Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[James R]

If you want to bring down special (or general) relativity you should not
look for internal contradictions. You must search for external
contradictions, incompatibilities with phisical reality and with logics.

Sounds like good advice to me, seeing as no internal contradictions have ever been found in the theory of relativity.

I know that they have already taken this into account and have in some way made us believe that the theory cannot be logically understood. But that, if we want to use a good english term, is bull shit.

Just because the author of this finds relativity incomprehensible doesn't doesn't mean everybody else does too. There are always people smarter than you.

I find that almost no physicist believes in "special relativity" anymore. For example, in my poll of 100 senior physicists not one believed in "special relativity". Generally it is only uneducated nonphysicists who still believe.

The first sentence is just crap. And even if it were true, the truth or falsity of scientific theories is not decided by popularity vote, but by evidence.

You imply that a correct 'explanation' is in almost all relativity textbooks. I have, so far, collected 54 different so-called 'explanations' (up to Summer 1999), published in mainstream physics journals (all suitably peer reviewed!) and textbooks, and each implies that most of the others are wrong!!! These so-called explanations are broken down as follows: 8 say it is inexplicable, and causes a huge problem for Relativity (among these is Essen the inventor of the cesium clock); 4 say the differential aging is all caused solely during the acceleration & deceleration phases (this includes Langevin, Bondi, Rindler and a standard 1990's textbook); 9 say the acceleration has nothing whatever to do with the explanation; 3 say that General Relativity has nothing to do with the explanation; 4 say that General Relativity gives the sole explanation; 2 say jumping from one Inertial Frame to another explains the paradox. Other more exotic and bizarre explanations make up the rest. So, it as all very simple, and the correct explanation is to be seen in every standard text? Like hell it is!

This is interesting, and shows that the author most likely can't understand explanations given at several different levels. More worryingly, it maybe shows that some of the authors of the sources referred to do not themselves understand relativity very well. Let's take a closer look.

...each implies that most of the others are wrong!!!

I very much doubt that.

These so-called explanations are broken down as follows: 8 say it is inexplicable, and causes a huge problem for Relativity (among these is Essen the inventor of the cesium clock)

Essen obviously didn't understand relativity, then, and neither do any of the other people who claim it is inexplicable.

4 say the differential aging is all caused solely during the acceleration & deceleration phases (this includes Langevin, Bondi, Rindler and a standard 1990's textbook);

That is essentially correct. It is not that there are no effects of the constant velocity phases, but those effects are symmetrical. The acceleration is not.

9 say the acceleration has nothing whatever to do with the explanation;

Those 9 are wrong. I would be interested to know which 9 they are.

3 say that General Relativity has nothing to do with the explanation;

It is not absolutely necessary to use GR. It is optional. Maybe the authors don't make that clear.

4 say that General Relativity gives the sole explanation;

Again, they most likely opt for a GR explanation, rather than an integrated SR explanation, which is fine. They maybe are not explicit that GR is not absolutely required.

2 say jumping from one Inertial Frame to another explains the paradox.

This is merely talking about the acceleration phases, saying they are important. Practically everybody agrees on that.

Other more exotic and bizarre explanations make up the rest.

Those are likely incorrect.

So, it as all very simple, and the correct explanation is to be seen in every standard text? Like hell it is!

Depends what you call a "standard text". I doubt that most physicists could name 54 "standard texts" on relativity. But I'm fairly sure all graduate physicists, if asked, would include 3 or 4 of the same texts if asked to name 10 standard texts on relativity.

In fact, most standard texts do present a reasonable explanation of the "paradox", though some choose to emphasize SR while others emphasize GR. Yet others (usually elementary texts) merely point out in general terms why the paradox arises and wave their hands in the general direction of the solution.

Here is another test of interest.

http://www.marmet.ca/louis/inductio...ller/muller.htm

Marmet is a nutter, isn't he?

 

[Quantum Quack]

James just a point of interest for me in this statement

That is essentially correct. It is not that there are no effects of the constant velocity phases, but those effects are symmetrical. The acceleration is not.

You state that acceleration is non symetrical. Are you referring also to de-acceleration of just acceleration with out de-acceleration?
[Just trying to understand the way you think]

To me acceleration acheives symmetry with de-acceleration.

Rest accelerates to v=x then de-accelerates to rest again..thus symmetrical or maybe conserved would be a better word.

 

[MacM]

Sounds like good advice to me, seeing as no internal contradictions have ever been found in the theory of relativity.

Agreed

Just because the author of this finds relativity incomprehensible doesn't doesn't mean everybody else does too. There are always people smarter than you.

I think you mis-read his comments. He is saying the "Claim" by Relativists that others that reject Relativity fail to understand Relativity is "BS". Here I certainly agree.

The first sentence is just crap. And even if it were true, the truth or falsity of scientific theories is not decided by popularity vote, but by evidence.

This is interesting, and shows that the author most likely can't understand explanations given at several different levels. More worryingly, it maybe shows that some of the authors of the sources referred to do not themselves understand relativity very well. Let's take a closer look.

I very much doubt that.

Essen obviously didn't understand relativity, then, and neither do any of the other people who claim it is inexplicable.

Perhaps but Essen has contributed to the debate specifically stating that H&K used exaggerated figures for the stability and accuracy of the clocks used in their test; which he designed. I think that has full merit to consider.

That is essentially correct. It is not that there are no effects of the constant velocity phases, but those effects are symmetrical. The acceleration is not.

I find this very interesting. You have just agreed that there is no aging due to relative velocity. Where have I heard that before? Since aging is associated directly with clocks that has to also mean that relative velocity has no bearing on time - Hint no time dilation affects.Want to change your position here?

Those 9 are wrong. I would be interested to know which 9 they are.

It is not absolutely necessary to use GR. It is optional. Maybe the authors don't make that clear.

Again, they most likely opt for a GR explanation, rather than an integrated SR explanation, which is fine. They maybe are not explicit that GR is not absolutely required.

This is merely talking about the acceleration phases, saying they are important. Practically everybody agrees on that.

Those are likely incorrect.

Depends what you call a "standard text". I doubt that most physicists could name 54 "standard texts" on relativity. But I'm fairly sure all graduate physicists, if asked, would include 3 or 4 of the same texts if asked to name 10 standard texts on relativity.

In fact, most standard texts do present a reasonable explanation of the "paradox", though some choose to emphasize SR while others emphasize GR. Yet others (usually elementary texts) merely point out in general terms why the paradox arises and wave their hands in the general direction of the solution.

Marmet is a nutter, isn't he?

Guess what. I anticipated this response. You should have noted however, that Marmet didn't do the experiment. It was Mueller. Marmet has only referred to it. Does a nutter accepting something contaminate things such as to make such testing irrelevant?

I think not. Care to comment on the scientific validity of the experiment and its conclusions?

BTW, I actually read the entire file and found several things I thought were borderline or in error but there was a lot which seems completely valid.

One added note. There were actually three referances to the current acceptance of SRT world wide.

1 - One I quoted said none of 100 top physicists believed in SRT. I find that probably an exagerated statement based on who he calls top physicists.

2 - One said in another poll that only 5 in 100 believe in SRT.

3 - One says that when approached to contribute to this groups effort only 1 in 2,000 responded.

#3 strongly suggest that the differance in polls, be it valid or not, physicists seem to take for granted that it is not good for the resume to publicly renounce Relativity.

 

[James R]

QQ:

By "symmetrical" in this context, I just mean "the same for each observer". In the twin paradox situation, one observer experiences the acceleration, while the other does not.

Over the entire trip, we can find a single inertial reference frame in which the Earth observer is stationary at all times. But there is no single inertial reference frame in which the spaceship is stationary at all times. Thus, the two points of view are not symmetrical.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Perhaps but Essen has contributed to the debate specifically stating that H&K used exaggerated figures for the stability and accuracy of the clocks used in their test; which he designed. I think that has full merit to consider.

I wouldn't place much stock in anything Essen has to say about relativity, if he claims that the twin paradox is unresolved. He obviously doesn't know the first thing about it.

I find this very interesting. You have just agreed that there is no aging due to relative velocity. Where have I heard that before?

Wrong again. See the quote immediately prior to my comment on this. I agreed that the aging effects in the twin paradox are symmetrical in the constant velocity phases. I did not say there is no aging. There is certainly aging in the constant velocity segments, due to time dilation.

Since aging is associated directly with clocks that has to also mean that relative velocity has no bearing on time - Hint no time dilation affects.Want to change your position here?

Maybe you should work on understanding my position before you go off half cocked.

Guess what. I anticipated this response. You should have noted however, that Marmet didn't do the experiment. It was Mueller. Marmet has only referred to it. Does a nutter accepting something contaminate things such as to make such testing irrelevant?

Nutters tend to pick and choose what they accept, as evidenced by this thread. They trumpet results they like, and conveniently ignore or misrepresent results that don't fit their preconceived world views. I am very confident that anything on Mr Marmet's web site will be at most half the story, and probably less than that.

I think not. Care to comment on the scientific validity of the experiment and its conclusions?

Not in this thread.

1 - One I quoted said none of 100 top physicists believed in SRT. I find that probably an exagerated statement based on who he calls top physicists.

2 - One said in another poll that only 5 in 100 believe in SRT.

3 - One says that when approached to contribute to this groups effort only 1 in 2,000 responded.

#3 strongly suggest that the differance in polls, be it valid or not, physicists seem to take for granted that it is not good for the resume to publicly renounce Relativity.

Here is my assessment:

No.1 is either a straight out lie, or a very selective sampling of "top physicists". No.2 is a biased poll. No.3 tells us that physicists take it for granted that working on real physics is better for the resume than working on nutball projects.

 

[Quantum Quack]

you know James sometimes I am amazed at just how ignorant I am.....and how intuitive logic is so limited.......but thanks any way.......for you help in showing me this.....[maybe I should stick to philosophy instead....ha]

 

[MacM]

QQ:

By "symmetrical" in this context, I just mean "the same for each observer". In the twin paradox situation, one observer experiences the acceleration, while the other does not.

Over the entire trip, we can find a single inertial reference frame in which the Earth observer is stationary at all times. But there is no single inertial reference frame in which the spaceship is stationary at all times. Thus, the two points of view are not symmetrical.

This may not be the correct way of looking at it but it seems to me that acceleration and deceleration has different functions between observers.

Where both observers see a +/- relative velocity differential due to the acceleration etc., the non-inertial frame undergoes a symmetrical force that there is no +/- . Force is force and conotates an equal affect. The concept that such forces are acceleration or deceleration are hence not local to the non-inertial observer.

 

[James R]

No problem, QQ. You seem willing to learn.

The best way to learn about relativity, by the way, is not from the internet. You're better off picking up an introductory textbook, if you're really interested, and working through it. There are plenty of good ones on Special Relativity. General Relativity is much more difficult, because you need much more maths, whereas all that is really needed for SR is algebra.

If you want to do that, I'd be more than happy to answer any questions which occur to you as you read the book.

 

[MacM]

No problem, QQ. You seem willing to learn.

The best way to learn about relativity, by the way, is not from the internet. You're better off picking up an introductory textbook, if you're really interested, and working through it. There are plenty of good ones on Special Relativity. General Relativity is much more difficult, because you need much more maths, whereas all that is really needed for SR is algebra.

If you want to do that, I'd be more than happy to answer any questions which occur to you as you read the book.

Only a couple of quick comments here James.

1 - To be fully competent on the issues of Rewlativity requires a solid general understanding of physics and not just the ability to read the declarations of the theory.

2 - I think I have had the arguement before that my acceptance that my schooling in calculus falls short and is a relic of memory and that I do not even claim to do calculus any more had nothing to do with my understanding of SRT since derivations of the algebra were not required to understand the algebra and I do still do algebra but I received considerable rebuffing for that.

You now say that my lack of calculus in reality have no bearing on my understanding of the claims of Relativity. Just wanted to clarify this point for the historical record.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Did you notice I was addressing QQ? Not everything is about you, you know. But seeing as you've felt it necessary to add your two cents...

1 - To be fully competent on the issues of Rewlativity requires a solid general understanding of physics and not just the ability to read the declarations of the theory.

Agreed. For example, one should understand what a reference frame is.

2 - I think I have had the arguement before that my acceptance that my schooling in calculus falls short and is a relic of memory and that I do not even claim to do calculus any more had nothing to do with my understanding of SRT since derivations of the algebra were not required to understand the algebra and I do still do algebra but I received considerable rebuffing for that.

You now say that my lack of calculus in reality have no bearing on my understanding of the claims of Relativity. Just wanted to clarify this point for the historical record.

Actually, I can't see where I said anything about the relevance of your lack of calculus to your understanding of relativity. I thought I was just giving QQ some advice on learning relativity. Silly me.

As it happens, I don't know how much your lack of calculus impacts on your misunderstandings of relativity. Something certainly has a huge impact. Maybe it's calculus, or maybe it's something else. Personally, I think lack of calculus is probably a relatively minor matter, in your case.

Happy?

 

[GMontag]

You really missed the boat on this one. I find it absolutely hilarious that to first assume Relativity valid shows that it is impossible. This technique was concieved because others here wanted to use all sorts of arguements against either stipulating simultaneity or achieving it through acceptable means in theory.

So using Relativity to establish simultaneity then produces the result which is impossible hence proving Relativity false.

Neat huh?

No Mac. The "impossible result" comes about because you are applying *your own* arguments inconsistantly. You said that the time dilation equations give numbers that are due to time delayed information for B, but you conveniently forget that "fact" when you talk about A's observations being actual reality. Since both sets of numbers come from the same equation, both must either be reality, or both must be illusion due to delay of information. To not admit and correct this horrendous error in logic after it has been pointed out to you 5 times now (by me alone), is a huge intellectual dishonesty.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Did you notice I was addressing QQ? Not everything is about you, you know. But seeing as you've felt it necessary to add your two cents...

Your are correct. And I don't intend to cut in on QQ's turf however, this was an issue you raised long ago. You mainly (others joined in), made it a point of saying I couldn't possibly understand SRT since I didn't do calculus. I argued that SRT was algebra but you insisted that I had to know calculus to understand the derivations of the algebra.

I think it is not only fair but appropriate that you be called to the carpet for your deliberate slease when you do it. Don't you?

Agreed. For example, one should understand what a reference frame is.

Comsidering that I know damn well what a referance frame is. Infact since it is becoming clear that I seem to know more about Relativity than yourself, I will address this issue momentarily.

Actually, I can't see where I said anything about the relevance of your lack of calculus to your understanding of relativity. I thought I was just giving QQ some advice on learning relativity. Silly me.

Like you have said recently to me. "Failing memory eh James?

As it happens, I don't know how much your lack of calculus impacts on your misunderstandings of relativity. Something certainly has a huge impact. Maybe it's calculus, or maybe it's something else. Personally, I think lack of calculus is probably a relatively minor matter, in your case.

More or the same cocky undeserved self congratulations eh? Well you are about to have to atone for all your sins my son.

Happy?

You bet.

 

[Paul T]

Post deleted.

 

[MacM]

No Mac. The "impossible result" comes about because you are applying *your own* arguments inconsistantly. You said that the time dilation equations give numbers that are due to time delayed information for B, but you conveniently forget that "fact" when you talk about A's observations being actual reality. Since both sets of numbers come from the same equation, both must either be reality, or both must be illusion due to delay of information. To not admit and correct this horrendous error in logic after it has been pointed out to you 5 times now (by me alone), is a huge intellectual dishonesty.

I'll take note that you are a newbie here with only 29 posts and excuse your arrogance and keep my reply polite. But before you start your BS telling others what they mean you best check the record. I've been here going on two years and I have maintained the same position from day one. I have very specifically stated why I use precalculated timers, etc to run the experiment.

So your opinion is false and is a matter of record (many records in fact). So take my word for it. Your comments are inappropriate.

One last time SUMMARY: To achieve the synchronization I wanted since members here would never agree on any method of achieving it, indeed challenged me and claimed that it was impossible and could not be done.

I presented the method of assuming Relativity valid (that does not mean I believe it but it is an unargueable point for the Relativists), and by doing so show that Relativity can not be valid.

End of a long long story. But feel free to continue to comment. Just keep in mind you may not have all the facts.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

I wouldn't place much stock in anything Essen has to say about relativity, if he claims that the twin paradox is unresolved. He obviously doesn't know the first thing about it.

Where in my referance do you see me claim he had anything to say about Relativity? I said, and I repeat, "As the designer of the clocks used by H&K, his comments about they exagerated the stability and accuracy of his clocks must be given the fullest consideration. Quit switch hitting and stay on topic.

Wrong again. See the quote immediately prior to my comment on this. I agreed that the aging effects in the twin paradox are symmetrical in the constant velocity phases. I did not say there is no aging. There is certainly aging in the constant velocity segments, due to time dilation.

Sure there is, James R says so. I will not waste my time by repeating the facts of the case since you merely deny them rather than address them with any evidence or proof.

Your current favorite Texas Two step is to blame Simultaneity and claim that since I don't understand relativity there is the problem. Unfortunately that is a pack of crap (I'll forgo my initial tendancy to write "lies"). To be a lie you would have to not believe what you are saying. Unfortunately I think you do believe and that is sad.

But your agruement fails because simultaneity is bound by the same reciprocity as is time dilation itself.

But to be more to the point lets not take MacM's opionion on this, lets ask Albert Einstien shall we?.

It just happessn that he made a defacto retraction about time dilation when he wrote a response in 1922 to a challenge made to him, about the twins paradox he ushered in in 1905. He waited 7 years to respond..

He wrote: "Time Dilation is Mutatis Mutandi"

Now clearly had he wanted he could have been a bit more plain, more explicit, more forthright.

But the translation of the above obscure terms means "To change as required" or "To change as appropriate".

Clearly A.E. had been made realize the futility of time dilation due to reciprocity. That is to say he knew that time dilation was strickly observer dependant and that "Both clocks slowing the same amount" meant there was NO systemic measureable time dilation "Between" observers.

It is ironic in fact that having both clocks slow down the same amount can only have meaning in the concept of absolute universal time. HeHeHe. Which Relativity purports to deny exists.

Maybe you should work on understanding my position before you go off half cocked.

I have and I am not half cocked. Your position does not meet standards of being acceptable.

Nutters tend to pick and choose what they accept, as evidenced by this thread. They trumpet results they like, and conveniently ignore or misrepresent results that don't fit their preconceived world views. I am very confident that anything on Mr Marmet's web site will be at most half the story, and probably less than that.

So you didn't look at the test and comment on the validity of the test itself which was done by Muller? I guess that tells us how much faith to put into your comments.

Not in this thread.

Here is my assessment:

No.1 is either a straight out lie, or a very selective sampling of "top physicists". No.2 is a biased poll. No.3 tells us that physicists take it for granted that working on real physics is better for the resume than working on nutball projects.

I think you have identified which group, majority or minority, that you are a memberof.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is ironic in fact that having both clocks slow down the same amount can only have meaning in the concept of absolute universal time. HeHeHe. Which Relativity purports to deny exists.

this I find an interesting comment and one with some value....

whilst denying absolute time we have to use absolute time to do so....hmmmm....maybe more a philosophy merit than a physics one...but

 

[MacM]

MacM knows damn well about reference frame....Hahahahahahaha... this is funny....

MacM knows more about relativity too and better than James R Hahahahaha.....

Two points.

1 - James tone deserved to have a gentle prod.

2 - There is a distinct differance between book learning and understanding. Clearly James r, has had more book learning but clearly he has a problem applying that learning to the real world and restraining his beliefs to anything less that total dependance and belief in the theory, which frankly is also by rote.

MacM, as long as I can remember, is possibly the boy with the least knowledge about relativity.

Your opinion in this matter is worthless and you achieve nothing by your assertions. The old adage is worth much more "The proof is in the pudding".

And this old boy claimed that he knows it better than JamesR. I can't imagine how bad JamesR's knowledge....Hahahahahaha

Mister, you should go up to stage, making joke and I think you will make a whole lots of buck.....

Hahahahahahaha, joker of the month.

Thanks but I have already made lots of bucks and it was via owning my own research company and doing new science.

 

[Paul T]

Thanks but I have already made lots of bucks and it was via owning my own research company and doing new science.

New science such as that silly UniKEF theory and MacM's relativity?

 

[James R]

MacM:

Me: Actually, I can't see where I said anything about the relevance of your lack of calculus to your understanding of relativity. I thought I was just giving QQ some advice on learning relativity. Silly me.

You: Like you have said recently to me. "Failing memory eh James?

Put up or shut up, MacM.

If you want to claim that that I have said your failure to understand calculus means you won't ever understand Special Relativity, then post a link to the post where I said that.

You won't, because you can't.

 

[GMontag]

I'll take note that you are a newbie here with only 29 posts and excuse your arrogance and keep my reply polite. But before you start your BS telling others what they mean you best check the record. I've been here going on two years and I have maintained the same position from day one. I have very specifically stated why I use precalculated timers, etc to run the experiment.

Just because I only have 29 posts doesn't mean I haven't been lurking here for several years. Your statement about the precalculated timers is fine. The problem occurs when you contradict your statement with a later argument about B's view being due to observational delays.

So your opinion is false and is a matter of record (many records in fact). So take my word for it. Your comments are inappropriate.

One last time SUMMARY: To achieve the synchronization I wanted since members here would never agree on any method of achieving it, indeed challenged me and claimed that it was impossible and could not be done.

Yes, and to program the timers, you used the time dilation equations to give you what would "actually" happen according to relativity. Then you turned around and tried to claim that the same equation gives you what you would see before taking into account observational delays. That is either a unintentional fallacy, or dishonesty, take your pick.

I presented the method of assuming Relativity valid (that does not mean I believe it but it is an unargueable point for the Relativists), and by doing so show that Relativity can not be valid.

End of a long long story. But feel free to continue to comment. Just keep in mind you may not have all the facts.

You don't have to have all the facts to see that two facts contradict each other.

Here are your own words:

False. Clock "A" IS stopped. We have already agreed that All clocks stopped. B only sees "A" continue to run because the image of its condition has not yet reached "B". But it IS stopped and it reads 36,000 seconds. It is only by virtue of delay that B doesn't know it has stopped.

Here, you directly claim that B's observations are due to delayed information. You also directly claim that A's observations are actual reality, even though you calculated those observations from the very same equation. It is a blatant logical fallacy, and your refusal to admit or discuss it shows the intellectual dishonesty I was referring to in my previous post.


To clear this up, answer true or false to the following statements:

1. Assuming relativity, the time dilation equation gives you what actually happens, not what you would observe before taking observational delays into account.

2. Assuming relativity, A's observations (calculated from the time dilation equations) in your test (i.e. simultaneous stopping of the clocks), are what actually happens.

3. Assuming relativity, B's observations (calculated from the time dilation equations) in your test (i.e. non-simultaneous stopping of the clocks), are what actually happens.

Please note that answering anything other than true for all or false for all is a contradiction.