Personal Topic

[Moronium]

.You realise there's no absolute motion, only relative motion in the model you're adhering to as well right? Absolute motion only works in that model in a local context.

 

If an object on Earth is at rest relative to Earth then it's in motion relative to observers on Mars. All inertial motion in that model is relative because different centres of mass are in motion relative to each other, it's just that time dilation and length contraction in that model aren't reciprocal.

 

You only show that you don't even know what "absolute" means in the context of theories of motion.  Even absolute motion is "relative to" something.  But that doesn't make it "relative motion."

[Moronium]

Overall, Awol, in accord with your standard M.O, you have refused to address specific questions raised and just responded with a mistake-filled monologue, which you say is "final."  It's time for you to declare victory and slink away, once again.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Moronium

[Amplituhedron]

 

In the so called twin paradox each twin is time dilated and length contracted in the frame of the other twin while they are in motion relative to each other. One ends up younger than the other because their journies aren't equivalent, one stays in the same inertial frame while the other doesn't. While the twin that doesn't remain inertial is accelerating the other's watch is running fast from the accelerating twin's perspective and this is what creates the differences in their age when they're back in the same frame. If both accelerate away in opposite direction from their starting point and mirror each others acceleration then they will both be the same age once their back in their starting frame. However they do it, they will always agree on the amount of time that's passed for themselves and the other twin once they're back in the same frame so there's no paradox.

 

 

 

 

This is absolutely correct, as I explained in Ralfcis’s gruesome relativity and algebra thread. I just went a step farther and showed you could disregard acceleration altogether in the so-called twin paradox and get the age difference from one twin being in two different inertial frames compared with the other, who is always in the same frame.

 

 

There are no contradictions in SR or GR, non, nada, zippo. Why this garbage by Ralfcis and Moronium is not confined to the Stranger Claims or Silly Claims forum is beyond me.

[A-wal]

 I'm glad I spotted this before Moronium had a chance to respond or would never have seen it, I've given up with him.

 

There are no contradictions in SR or GR, non, nada, zippo. Why this garbage by Ralfcis and Moronium is not confined to the Stranger Claims or Silly Claims forum is beyond me.

How would you like to bet me I can't come up with two apparent paradoxes in GR that you won't be able to resolve? :)

[Moronium]

If anyone is actually interested in the science involved, as opposed to just blowing hard, making unsupported assertions, and playing the know-it-all, they could look at this paper, published in The Journal of Astrophysics & Aerospace Technology.

 

In relativity theory there are two versions of time dilation: symmetric and asymmetric. In the first case, it is assumed that a moving clock always runs slower than the observer's local clock, so it is just a matter of perspective which of two clocks runs faster. By contrast, asymmetric time dilation assumes that if two clocks are running at different rates, one of them is unambiguously slower. The Lorentz transformation (LT) of Einstein's special theory of relativity (STR) predicts that only symmetric time dilation occurs in nature.

 

However, experimental studies of the rates of atomic clocks on airplanes, as well as of the second-order Doppler effect using high-speed rotors, find that time dilation is exclusively asymmetric, in clear contradiction to the LT.

 

In the present work, it is shown that there is another space-time transformation that also satisfies Einstein's two postulates of relativity, but one which assumes that clock rates in different rest frames are strictly proportional to one another.   It is therefore in complete agreement with the results of the above time-dilation experiments and also with the clock-rate adjustment procedure applied to satellite clocks in the methodology of the Global Positioning System; hence the designation GPS-LT for this alternative space-time transformation.  Unlike the original LT, the GPS-LT is consistent with the absolute remote simultaneity of events, and it eliminates the necessity of assuming that space and time are inextricably mixed.

 

 

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gpscompatible-lorentz-transformation-that-satisfies-the-relativity-principle-2329-6542-1000115.php?aid=55849

 

This is one of many available theoretical papers on the topic.

 

The point I am emphasizing here is that there is no empirical test which has ever yielded results which show that time dilation is "reciprocal."  On the contrary they all show that it is asymmetrical, unilateral, and directional.  No surprise there, because as a physical (as opposed to merely mathematical) matter, reciprocal time dilation is logically impossible.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

More excerpts:

 

The above discussion points out the need to carry out experiments to test whether time dilation is symmetric or asymmetric. The first study of this type was carried out by Hay et al..... Subsequent experiments by Kündig [10] and Champeney et al. [11] also found that their results were summarized by Equation 6. Kündig stated explicitly that the findings confirmed the position that it is the accelerated clock that is slowed by time dilation, thereby asserting that the measurement process is objective in this experiment, contrary to the prediction of Equations 5-7) and of the LT itself.

 

There is no question as to which clock is slower, as Sherwin pointed out [12] shortly after the Hay et al. experimental data [6] became available:  "Here for the first time, one is comparing a proper time interval in one inertial frame to what might be described as the sum of proper time intervals which were collected by the traveling clock in several different inertial frames. The result is completely unambiguous: One particular clock certainly runs fast, and the other certainly runs slow."

 

A decade later, Hafele and Keating carried out experiments with atomic clocks located on circumnavigating airplanes [13,14]. They also found that the symmetry of clock rates expected from the LT did not occur in practice...For this reason it is appropriate to refer to Equation 8 as the universal law of time dilation (ULTD) [16]. There are no known exceptions to this equation. It assumes that time dilation is always asymmetric, in contradiction to the LT prediction of symmetry between the results of different observers in relative motion to one another.

 

The global positioning system (GPS) operates on the assumption of a strict proportionality between the rate of a proper clock located on a satellite and that on the earth’s surface....The GPS technology is based on the principle that a proper clock on a satellite can be adjusted by a constant factor so that it runs at exactly the same rate as its counterpart on the earth’s surface, so asymmetric time dilation has become a staple of everyday modern life. For this reason it is appropriate to refer to Equations 12a-12d) as the GPS Lorentz transformation (GPS-LT)....Both the LT predictions of symmetric time dilation and remote non-simultaneity are therefore seen to be contradicted by all the considerable experimental evidence which has as yet become available.

 

None of this is new, actually.  Einstein himself said in his 1905 paper that a moving clock would actually (absolutely) run slower.  The problem then, and now, was that you cannot get an absolute answer on the basis of any theory which claims that motion is merely relative and that time dilation is reciprocal.  Einstein himself never proposed an answer to this question, although he clearly indicated that he did not think any of the numerous arguments presented in the academic papers to "resolve" the paradox were acceptable.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I just went a step farther and showed you could disregard acceleration altogether in the so-called twin paradox and get the age difference from one twin being in two different inertial frames compared with the other, who is always in the same frame....There are no contradictions in SR...

 

 

Which is just another way of saying what SR purports to say.  That one clock is actually (absolutely) moving, and hence actually (absolutely) slowing down.  It is the moving clock which runs slow, according to SR.  I just went through all of this with Awol, scroll up.

 

The problem is that SR also denies the existence of absolute motion.  That is the paradox.  You don't even know what the paradox (contradiction) is.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

If both accelerate away in opposite direction from their starting point and mirror each others acceleration then they will both be the same age once their back in their starting frame. However they do it, they will always agree on the amount of time that's passed for themselves and the other twin once they're back in the same frame so there's no paradox.

 

 

Once reunited and proven wrong, they'll agree, sure.  They'll also find out that the people on earth are all older than them.  But until that time they'll both say the the earth inhabitants are all younger than them, and that the other guy was even younger still.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

As one astronomer who was hired as a consultant for the GPS observed:

 

So as a traveler passes Earth in 8/1994 at a speed of 0.99c , time slippage effects begin to build up. Seven months later by his natural clock, the traveler arrives at Alpha Centauri. His own GPS clock shows four years of elapsed time, and indeed Alpha Centauri residents who think they are calendar-synchronized with Earth agree that the twin arrives in 9/1998.

 

But the traveler is convinced by Einstein SR that only one month of Earth time has elapsed since he passed Earth and noted the time as 8/1994. The traveler, upon arriving at Alpha Centauri, claims that the time is "now" 9/1994 on Earth. Alpha Centauri residents claim it is "now" 9/1998 on Earth.

 

If the traveler orbits Alpha Centauri at a speed of 0.99 c, then whenever he is headed in the direction of Earth his opinion changes to Earth time "now" is 9/2002. And whenever he is again headed away from Earth, Earth time is once again 9/1994. Earth time "now" changes continually, according to SR, because of these time slippage effects needed to retain frame reciprocity. Earth residents -- even the ones who died in 1998 -- are oblivious to their repeated passages into the future and past of the traveling twin, with concomitant deaths and resurrections.

 

 

The notion that some guy, light years away, can make people on earth die, rise from the grave, then die again, then rise again if he just keeps orbiting the planet he is near is preposterous.  His changing his personal "frame of reference" can have absolutely NO effect on Earthlings light years away.

 

Only fools like Awol and Amp might think otherwise.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

To Amp. It's a physics and mathematics forum. If you had the math skills, you might be able to disprove the physics story that goes along with it but, unfortunately, neither you or anyone else here has that ability. So keep flapping your gums and keep skulking away until you can walk the walk. Maybe try taking algebra when you make it into high school.

[Moronium]

The notion that some guy, light years away, can make people on earth die, rise from the grave, then die again, then rise again if he just keeps orbiting the planet he is near is preposterous.  His changing his personal "frame of reference" can have absolutely NO effect on Earthlings light years away.

 

Only fools like Awol and Amp might think otherwise.

 

 

Math "proves" all of this, eh, Ralf?  What's that tell ya about math?

[ralfcis]

It tells me you know nothing about math. It also tells me you should point out what you're talking about in theRelativity Video Course By Brian Greene

 

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

It should tell you what Einstein readily acknowledged, Ralf, but of course it won't.   You'll NEVER understand the nature and function of math:

 

The main thing is the content, not the mathematics. With mathematics one can prove anything.  (Albert Einstein)

 

[ralfcis]

How does someone so ignorant put himself in a position to make that judgement?

[Moronium]

How does someone so ignorant put himself in a position to make that judgement?

 

 

Einstein?  Ignorant?

 

Well, by your standards, I suppose so.  In your mind you're 50 million times as smart and knowledgeable as Einstein could ever hope to be.

[ralfcis]

No dumdumium, you. Try to read with comprehension. I've already done what you said I could never do but you're the one with the math illiteracy that can't see it and never will.

Edited March 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

It tells me you know nothing about math. It also tells me you should point out what you're talking about in theRelativity Video Course By Brian Greene

 

 

I have no clue what you're talking about.  If you have some question about something I said in that thread, why don't you clearly point out what it is and ask it there.