well .....what else would you expect from a public generic forum other than layman type discussions... [ chuckle ]
remember no qualifications needed to gain registration at this site... etc etc etc....
Three Experiments Challenging SRT
- Thread starter Masterov
- Start date
remember no qualifications needed to gain registration at this site... etc etc etc....
Quantum Quack, OnlyMe.
No, it's not I who keeps wanting it both ways and so taking the discussion beyond SR/GR, it's OnlyMe et al, when they keep using the wanting-it-both-ways glib 'explanation' as follows:
That implies some absolute frame, else there would be NO differentiable way in SR to tell WHICH is ACTUALLY moving/accelerating and affecting the clock as stated there.
See? Once that 'explanation' is invoked, the discussion is obviously beyond SR/GR, and implies an absolute frame which does affect clocks within a frame irrespective of any 'relative' abstractions about the affected clock motion/acceleration being 'just in relation to other clocks' instead of in relation to the energy-space being traversed BY the actually moving/accelerating affected clock.
Please don't either of you keep making assumptions about what I am saying. Just read my posts and understand without 'reading into it' your glib dismissals based on 'both ways' views of what SR/GR 'explanations/scenarios' are about.
I have just pointed out that you can't have it both ways by using such arguments as used above, which explicitly imply an absolute frame, else there is no logical basis in SR for using that 'explanation' as if it explained anything but the relative aspects which we all know about already.
The point now is, since SR cannot use such explanations as above, then it must be left to further absolute-reference treatments of the reality involved.
SR is OK for what it is; it just does not answer when the above 'want it both ways' explanations are trotted out as if they explain SR when it comes to WHICH CLOCK IS ACTUALLY MOVING/ACCELERATING. In SR there is no way to tell which is the one moving, since in SR motion is all 'relative' to another and 'not absolute' in some frame common to both which affects them uniquely when ONE OR THE OTHER is actually the one that moves/accelerates from the other (and hence their clock IS affected by that ubiquitous frame of energy-space).
Read again what Masterov posted...it succinctly points to the implications of OnlyMe's 'explanation' above about clocks and the velocity affecting them:
I bolded the part where the implication of OnlyMe's 'explanation' leads from SR to something more real.
Please re-read and don't resume the same old dialogue which does not address what has been pointed out NOW.
Cheers!
No, it's not I who keeps wanting it both ways and so taking the discussion beyond SR/GR, it's OnlyMe et al, when they keep using the wanting-it-both-ways glib 'explanation' as follows:
That implies some absolute frame, else there would be NO differentiable way in SR to tell WHICH is ACTUALLY moving/accelerating and affecting the clock as stated there.
See? Once that 'explanation' is invoked, the discussion is obviously beyond SR/GR, and implies an absolute frame which does affect clocks within a frame irrespective of any 'relative' abstractions about the affected clock motion/acceleration being 'just in relation to other clocks' instead of in relation to the energy-space being traversed BY the actually moving/accelerating affected clock.
Please don't either of you keep making assumptions about what I am saying. Just read my posts and understand without 'reading into it' your glib dismissals based on 'both ways' views of what SR/GR 'explanations/scenarios' are about.
I have just pointed out that you can't have it both ways by using such arguments as used above, which explicitly imply an absolute frame, else there is no logical basis in SR for using that 'explanation' as if it explained anything but the relative aspects which we all know about already.
The point now is, since SR cannot use such explanations as above, then it must be left to further absolute-reference treatments of the reality involved.
SR is OK for what it is; it just does not answer when the above 'want it both ways' explanations are trotted out as if they explain SR when it comes to WHICH CLOCK IS ACTUALLY MOVING/ACCELERATING. In SR there is no way to tell which is the one moving, since in SR motion is all 'relative' to another and 'not absolute' in some frame common to both which affects them uniquely when ONE OR THE OTHER is actually the one that moves/accelerates from the other (and hence their clock IS affected by that ubiquitous frame of energy-space).
Read again what Masterov posted...it succinctly points to the implications of OnlyMe's 'explanation' above about clocks and the velocity affecting them:
I bolded the part where the implication of OnlyMe's 'explanation' leads from SR to something more real.
Please re-read and don't resume the same old dialogue which does not address what has been pointed out NOW.
Cheers!
ok...I did try....
Wind up or turn on the clock and see that it keeps acurate time. Then move the clock. It does not take an Enstien to know that the clock's velocity has changed when you move it. And it has increased relative to when it was turned on because even here on Earth, in a weak gravitational field, spacetime is functionally flat, locally. It does not involve anything beyond SR.
Where you quoted me there is nothing beyond SR involved in the dilation of the clock, other than a philosophical comment attached to the end.
Thanks for that anyway, mate! Just as long as we don't end up going around and around on the old groove because the new points are not addressed properly by those who usually want it both ways by 'explaining' SR by invoking the absolute effects of clocks being affected by velocity when in SR there is no difference between them if it is 'all just relative'.
Anyhow, I have pointed out what I wanted to point out. I will leave Masterov and others to discuss things in the light of what has been posted in the last day or so.
Thanks again, QQ and OM (and Masterov, of course) for your discussion/responses. It's back to 'read only' mode for me. Until next time, Take care, good luck and good thinking, everyone!
That is not at issue, mate. The velocity is affecting the tick rate. But in SR there is no difference between the two moving twins 'relatively'. Hence the velocity must tell. But what makes the velocity real for one and not the other? Acceleration/motion through energy-space for one twin compared to their common state before the actually accelerating/moving twin takes off. That is the point. Again, no 'velocity affects clocks' can be used in attempt to 'explain' SR scenario' which cannot distinguish which IS the accelerating/moving clock/twin that IS affected by that acceleration/motion with respect to energy-space rather than 'just relative to other twin' (which in SR is indistinguishable from the other, as Masterov keeps pointing out, to no avail it seems).
No argument about what you said there; it's the implications that are being ignored which is at issue. The usual arguments are no longer what this is about because your "velocity affects clock tick rates" comment makes that clear.
I'll leave it there and 'read only' again for a while. Thanks again. Bye.
In SRT if two twins move apart from each other at a constant velocity (e.g. if one stays on Earth while the other flies away in a rocket) then each twin will be time dilated (age more slowly) in the other's rest frame. Relativity's time dilation and length contraction formulae only apply to features of a moving object in an inertial (non accelerating) reference frame. So if you are looking at the case where the twin in the rocket eventually turns around and returns to Earth, you can calculate the age of the twin in the rocket when he returns to Earth by integrating his time dilation factor along his entire trip, but it is an error to try to do the same thing in the rocket twin's frame because it is not an inertial frame throughout his entire trip (he has to stop at some point and accelerate back).
This is the 'standard' description of time dilation and how the Twin Paradox is resolved in SRT. Is there a reason in particular you are not satisfied with them? If you think reciprocal time dilation (each twin ages more slowly from the other's perspective) seems impossible, can you explain why you think that?
As a way of gauging how much you already know, what do you think each twin would see if they looked at the other through a telescope? If we forget what SRT says and we only assume the twin in the rocket is time dilated, what would you expect both twins to see when they looked through their telescopes in that case?
Thanks for the reply przyk (687). Please gauge that I know very little, and can't answer any of your interesting questions.
My confussion and enquiry, revolved around ..
"how can an object be absolutely fixed in space relative to the one travelling away from it in order for the twin paradox to make sense"
But I think I'm seeing some discussion about this from others, and will keep reading this most fascinating thread.
Origin, (663) thank you aslo for your reply.
My confussion and enquiry, revolved around ..
"how can an object be absolutely fixed in space relative to the one travelling away from it in order for the twin paradox to make sense"
But I think I'm seeing some discussion about this from others, and will keep reading this most fascinating thread.
Origin, (663) thank you aslo for your reply.
Last edited:
This is - a lie.
A synchronizations of GPS-satellites clock are necessary in any case: if relativistic time dilation or in its absence.
========================
Ýòî – ëîæü.
Ñèíõðîíèçàöèÿ ÷àñîâ GPS ñïóòíèêîâ íåîáõîäèìà â ëþáîì ñëó÷àå: ïðè íàëè÷èè ðåëÿòèâèñòñêîãî çàìåäëåíèÿ âðåìåíè è ïðè åãî îòñóòñòâèè.
You're trying "to drive us around by the nose" by mathematics, rather than to give an answer to the simple question of physics:
Two twins are in inertial frames in equal conditions, but one of them has time dilation.
This difference should be expressed in the form of a physical parameter that is unique to each of the twins.
This physical parameter should be present in every inertial frame.
You stubbornly refuse to call this parameter.
You do not call him, do not describe its properties.
You want to convince us that the SRT is not a scientific theory but are a mistical delusion.
But I do not need this to convince.
I have long known that the SRT is not a scientific theory but are a mistical delusion.
===================
Âû ïûòàåòåñü âîäèòü íàñ çà íîñ ïîñðåäñòâîì ìàòåìàòèêè, âìåñòî òîãî, ÷òîáû äàòü îòâåò íà ïðîñòîé âîïðîñ ôèçèêè:
Äâà áëèçíåöà íàõîäÿòñÿ â èíåðöèàëüíûõ ñèñòåìàõ îòñ÷¸òà â ðàâíûõ óñëîâèÿõ, íî ó îäíîãî èç íèõ âðåìÿ òå÷¸ò ìåäëåííåå.
Ýòî ðàçëè÷èå äîëæíî áûòü âûðàæåíî â ôîðìå ôèçè÷åñêîãî ïàðàìåòðà, êîòîðûé ÿâëÿåòñÿ óíèêàëüíûì äëÿ êàæäîãî èç áëèçíåöîâ.
Ýòî ôèçè÷åñêèå ïàðàìåòðû äîëæíû ïðèñóòñòâîâàòü â êàæäîé èíåðöèàëüíîé ñèñòåìå îòñ÷åòà.
Âû óïîðíî îòêàçûâàåòåñü íàçâàòü ýòîò ïàðàìåòð.
Âû íå íàçûâàåòå åãî, íå îïèñûâàåòå åãî ñâîéñòâà.
Âû õîòèòå óáåäèòü íàñ â òîì, ÷òî SRT íå íàó÷íàÿ òåîðèÿ, à- ìèñòè÷åñêèé áðåä.
Íî ìåíÿ íå íóæíî â ýòîì óáåæäàòü.
ß äàâíî çíàþ, ÷òî SRT íå íàó÷íàÿ òåîðèÿ, à - ìèñòè÷åñêèé áðåä.
Quiescents state and uniform rectilinear motion are indistinguishable.
What: You will not even know it?
===================
Ñîñòîÿíèå ïîêîÿ è ðàâíîìåðíîå ïðÿìîëèíåéíîå äâèæåíèå íåðàçëè÷èìû.
×òî?: Âàì íå èçâåñòíî äàæå ýòî?
That is, you say that there is "something" in the rocket, which remembers the background missiles.
This is "something" must to remember that the rocket had accelerations.
It is "something" to be expressed in the form of the physical parameter.
You will stubbornly refuse to call this physical parameter again too?
====================
Т.е., вы утверждаете, что в ракете присутствует "нечто", что помнит предысторию ракеты.
Это "нечто" помнит, что ракета ускорялась.
Это "нечто" должно быть выражено в виде физического параметра.
Вы будете упорно отказываеться назвать и этот параметр?
AlphaNumeric, przyk, rpenner, origin, OnlyMe... you are deceiving yourself.
Why are you doing this?
You can not be a scientists if you lie yourself.
To yourself a scientist must be honest.
(At least - to yourself.)
=====================
AlphaNumeric, przyk, rpenner, origin, OnlyMe... âû îáìàíûâàåòå ñåáÿ.
Çà÷åì âû ýòî äåëàåòå?
Ó÷¸íûì áûòü íåëüçÿ, åñëè âð¸øü ñåáå.
Ïåðåä ñîáîé ó÷¸íûé äîëæåí áûòü ÷åñòåí.
(Õîòÿ áû – ïåðåä ñîáîé.)
Why are you doing this?
You can not be a scientists if you lie yourself.
To yourself a scientist must be honest.
(At least - to yourself.)
=====================
AlphaNumeric, przyk, rpenner, origin, OnlyMe... âû îáìàíûâàåòå ñåáÿ.
Çà÷åì âû ýòî äåëàåòå?
Ó÷¸íûì áûòü íåëüçÿ, åñëè âð¸øü ñåáå.
Ïåðåä ñîáîé ó÷¸íûé äîëæåí áûòü ÷åñòåí.
(Õîòÿ áû – ïåðåä ñîáîé.)
Whoops .... you have no chance. Why I hate philosophy -started by rpenner
I also remind you that time dilation and length contraction can occur only in a well defined system wher the speed of light is invariant.
In a system where the speed of light is not invariant there is no time dilation and length contraction.
There .. see ?
Even though Masterov speaks little English he put what I was trying to say very succinctly in #691
Quiescents state and uniform rectilinear motion are indistinguishable.
I would like to remind you, that the time dilation is not a necessary condition for the invariance of the speed of light.
MT-time is absolute and the speed of light is invariant in MT.
=========================
Я позволю себе напомнить вам, что замедление времени не является необходимым условием инвариантности скорости света.
В Master Theory время является абсолютом и скорость света является инвариантной.
All complicated mathematics, used by followers of SR is just a distraction.
An example of a simple calculation (and can be done even more simply) you can find here (please read this link, it worth):
Special Relativistic time dilation and length contraction derived
In school they teach reference systems and the transition from one reference frame to another.
Also they teach how you translating speeds from a reference frame to another.
To check that students have understood correctly the reference systems, can be given a test using the example of the link and using sound instead of light.
There will be students who will fail because they will take the speed of sound the same in both reference systems, forgot to modify it when pass from one reference frame to another.
This mistake will leads to length contraction and time dilation. (even for the sound if its speed would be invariant, same for any reference frame)
Out of curiosity, they began making calculations to see where it leads the assumption that the speed of light is invariant.
It leads to paradoxes which should have refute the assumption that the speed of light is invariant.
One paradox is this: where the two objects and their trajectory is perfectly symmetrical.
An example of a simple calculation (and can be done even more simply) you can find here (please read this link, it worth):
Special Relativistic time dilation and length contraction derived
In school they teach reference systems and the transition from one reference frame to another.
Also they teach how you translating speeds from a reference frame to another.
To check that students have understood correctly the reference systems, can be given a test using the example of the link and using sound instead of light.
There will be students who will fail because they will take the speed of sound the same in both reference systems, forgot to modify it when pass from one reference frame to another.
This mistake will leads to length contraction and time dilation. (even for the sound if its speed would be invariant, same for any reference frame)
Out of curiosity, they began making calculations to see where it leads the assumption that the speed of light is invariant.
It leads to paradoxes which should have refute the assumption that the speed of light is invariant.
One paradox is this: where the two objects and their trajectory is perfectly symmetrical.
Hey everyone.
Now what?
a and b have the same speed, so they periodically meet at the point of tangency of their trajectory.
When they meet they synchronize their clocks.
At the next meeting, which will be "the young" and which will be "the old" ?
You continue to say this, but you don't explain why resynchronization is required or why it is consistent with SR.
If the time dilation is not the result of SR, and for the GPS system even more GR, what does cause it?
Under most real conditions and situation that is true.
The basic twin paradox (thought experiment) is a hypothetical. An imaginary situation designed to limit the question and puzzle to conditions consistent with SR.
In practice, no one can escape the conditions and effects associated with gravity and GR, when talking about spaceship's and planets.
No, no one can in a real situation assume that a planet is at rest.
The thought experiment ignores that to focus on the core issue of time dilation associated with velocity as defined, in SR.
In real life conditions, time dilation associated with GR would dominate.
GPS sattelite clocks run fast compared to those on earth. This is a combined GR and SR time dilation effect, where GR has a greater affect on the clocks.
Returning to your quoted post...
You are correct when you say that in practice one cannot say which of two objects is "really" moving with respect to the other.
We can say which of two objects or observers or twins, changes its velocity, when compared to a common origin. As I believe przyk was tring to point out, it is that change in velocity that the traveling twin experiences, that sets the two apart and determines which of the two experienced "more" velocity, during the traveling twins trip.
The basic twin paradox is an idealized hypothetical, that assumes a rest frame for the thought experiment... No there is no real rest frame.
The addition of acceleration for the traveling twin, is an attempt to project the thought experiment, in a more realistic way. Even then the hypothetical still ignores gravity and the existence of other external forces. It remains an imaginary situation. It still attempts to address or describe only time dilation associated with SR.