to this track, where ship guys physics allow no explosion, and now we MUST have Earth guy having no explosion too,    So now you need to explain HOW that could possible happen?

Of course they work using the same physics. The amount of time that passes for the observer on Earth on their own watch has no effect on the bomb. The Earth observer (all observers) see the that according to the watch on the ship, it took one millisecond for the light to reach the other side of the ship and so the bomb didn't detonate.

 

To recap, the Earth guy times one millisecond, observes that the light FAILED to reach sensor B, so the ONLY result SHOULD be that there is an explosion, but no there is not?  

 

WHY? His math, laws of physics is PERFECT, as is his observation.  So how to explain this?

The amount of time it takes for the light to reach the other side of the ship from the perspective of other reference frames in no way has any effect on the bomb.

 

And even more puzzling, if I had not added the explosive device, you would be saying that because of SR, there IS a real difference in length, time and mass from frame to frame.

There is a difference in length, time and mass from frame to frame, and this in no way has any effect on the fact that it always takes the same amount of time on the ship's watch for the light to cross the ship.

 

We let the Earth guy trigger the explosives on the passing ship, depending on what he sees occurring, which should be fine for the Space guy, because the laws of physics work exactly the same for all inertial observers.  So you say the light pulse will reach sensor B in one millisecond, so space guy is happy with that.

 

But still the Earth guy will say that the light FAILED to reach sensor B in one millisecond, so he orders the ships destruction.  Space man dies. Yet both spaceman and the earth-man are using the exact same unchangeable laws of physics, but coming up with different answers.

Right so this time it's the Earth observer's elapsed time that decides whether the bomb goes off. It takes longer than one millisecond for the light to reach the other side of the ship from their frame so they send the signal that detonates the bomb. It still only takes one millisecond on the ship's watch of course (one millisecond on the ship's watch in all reference frames) but now the ship's watch has no effect on the bomb because its detonation depends on the elapsed time on the watch of an observer in Earth's reference frame.

 

Whichever clock you use to determine whether or not the bomb detonates, that's the clock that decides whether or not the bomb detonates. You're argument is that the difference in elapsed time in other frames of reference causes a paradox but those are other clocks that aren't wired to the bomb.

 

The problem is that you cannot have two observers "see" one event that gives two contradictory results. 

No you can't, and this never happens in SR. Observers in different frames will disagree about measurements but these disagreements in no way contradict each other, in the same way that a speedometer at the side of the road that measures a bike traveling at 100mph doesn't contradict a speedometer that measures the bike moving at 30mph if it's in car that's moving in the same direction at 70mph.

 

In this situation you could wire a bomb to either speedometer, let's say the one at the side of the road and it detonates if the speedometer reads greater than 80mph. The bike explodes and your argument is the speedometer in the car behind only measuring 70mph causes a paradox.

[marcospolo]

This is exactly how special relativity works. If the light beam reaches the other side of the ship in one millisecond on the ship's watch then the bomb doesn't detonate, and it does reach the other side of the ship in one millisecond on the ship's watch in all frames of reference.

 

Of course they work using the same physics. The amount of time that passes for the observer on Earth on their own watch has no effect on the bomb. The Earth observer (all observers) see the that according to the watch on the ship, it took one millisecond for the light to reach the other side of the ship and so the bomb didn't detonate.

 

The amount of time it takes for the light to reach the other side of the ship from the perspective of other reference frames in no way has any effect on the bomb.

 

There is a difference in length, time and mass from frame to frame, and this in no way has any effect on the fact that it always takes the same amount of time on the ship's watch for the light to cross the ship.

 

Right so this time it's the Earth observer's elapsed time that decides whether the bomb goes off. It takes longer than one millisecond for the light to reach the other side of the ship from their frame so they send the signal that detonates the bomb. It still only takes one millisecond on the ship's watch of course (one millisecond on the ship's watch in all reference frames) but now the ship's watch has no effect on the bomb because its detonation depends on the elapsed time on the watch of an observer in Earth's reference frame.

 

Whichever clock you use to determine whether or not the bomb detonates, that's the clock that decides whether or not the bomb detonates. You're argument is that the difference in elapsed time in other frames of reference causes a paradox but those are other clocks that aren't wired to the bomb.

 

No you can't, and this never happens in SR. Observers in different frames will disagree about measurements but these disagreements in no way contradict each other, in the same way that a speedometer at the side of the road that measures a bike traveling at 100mph doesn't contradict a speedometer that measures the bike moving at 30mph if it's in car that's moving in the same direction at 70mph.

 

In this situation you could wire a bomb to either speedometer, let's say the one at the side of the road and it detonates if the speedometer reads greater than 80mph. The bike explodes and your argument is the speedometer in the car behind only measuring 70mph causes a paradox.

Why do you keep saying that the "time" is different for different observers? You are saying that the watches are not working properly, but that is not time, its just crappy watches.

OK, so we have one car, three speedo's, they are all correct? or all wrong? or one is correct?  With physics, only one can be found to be possibly correct, not all three of them.

That is real physics, where we identify conflicts, and fix them, unless you are Einstein, where you embrace the asinine.

 

You say that if the bomb is triggered by the ships time, this will ensure that the bomb doesn't explode, as the ship sensors are 300 meters apart.  This is logical and correct.

You also said that ships time is always ships time regardless of the other frames times.  

 

Here is the problem with that, if we assume that the other frames do not have the same absolute time the same as the ship. (which is reality)

 

You claim that light is ALWAYS exactly the same velocity regardless of the frame. 

 

Every frame will measure light at 300 meters per second.  

 

Relative to what?  Their own frame of reference.  Or ANY other frame of reference. The answer MUST always be 300 million meters per second in all frames measured from any frame. c is always c.

 

But now you say that the ships time and distance is shrunk, really, truly shrunk, but the ship guy cant actually measure that himself.

You say his time is passing slower, so when he returns to Earth he won't have aged as much as the Earth guys. So this is a real effect.

 

Ok, so now we get everyone to compare notes, the stationary guys, any moving guys, all measure the sped of light in their own frame, they all report 300 million meters per second, regardless of how shrunk their rulers or time is.

 

Everyone agrees that 300 is 300 is 300.... which is exactly what classical physics says too.

 

So how do you get to now say "BUT for of some guys their meter is not really one meter any more, and their second is not really one second either..."

Whats the point of that when we all just agreed that there was no measurable differenced between any frame, and that was the first postulate of Einstein anyway?

 

Anyway,  the point is that everyone will see or measure the light from their own reference frame, and it MUST reach the sensor B at exactly the same time for everyone.

Even if everyone is measuring using shrunk rulers and shrunk time, the light MUST traverse the 300 meters of the ship as viewed from ANY frame to always reach the sensor B at the same time.... do you agree? ( If it does not then someone will get to claim that the Laws of Physics don't work anymore, as the calculated elapsed time for light to go 300 meters is a well known fact.)

 

But Einstein says that they will NOT measure the same thing, immediately after saying that they MUST!

 

Einsteins position is irrational, circular and nonsensical. Its also self contradictory.

 

You cant have the light reaching the end of a 300 meter ship in one millisecond but at the same time NOT have it reach the sensor!

The ship is always measured as 300 meters by everyone but then come up with an alternative length but only for some observers.

 

Isn't it just easier to say that if the earth guy measures the ship shorter than when it was on Earth, and increasingly shorter the faster the ship goes, but the ship observer does NOT get corresponding data, that maybe the Earth guys measures are all wrong? 

 

Occam's Razor would say that this is the most likely explanation.

[Dubbelosix]

Time does tick at different rates, when it gravitational fields or simply in relativistic motion. This has been proven countless times. You have no arguments like I said before, that could topple relativity. To think you do is completely delusional. Newsflash, get real. 

[marcospolo]

Time does tick at different rates, when it gravitational fields or simply in relativistic motion. This has been proven countless times. You have no arguments like I said before, that could topple relativity. To think you do is completely delusional. Newsflash, get real. 

 "Time" does not tick, clocks do.  So maybe, just maybe, physical machines like atomic clocks don't work accurately when you move them all over the place, but that is not the same as claiming that "TIME" is changing, is it? You just need better clocks that don't get messed up when you move them!

Anyway, everyone knows, or they should that no two atomic clocks, even identical ones, maintain the exact same time readings as each other even when the two clocks are sitting side by side!  How is that helping your round the world experiments accuracy? Portable atomic clocks are really poor at maintaining the accuracy required for the measurement of such a tiny difference.   Even that new atomic clock that they said would only loose a second over the entire time the universe has existed,  HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT? What MORE accurate clock do they have to compare it to? Loose a second over 13 billion years, as judged against what better time keeping device exactly?

This is an Einstein type claim. But I bet you bought that claim without a single thought or reflection, when you read it.

 

 

Well you don't have a solid or convincing argument for Relativity, just a lot of talk that can be argued with, at every turn, and the logic of relativity requires you to be irrational with the conclusions being "counter intuitive".

So if it up to opinion, I'm staying with the sensible position, having not herd anything I can get behind with any confidence fro Einstein.

 

And as I mentioned before, even the best evidence supporting relativity is able to be interpreted in a variety of ways, so there is nothing concrete to rely on.

 

There are more articles, papers and even whole books on the Twin Paradox, than you can read in half you life time. But although they are all written by Relativist Scholars and professors, they all have a different explanations, they contradict each other.  Each professor explains why the previous professors excuse is wrong, and why his explanation is correct.  If Relativity was a clear cut true fundamental principal of Physics, some of these guys should be able to easily come up with the one correct and approved reason why the Twin Paradox is not a real paradox. 

Reading these papers is like working through a factory full of spaghetti looking for an earth worm.

 

I don't think real basic principals of Physics would provide such complexity and contradictory claims that not even the believers can agree on.

 

You listen to even a respected physicist, and the explanations come out like a story from a bad liar, with more twist and turns that can be followed, with more caveats and sub clauses than a Lawyer could propose. 

Even on the most basic forces such as Magnetism, people like Feynman cant explain whats going on, instead he claimed that he could not explain it to someone who was not a Physicists himself.  What happened to the really good saying "If you cant explain it to a 6 year old, then you don't know what you are talking about".

 

The correct answer as to why a magnet attracts steel or Gravity draws everything down, is simply, "We really do not know".

 

But Physicists are so full of themselves that they are too proud to admit that. So they make up s**t. Even a very crappy story seems better than "we don't know". 

So thats what we have now in modern Physic, a collection of really crappy stories. and lots or arguing professors all trying to justify their jobs.

 

The truth is you are anyone else can't work through the hypothesis of Special Relativity, explaining it step by step to a critical person, without encountering objections at almost every sentence.  I've watched all the lectures on SR, they all skip over problems as if they did not exist, no one interjects.

 

ALL observed experimental evidence that supports SR can and has been criticized, numerous times in a variety of ways by Physicists and scholars and every bit of evidence can and has been interpreted in ways that do not require SR. This is a fact.

So if you have an observation, and have several equally viable alternative and conflicting explanations for it, then you don't get to choose your favorite one, that backs up your favorite hypothesis.

And you certainly should always teach ALL of the alternative explanations at University alongside your favorite one, as you still don't have the "winning" theory. 

 

But they never even mention the issues, only the weak and badly formed alternatives are presented, (and dispatched with scorn) never the stronger or more rational alternatives.

 

GPS for example is touted as one of the best solid proofs that SR works.  Yet they never mention all the issues that show that in fact, GPS is actually better proof that SR cannot work!.  If they really did make adjustments according to SR then they would be inducing errors, not fixing them.

 

But anyway, I am pleased that no one here who believes in SR, has been able to present any better arguments to support the hypothesis than I have previously read.

So, as there is no solid reasonable argument in its favor, just a lot of convoluted and counter intuitive rhetoric, and no smack down physical evidence, Ill have to stick with the conclusion that SR remains a confused Hypothesis not really worth following up on, as the claims are unreasonable.

 

By the way, "Muons" are not solid evidence either,  SR is just ONE proposed interpretation, and requires a lot of assumptions to get to the conclusion. Its hardly convincing evidence unless you are already fully a believer in SR, otherwise, no.

 

And the base hypothesis of Einstein about SR involves the use of a "light clock" which we have seen, does not work, (if it could work, they would have made one by now, as it would be more accurate than any atomic clock ever could be.)  But the concept of a light clock defies physics, it only exists in the imagination.  Next realizing its all imaginary, the claimed path of the single photon, according to Einstein, takes two paths, one is up/down, the other is zigzag. But in my other video, I demonstrate that this is impossible. A "light clock" can NEVER function at all, in any way, its broke, if you move it at relativistic speeds. So this means that you can not, from a sound Physics approach, continue on through such an impossibly flawed hypothesis, with impossible physical events occurring, that can never be demonstrated in an experiment.

To accept Einsteins hypothesis, which I would do given sound evidence, someone MUST actually build a LIGHT CLOCK, then they must conduct Einsteins though experiment in real laboratory conditions, showing conclusively that the claimed time and distance dilations are real.

 

Let me know what you have built the "impossible light clock", and we can set up the remaining part of the experiment. Your clock can't even function while it stationary, let alone doing half light speed.

 

So if you want to come up with wacky theories, you need to offer a decent way to test the theory, and sensible experiments that eliminate alternative interpretations. So far Relativists have failed to do this in any way, yet they cling to the myth. I told you that its just a mystical religious belief, not real science. That explains a lot.

Edited October 19, 2018 by marcospolo

[Dubbelosix]

I'm not having this stupid conversation with you. 

[marcospolo]

I'm not having this stupid conversation with you. 

Right,  You want me to believe in an impossible to explain hypothesis that has been shown to be irrational, illogical and mathematically incorrect. (math errors explained else-where bu others.)

The hypothesis depends on a theoretical light clock that is if constructed, will fail to function, and if you move it fast enough can never work at all.

You then want me to accept evidence that gives impossibly tiny results, which all are more easily explained using other, more rational explanations.

 

You want me to believe that Time shrinks, distance shrinks but not width or height, and mass increases but only for some not for all.

This you claim is better to believe rather than the obvious and simpler explanation , that Relativity is just wrong.

 

I don't see any solid argument that could help me change my mind. There are only problems at every turn, so Relativity fails to provide a schema that is acceptable or workable.

 

Its a religious belief system, no doubt about it.

That IS the truth!

[sluggo]

marcospolo;
 

And all 3 ways are invalid.  And as all three ways are totally different, which is f any are THE way to prove me wrong?

 

 

1. The experiment is set up exactly the same way as Einstein's experiment, which clearly REQUIRES a difference between the two observers data. What you have done with this first excuse is to say that there is no Special relativity, Einstein is wrong, with this I agree, well done.

 

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

2. You show with your weird and unproven Minkowski diagram, which can't actually be used to prove me wrong, as we have not even shown that Einsteins thought experiment is useful, (that is the original purpose of his thought experiment) and anyway, the Minkowski Diagraam requires Space-time which was not yet invented. SR must stand on its own, so spacetime cant be used to back it up. also, you say IF the signal were to return to A,  ... but it did not.  and so there IS a difference in the two times, ONLY ONE IS EXACTLY ONE MILLISECOND, so spaceman is dead, and not dead.

 

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

3. and LT is saying that both observers will measure 1 milisecond? so that is no transform at all is it? everyone says its one milisecond. But the lorentz transform was invented to fix up the problem of the variance of Maxwell's equations, which don't work when velocity is considered, and lorentz REQUIRED AETHER  in his equations!

 

---
Look again! The U time for light arrival at B is 1.73. The LT transforms the U data to the A data correctly. The point was to show all 3 approaches produced the same results.
---
Before SR, Lorentz realized Maxwells equations required modifications of time to make them invariant. Einstein dismissed an ether as unnecessary, and developed coordinate transforms  identical to those of Lorentz.
----

So you cant say that two observers will NOT agree on the time, hence we have SR time dilation, then in the next breath claim that the two times ARE equal!, so this is not a paradox!  If SR is real  then the spaceship guy is dead and alive at the same time.  So clearly this shows the insanity of SR.

 

---
You are condemning something you don't understand.
 

[A-wal]

Why do you keep saying that the "time" is different for different observers? You are saying that the watches are not working properly, but that is not time, its just crappy watches.

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

 

OK, so we have one car, three speedo's, they are all correct? or all wrong? or one is correct?  With physics, only one can be found to be possibly correct, not all three of them.

That is real physics, where we identify conflicts, and fix them, unless you are Einstein, where you embrace the asinine.

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

 

You say that if the bomb is triggered by the ships time, this will ensure that the bomb doesn't explode, as the ship sensors are 300 meters apart.  This is logical and correct.

You also said that ships time is always ships time regardless of the other frames times.  

 

Here is the problem with that, if we assume that the other frames do not have the same absolute time the same as the ship. (which is reality)

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

 

You claim that light is ALWAYS exactly the same velocity regardless of the frame.

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

 

Every frame will measure light at 300 meters per second.  

 

Relative to what?  Their own frame of reference.  Or ANY other frame of reference. The answer MUST always be 300 million meters per second in all frames measured from any frame. c is always c.

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

 

But now you say that the ships time and distance is shrunk, really, truly shrunk, but the ship guy cant actually measure that himself.

You say his time is passing slower, so when he returns to Earth he won't have aged as much as the Earth guys. So this is a real effect.

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

 

Ok, so now we get everyone to compare notes, the stationary guys, any moving guys, all measure the sped of light in their own frame, they all report 300 million meters per second, regardless of how shrunk their rulers or time is.

 

Everyone agrees that 300 is 300 is 300.... which is exactly what classical physics says too.

 

So how do you get to now say "BUT for of some guys their meter is not really one meter any more, and their second is not really one second either..."

Whats the point of that when we all just agreed that there was no measurable differenced between any frame, and that was the first postulate of Einstein anyway?

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

 

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

 

Anyway,  the point is that everyone will see or measure the light from their own reference frame, and it MUST reach the sensor B at exactly the same time for everyone.

Even if everyone is measuring using shrunk rulers and shrunk time, the light MUST traverse the 300 meters of the ship as viewed from ANY frame to always reach the sensor B at the same time.... do you agree? ( If it does not then someone will get to claim that the Laws of Physics don't work anymore, as the calculated elapsed time for light to go 300 meters is a well known fact.)

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

 

But Einstein says that they will NOT measure the same thing, immediately after saying that they MUST!

No he doesn't.

 

Einsteins position is irrational, circular and nonsensical. Its also self contradictory.

No it isn't.

 

You cant have the light reaching the end of a 300 meter ship in one millisecond but at the same time NOT have it reach the sensor!

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

 

The ship is always measured as 300 meters by everyone but then come up with an alternative length but only for some observers.

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

 

Isn't it just easier to say that if the earth guy measures the ship shorter than when it was on Earth, and increasingly shorter the faster the ship goes, but the ship observer does NOT get corresponding data, that maybe the Earth guys measures are all wrong?

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

 

Occam's Razor would say that this is the most likely explanation.

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