maybe there might be another causation that could be modelled if you guys were not so busy defending a historically old one.....
you never know Onlyme ..it could even be you who finds a better way...you are smart enough... why not?
Three Experiments Challenging SRT
- Thread starter Masterov
- Start date
you never know Onlyme ..it could even be you who finds a better way...you are smart enough... why not?
The basic twin paradox and all variations, always ignore some things that are real.
Most of the confusion, here is that, Masterov and RealityCheck, are not accepting the twin paradox as a hypothetical. An imaginary thought experiment meant to limit the conditions, to include only time dilation associated with velocity within the context of SR.
Almost all variations on the basic twin paradox, add some aspect of real conditions. Sometimes that is done to extend the hypothetical to more complex conditions and sometimes it is nothing more than a challenge to the basic purpose of the thought experiment.
Masterov, in an earlier post I linked a paper, Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force.
I assume you were unable to access a translation.
This is probably not the best reference but it was the first one I came across in my own library.
The purpose in linking that paper, was that it presents a mechanism describing inertia, as emerging from the motion of a charged particle, which should apply equally to "objects", through the zero-point-fluctuations of the vacuum.
First, there has been no entirely successful, model or theory, developed yet...
In an attempt to put this in simplified terms; What is being suggested is that inertia consistent with the Lorentz force and Lorentz transformations, emerges from the interaction of an object as it moves through the virtual particles of the vacuum, ZPF.
In a sense it describes the physical mechanism you keep asking for.
It does not create any preferred frame of reference, because the ZPF is itself dynamic.., it changes proportionally to the proximity of mass and how much mass. In many ways one could think of the ZPF and space, as described within GR, as similarly dynamic.
For the purposes of this discussion, even where a planet is moving, if it does not change its motion, its interaction with the ZPF it moves through remains relatively constant, and clocks on the planet tick at a constant and uniform rate.
While for the traveling twin, the spaceship does change the way it moves through the "same" ZPF. It has a greater velocity relative to the ZPF, than the planet does and so it experiences greater inertial resistance and time dilation.
This is highly specualtive, but it would represent a more or less physical mechanism, that distinguishes the two twins relative motion from one another.
Consistent with SR?
It's a lie.
A time dilation of GPS-satellites no exist.
(On paper only.)
A time dilation of GPS-satellites no exist.
I'm sorry you're done.
The time dilation exist on paper only.
Just curious but when someone makes an unsupported statements accusing reality of lying, is that not a way to be get a 'vacation'. Masterov has been making this type of accusation for quite awhile now and has no justification except that there is some sort of conspiracy.
Shouldn't he supply real data refuting time dilation of GPS or retract his statement (or just go away for awhile)?
Show us the measurements of the relativistic effects, which (supposedly) are observed at GPS-satellites.
We discuss SR now.
GR is outside the topic.
========================
Покажите данные измерений релятивистских эффектов, которые (будто бы) наблюдаются на GPS-спутниках.
Мы обсуждаем SR.
GR находится за пределами данной темы.
I repeat my question again:
One twin sleeps in a bed, and the other twin is sleeping in a spaceship.
You state that time of spaceship are slower.
What (what is name of it? what and in what physical quantities measure it? what does it depend?) physical parameter responsible for the rate of flow of time in a space ship?
=======================
Êàæäûé èç íàñ ïóòåøåñòâóåò, äàæå åñëè ñïèò â ïîñòåëè.
Îäèí áëèçíåö ñïèò â êðîâàè, à äðóãîé áëèçíåö ñïèò â êîñìè÷åñêîì êîðàáëå.
Âû óòâåðæäàåòå, ÷òî â êîñìè÷åñêîì êîðàáëå âðåìÿ òå÷¸ò ìåäëåííåå.
Êàêîé ôèçè÷åñêèé ïàðàìåòð îòâå÷àåò çà ñêîðîñòü òå÷åíèÿ âðåìåíè â êîñìè÷åñêîì êîðàáëå?
Êàê íàçûâàåòñÿ?
Êàê è â êàêèõ âåëè÷èíàõ èçìåðÿåòñÿ?
Îò ÷åãî îí çàâèñèò?
Each of us is traveling relative to the other (even through to sleep).
One twin sleeps in a bed, and the other twin is sleeping in a spaceship.
You state that time of spaceship are slower.
What (what is name of it? what and in what physical quantities measure it? what does it depend?) physical parameter responsible for the rate of flow of time in a space ship?
=======================
Êàæäûé èç íàñ ïóòåøåñòâóåò, äàæå åñëè ñïèò â ïîñòåëè.
Îäèí áëèçíåö ñïèò â êðîâàè, à äðóãîé áëèçíåö ñïèò â êîñìè÷åñêîì êîðàáëå.
Âû óòâåðæäàåòå, ÷òî â êîñìè÷åñêîì êîðàáëå âðåìÿ òå÷¸ò ìåäëåííåå.
Êàêîé ôèçè÷åñêèé ïàðàìåòð îòâå÷àåò çà ñêîðîñòü òå÷åíèÿ âðåìåíè â êîñìè÷åñêîì êîðàáëå?
Êàê íàçûâàåòñÿ?
Êàê è â êàêèõ âåëè÷èíàõ èçìåðÿåòñÿ?
Îò ÷åãî îí çàâèñèò?
Using the word "lie" has sometimes bothered me also, however, Masterov is using a translator and that kind of thing sometimes happens in translation.
He has called the statement about SR a lie or false, not anyone Personnally a "liar".
At least that is the way I read it.
Masterov, you are coorect. From the perspective of SR all inertial observers are equal and would see each other as moving from their own rest frame of reference.
In the twin paradox, one twin is special, because they begin together and only one uses a spaceship to travel away and back.
In a completely flat and uniform spacetime where only the planet and the spaceship exist, we could say that the planet is not moving and the spaceship is.
In the real world even if we exclude gravity and GR, they would both see the other as moving and think that they were not... Unless the twins know that the spaceship accelerated, then they would both "see" the other as the one moving, but know that it is the traveling twin that moves.
przyk, pointed out that the fact that the traveling twin changes inertial frames of reference to get back to the planet, demonstrates that it is the traveling twin that was moving relative to the planet.
The solution to the thought experiment is in how the twins discover who changed frames and who did not.
Think of it like this. If you see a car drive by, you know the car is moving and you are standing still and watching it drive by. We know this because we have other things to compare both the car and ourselves to, like the road and sidewalk.
In the twin paradox, it is only by understanding which twin changes frames that we know which was moving and which only looked like it was moving, each from the other's point of view.
But in a way none of this means anything, as long as you continue to distrust the evidence that the rate a clock ticks at is dilated by its velocity.
As long as you believe there is no time dilation, the twin paradox can never make any sense.
Special?
Pertain "speciation" to physics?
What physical parameter defines this "speciation"?
Or is it - mysticism?
==================================
А эта особенность имеет отношение к физике?
Какой физический параметр определяет эту особенность?
Или это - мистика?
O! Yes! It's mysticism.
You're kidding?
You state that the acceleration (which experienced by the astronaut) slows down time.
But the fact of time dilation should be reflected in a physical setting.
This parameter should be unique for each twin.
What physical parameter are responsible for the rate of flow of time in a space ship?
How is name of it?
How and in what quantities are measured?
What does it depend on?
=================
Вы заявляете, что ускорение (которое испытывает космонавт) замедляет время.
Но факт замедления времени должно быть отражено в физическом параметре.
Этот параметр должен быть уникальным для каждого близнеца.
Какой физический параметр отвечает за скорость течения времени в космическом корабле?
Как называется?
Как и в каких величинах измеряется?
От чего он зависит?
You're kidding again?
Or do you think I'm stupid man, because I'm Russian?
I assure you that not all Russian stupid.
==============
Вы шутите снова?
Или вы думаете, что я глупый человек, потому что я русский?
Уверяю вас, что не все русские глупы.
Can I assume that my opponents ended the argument, which means that my victory in the dispute?
Lord, do not you think that Einstein's theory, which (the efforts of interested) lasted a hundred years, destroyed (and experimentally and theoretically) as a scientific theory now.
=========================================
Могу я считать, что у моих оппонентов закончилась аргументация, что означает мою победу в споре?
Господа, вам не кажется, что теория Эйнштейна, которая (усилиями заинтересованных лиц) просуществовала сто лет, уничтожена (и экспериментально, и теоретически) как научная теория.
Lord, do not you think that Einstein's theory, which (the efforts of interested) lasted a hundred years, destroyed (and experimentally and theoretically) as a scientific theory now.
=========================================
Могу я считать, что у моих оппонентов закончилась аргументация, что означает мою победу в споре?
Господа, вам не кажется, что теория Эйнштейна, которая (усилиями заинтересованных лиц) просуществовала сто лет, уничтожена (и экспериментально, и теоретически) как научная теория.
Hi OnlyMe. 
You seem to be one of the few here with any common sense and honest/genuine (non-egotistical) approach to scientific discourse. So I will just point out the ramifications of what you just (again) acknowledged there and in your referenced paper about ZPF etc constituting the ubiquitous/universal background for such effects as clock variations due to velocity/acceleration differences through it:
That is the very point I raise: that SR cannot be used to 'explain' anything when it comes to clock effects; and vice versa, that clock effects cannot be used to 'explain' SR.
We seem to have come to the conclusion that there IS 'something' which is effectively a ubiquitous/universal background which affects clocks/processes according to their state/motion with respect to that ubiquitous/universal background (which I have always called the ENERGY-SPACE background from which and within which all phenomena/features arise and subside to give the full range of physical observables). And as such, the 'purely geometric abstractions' of SR/GR theory are inadequate to explain/represent the reality which is highlighted by the very aspects being discussed here and elsewhere which point to that 'extra component' of universal theory which makes the theory more realistic and representative of the observables, of which one is the observable that clocks DO get affected by velocity NOT just 'relative to another clock', but with respect to the universal/ubiquitous ENERGY-SPACE itself as the most fundamental physical entity of the universal system/phenomena.
Now that this has been highlighted and explained as to its real effects above and beyond those illusory effects of 'abstractions' in SR/GR, the science can proceed to COMPLETE the TOE with some hope of it being more representative of physical reality rather than just 'mathematics and geometry' which cannot provide that extra step towards completion because of the very things we have discussed here.
Masterov (brave man! good discussion!), OnlyMe and everyone, I am withdrawing more and more from internet forum discussions as I apply more time to completing my own work towards the COMPLETE TOE incorporating energy-space, gravity, inertia, charge, matter, mass, etc, etc; all naturally and consistently from go to whoa in real physical terms and not just 'bounded abstractions' terms (useful as the latter have been, but nevertheless self-evidently 'incomplete'). I shall be publishing soon if life and health permit, and hope later to return to internet discussions in more than a 'read only' mode, which is almost all I have time for at present.
If I do not speak with you again anytime soon, please believe that I have no hard feelings personally towards anyone. Any past 'unpleasantness' from anyone is all forgiven and forgotten already!
I'll be reading you! Cheers all, and take care, good luck and good thinking to you!
From your sincere (collective) friend in Science and Humanity,
RealityCheck.
You seem to be one of the few here with any common sense and honest/genuine (non-egotistical) approach to scientific discourse. So I will just point out the ramifications of what you just (again) acknowledged there and in your referenced paper about ZPF etc constituting the ubiquitous/universal background for such effects as clock variations due to velocity/acceleration differences through it:
That is the very point I raise: that SR cannot be used to 'explain' anything when it comes to clock effects; and vice versa, that clock effects cannot be used to 'explain' SR.
We seem to have come to the conclusion that there IS 'something' which is effectively a ubiquitous/universal background which affects clocks/processes according to their state/motion with respect to that ubiquitous/universal background (which I have always called the ENERGY-SPACE background from which and within which all phenomena/features arise and subside to give the full range of physical observables). And as such, the 'purely geometric abstractions' of SR/GR theory are inadequate to explain/represent the reality which is highlighted by the very aspects being discussed here and elsewhere which point to that 'extra component' of universal theory which makes the theory more realistic and representative of the observables, of which one is the observable that clocks DO get affected by velocity NOT just 'relative to another clock', but with respect to the universal/ubiquitous ENERGY-SPACE itself as the most fundamental physical entity of the universal system/phenomena.
Now that this has been highlighted and explained as to its real effects above and beyond those illusory effects of 'abstractions' in SR/GR, the science can proceed to COMPLETE the TOE with some hope of it being more representative of physical reality rather than just 'mathematics and geometry' which cannot provide that extra step towards completion because of the very things we have discussed here.
Masterov (brave man! good discussion!), OnlyMe and everyone, I am withdrawing more and more from internet forum discussions as I apply more time to completing my own work towards the COMPLETE TOE incorporating energy-space, gravity, inertia, charge, matter, mass, etc, etc; all naturally and consistently from go to whoa in real physical terms and not just 'bounded abstractions' terms (useful as the latter have been, but nevertheless self-evidently 'incomplete'). I shall be publishing soon if life and health permit, and hope later to return to internet discussions in more than a 'read only' mode, which is almost all I have time for at present.
If I do not speak with you again anytime soon, please believe that I have no hard feelings personally towards anyone. Any past 'unpleasantness' from anyone is all forgiven and forgotten already!
I'll be reading you! Cheers all, and take care, good luck and good thinking to you!
From your sincere (collective) friend in Science and Humanity,
RealityCheck.
Can I assume that my opponents ended the argument, which means that my victory in the dispute?
Lord, do not you think that Einstein's theory, which (the efforts of interested) lasted a hundred years, destroyed (and experimentally and theoretically) as a scientific theory now.
=========================================
Могу я считать, что у моих оппонентов закончилась аргументация, что означает мою победу в споре?
Господа, вам не кажется, что теория Эйнштейна, которая (усилиями заинтересованных лиц) просуществовала сто лет, уничтожена (и экспериментально, и теоретически) как научная теория.
I think it's safer to assume that folks eventually get tired of trying to correct the assumptions of ineducable doughnut heads. Assume what makes you happy.
In the spirit of fairness to Masterov, isn't that precisely what you have just done when making that 'drive by' cheap shot post, brucep?
Look to yourself. Peace!
As I said, the fact that the traveling twin changes inertial frames make the traveling twin special when compared to the twin on the planet, who does not change frames.
(I keep saying things in different ways because I know you are using a translator and I don't know what the translation will sound like.)
Masterov said:
You keep asking this question. I think you know that no one has a final answer. There are some theories... I provided a link to one such paper and even tried to give a brief simplistic explanation.
Masterov said:
Masterov, I have never called you stupid and I have been trying hard to repeatedly rephrase things so you could understand what I am trying to say. I do understand that there is a language and translation issue. It is even likely that you understand more English than I do Russian.
Why do yo keep up with those kinds of comments?
Even re-reading some of my own posts I find errors I have not gone back and corrected. It would serve no purpose and they are often the result of trying to rephrase things so translated you will understand.
This has not, for me been about a debate or arguement or even trying to convince you SR is right. It has always been about trying be sure that you understand what I and at least a few others believe and think about this subject.
I don't see that any progress is being made.
No, I have had other things to do with my time. I just finished a project for the European Space Agency. They consider me a good enough scientist to be worth paying. I do actual science with real world results, my scientific accomplishments are more than the sum of my forum posts.
Now this is something which is always asked and discussed in a special relativity course. The fact you don't know shows you have never taken the time to learn special relativity.
One of the twins stays in an inertial frame. The other does not. The one who does not stay in an inertial frame will be the one who has aged the least. Acceleration is not a relative thing, unlike velocity, and the one who accelerates is the one who is not always in the same inertial frame.
If you're unwilling to even try to find this stuff out yourself then you show how intellectually dishonest you are.
Are you and Quantum Quack competing in some "Who can be the biggest ignorant hypocrite" contest or something?
That's what usually happens when the discussion is at cross-purposes due to misunderstandings as to what question/point is being made/discussed on either 'side'.
You tried, mate, but until the point that is being highlighted by Masterov's question is understood, it will sound as if he is asking 'blindly'. He is not. He is asking in order to highlight the point of 'something else' being at play in all these scenarios/paradoxes etc etc being described purely in SR terms. It is incomplete because it misses the very thing which makes the answer simple as 'change in frames'. BUT what IS a change in frame? It is the change in that something else which is ubiquitous and underlies all the observables/effects which are real not mere 'relative' abstractions.
Cheer up, OnlyMe; it won't be long now before all these usual misunderstandings and cross-purpose dialogues are a thing of the past!
You're OK. Bye.
I am confused about this too. What does it mean? What do you mean by an object being "absolutely fixed in space relative to the one travelling away from it"?
Przyk, when I was attempting to work it through with Masterov, I specified that the planet for the purposes of the thought experiment was at rest and the spaceship was moving relative to it... A simplest early form of the paradox, I thought it might be somewhere to start from common ground, with Masterov. Obviously it was a mistaken assumption. I think that is where it all began.