Actually, Einstein referred to handling accelerations through frame switching in his original 1905 paper. I was just reading it last night.
Unfortunately if he did he did not state that in his presentation regarding living organisims and one get younger due to flying around in space.
Otherwise the issue of the "Twin Paradox" which lasted for years would never have arisen.
No, the symmetry is broken from the very start. From the astronaut's point of view, the journey to the beacon is a shorter distance than what his Earthbound twin measures.
You are still hung up on what observers in motion "Think" and not what is physical reality. Also you are merely reciting SR and not addressing the issue of failure to maintain the stipulated dilated condition of the traveling clock when computing v = ds/dt in the traveling frame. As I have pointed out now numerous times spatial contraction is nothing more than a fabrication to fit the theory and requires you ignore a stipulated dialted clcok when considering trip time. It is falacious shoddy physics - vodoo.
Same for the journey home. For the return trip, from Earth's POV it seems their clock is synchronized with the beacon and they started timing the return trip as soon as the twin started heading home. From the twin's POV, Earth's clock is ticking slow, but Earth also started timing the return trip before the astronaut reached the beacon, i.e. they "cheated" and will ultimately measure more time as having elapsed.
None of which addresses my cars going between cities example of a time dilated clock measuring the trip and the consequences which is a compute higher veloicty not ashorter distance.
I don't need to re-hear what SR claims for the 1,000th time. I want your rebuttal of physical points that have been presented.
Einstein knew this all in 1905, to him it was so obvious he didn't even need to consider accelerations, the coordinate change itself contains all the necessary information.
If so then he was not as smart as you seem to think becsue it took him years to respond to the "Twin" challenge.
And like I say, there's nothing wrong with the SR solution he gave in 1905. There's no ambiguity to the problem whatsoever, no matter what coordinate frame you choose to be stationary. From this point on, if you want to demonstrate that an ambiguity exists without GR, you'll have to set up some coordinate systems and show me how applying the Lorentz transformations leads to two contradictory results without further assumptions. Otherwise I'm not going to argue about the results of a calculation neither of us has done (here), I've already shown plenty of calculations and examples.
And so have I. But you have just said you refuse to address one key issue. That is the failure of there being any emperical evidence to support mere relative velocity as a cause of permanent time dilation. That is something different after there is no relative velocity.
Do you conceed or just choose to dodge the issue (which is just cowardly concession).
His attempt to stabilize the universe didn't work anyhow. A little nudge either way sends it rapidly inflating or else catastrophically collapsing according to his own calculations.
So he really wsn't as smart as you first suggested.? You make it sound like an obvious error.
Like I say,
Fizeau. Michelson and Morley also duplicated the experiment with an improved apparatus. From what I've read, Einstein didn't even know about this experiment until after it was published, so if that's actually true it would be even more impressive.
Actually I've read tht he actually did know. But I don't think either side has proof either way.
And if it turned out the Earth had actually been moving with velocity "w" the whole time as seen by observer "C", C's measurements (and later direct verification) would all show that the astronaut who left Earth returned substantially younger than his twin.
What don't you understand that I have not challenged the results of any test or properly defined experiment.
I challenge the assertion that relative velocity is the cause.
I challenge that v = c is actully a physical limit although I suspect it is certainly well above a practical limit because at (1) molecule / m^3 in deep space the devastation caused by impact would be unsurvivable and create tremendous drag as well.
Oh, but I do claim it's physical reality, insofar as physical reality is based on what you can sense, perceive, interact with and measure.
That is like saying the entire universe went dark just because you went to sleep. Or it is bright red just because you put on red glasses. Not acceptable difinitions of reality.
WEBSTER:
Real - 1) existing or happening as or in fact ; actual; true; objectively so, etc.; not merely seeming, pretended, imagined, fictitious, , nominal, ostensible.
Reality - 1) the quality or fact of being real
What you percieve, seems or imagine is NOT fact; hence it is not reality.
I even gave a scheme by which each astronaut could, in principle, prove that the other one has a slower ticking clock. The question of whose clock was started first or whose clock ticks faster depends entirely on the reference frame from which you choose to answer these questions.[/quopte]
Whic completely is off topic. Once again I do not care about what "Appears" to observers while in relative motion.
The two astronauts were parked next to each other, then one of them turned on his rocket engines for a while. But the results would actually be the same even if the other one turned on his engines, or both of them turned on their engines and cranked it to different thrust levels. They don't even have to fire their rockets in the same direction, their accelerations could be perpendicular. All that matters is that they have a stable relative speed at some point in the distant future when both of them have run out of fuel or otherwise turned their engines off.
In which case if both have accelerated any calculation you do regarding time dilation between them is an unsupportable mathematical construct. As I have shown in such cases the reality is if their inertial veloicties after acceleration are equal with respect thei their initial common rest frame they are not dilated relative to each other regardless of vector (or relative vleocity to each other).
Their physical conditon (not apparent condition) is based on the common rest frame and not relative velocity between the clocks. You can continue to make your mathematical assertions but you cannot provide even one shred of emperical data to support it where as there is plenty of emperical data to support what I have just stated.
That doesn't explain anything at all. I already said it doesn't matter how the particles got up to speed in the first place. You produce them, you get them up to a certain speed by one means or another, you wait for them to cross a certain starting line, then you measure how many of them make it past a series of checkpoints, in order to measure their average rate of decay. It doesn't matter where you put the starting line, pick any point you want in the accelerator, and any particles passing that line will have statistical lifetimes from that point on which depend only on what their velocity is after they cross the starting line (there are no accelerations performed on the particles after they cross this line, and even somewhat beforehand).
As they should and as I have also stated. Where do you get the idea that I claim anything different.
Further your statement fails to address the issue pointed out. The pushing force is an EM wave traveling at v = c. I said noting about time dilation or particle decay. You attempt to avoid the issues and talk about other things as though I don't know them. You are wrong.