0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 13/08/2020 16:19:17This is Isaac Asimov's mental experiment.Reference please.If Asimov is unfamiliar with relativity physics, I'd think him intelligent enough to consult with somebody who is before publishing something that's wrong. SR predicts the two clocks will read the same at every meeting.QuoteWhen A is preferred as the reference frame, according to SR, its clock will run at proper tempo and B's clock will fall behind.This is blatantly false. You seem to be attempting to apply an inertial relation to a non-inertial frame.
This is Isaac Asimov's mental experiment.
When A is preferred as the reference frame, according to SR, its clock will run at proper tempo and B's clock will fall behind.
You twisted the logic, requesting something about some equations but we do not have time for these equations.
If the SR is reciprocal then it leads to delta in coordinate times based on the observers.This means that different observers do not agree on a proper time of a world line.If observers do not agree on the world line proper time they do not have time for any equations, partial or full time derivatives.
What I am saying there is no problem till the proper time is settled.The Einstein's paper starts with time not the electrodynamics.
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 13/08/2020 18:18:04You twisted the logic, requesting something about some equations but we do not have time for these equations.I don’t understand. I haven’t twisted any logic. You raised Tom’s research, so it was relevant to reply and explain why Hertz rejected his own equations. I’m sorry you don’t have time for this as there are some important aspects in there.Quote from: Jaaanosik on 13/08/2020 18:18:04If the SR is reciprocal then it leads to delta in coordinate times based on the observers.This means that different observers do not agree on a proper time of a world line.If observers do not agree on the world line proper time they do not have time for any equations, partial or full time derivatives.Galilean relativity is symmetrical/reciprocal, but if you understand it then you won’t get confused; similarly with the Lorentz relativity. Your last sentence looks at it from the wrong point of view.Quote from: Jaaanosik on 13/08/2020 18:18:04What I am saying there is no problem till the proper time is settled.The Einstein's paper starts with time not the electrodynamics.Remind me of the title of Einstein’s paper, people might be forgiven for thinking it has everything to do with electrodynamics. That’s where it starts.Anyway, best of luck with your search.
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 15/08/2020 20:41:26If gamma = 2 did the traveler crossed 3.4641cs in 2 seconds? You seem to be expressing the speed as proper speed (distance traveled in one frame per unit of time measured in another). This is not limited to light speed, so yes, he moves at a proper speed of 1.7c. 'Decelerating' (as you put it) at the destination is not necessary.In the same measure, given a fast enough ship, I can visit the far side of the galaxy 60000 light years away before I die. I'd need a gamma a bit better than 2 to do that.
If gamma = 2 did the traveler crossed 3.4641cs in 2 seconds?
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 16/08/2020 04:46:37The traveling twin has to see the stay home twin's 4s of proper time as 8s coordinate time in travelers frame.That cannot happen if there are 2s of proper time on the traveler's clock. That's the problem,All clocks measure their own proper time, so using the word the way you are is redundant.So the travelers clock reads 2s at one event, and 8s at a different event. There's no problem with that.Coordinate time is the ordering of events via any coordinate system of your choice, but you've instead chosen multiple coordinate systems, so your post has no coherent meaning. So pick one.
The traveling twin has to see the stay home twin's 4s of proper time as 8s coordinate time in travelers frame.That cannot happen if there are 2s of proper time on the traveler's clock. That's the problem,
But what if X = 100R? What if X = 1,000,000R? What if X = 10100 R? At some point, X is sufficiently large compared to R that the total proper time is dominated by what happens during X, and what happens during R becomes an irrelevant perturbation that we don't care about anymore. And that's true no matter what value of R you started with. You can always construct the problem such that you just don't care.And that's why it's OK to simplify the problem by assuming instantaneous acceleration. It doesn't matter that instantaneous acceleration is impossible. You can construct the problem such that it's an arbitrarily small part of the problem, and therefore you can ignore it.
there is a train car with L0=3.4641cs and the platform frame.Front of the train car is x'=0 and t'=0 and it is align with the platform origin x=0 and t=0.So the green B is platform origin and train car front (the train origin) aligned.There is no motion at the beginning, the motion starts at t=t'=0.The acceleration, then the deceleration as per the diagram.It takes 4s of the platform time.Then everything stops again.The back of the train car is aligned with the platform origin.
There is a time dilation so the front train clock and the back train clock have both 2s on them, agreed?
How did the platform origin crossed 3.4641cs of the train frame in 2s of the train frame?
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 15/08/2020 20:41:26But what if X = 100R? What if X = 1,000,000R? What if X = 10100 R? At some point, X is sufficiently large compared to R that the total proper time is dominated by what happens during X, and what happens during R becomes an irrelevant perturbation that we don't care about anymore. And that's true no matter what value of R you started with. You can always construct the problem such that you just don't care.And that's why it's OK to simplify the problem by assuming instantaneous acceleration. It doesn't matter that instantaneous acceleration is impossible. You can construct the problem such that it's an arbitrarily small part of the problem, and therefore you can ignore it.The scenario below does not reflect this sort of acceleration. It has no X at all, and is all acceleration both ways.Quote from: Jaaanosik on 16/08/2020 15:44:12there is a train car with L0=3.4641cs and the platform frame.Front of the train car is x'=0 and t'=0 and it is align with the platform origin x=0 and t=0.So the green B is platform origin and train car front (the train origin) aligned.There is no motion at the beginning, the motion starts at t=t'=0.The acceleration, then the deceleration as per the diagram.It takes 4s of the platform time.Then everything stops again.The back of the train car is aligned with the platform origin.Sorry, but the diagram doesn't show that. There are no units labeled on the diagram, but you declare the horizontal lines to be separated by 1 second, then the train car seems only of proper length about 1.25 or so.A 3.46 cs object cannot be moved its own length and stopped in only 4 platform seconds, at least not with a rigid object as depicted. A 1.25 cs object can.QuoteThere is a time dilation so the front train clock and the back train clock have both 2s on them, agreed?No. The scenario depicted shows something more like 1.25 cs long, and in that scenario, (max speed of about .47c in the picture), clocks at either end will read about 3.75 seconds.QuoteHow did the platform origin crossed 3.4641cs of the train frame in 2s of the train frame?Because if the train is fast enough in the platform frame, it's clock is dilated as much as you want. There is no surprise to this.
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 17/08/2020 23:43:51Yes, there is no X in the yellow diagram. It tries to show that after traveling to the right both twins are in the same frame, that's all.The other picture shows far more than that.QuoteIf we have L0=3.4641cs train car accelerating/decelerating to the right for 4s of the stay home platform frame then these are the diagrams:Those diagrams do not show that at all. It shows inertial motion without any acceleration, and it does even that incorrectly since no length contraction is depicted, so you get self-contradictions.I mean, look at the green platform line. You have it moving at -1.73c, which is impossible.QuoteWhere are the B and C events on the right diagram?You see, a contradiction. The right diagram does not depict the same scenario as the left, so there is not necessarily a B or C in it.QuoteB is on ct' axis at t'=2s'. Do you agree?Sort of. It's a different (smaller) train car, so not clear if there's any correspondence between the diagrams at all. If we remove the trains and platforms altogether and just consider the two coordinate systems, then yes.QuoteWhere is C?A is the origin of both frames. B is on the t' axis at 2' seconds and C is 4s on the t axis, which is coordinate t'=8, x'=-6.928 which is immediately below the "ct" label at the top of the chart.Left chart shows the left end of a train present at C, and the right chart does not, so the two charts do not correspond to the same scenario.
Yes, there is no X in the yellow diagram. It tries to show that after traveling to the right both twins are in the same frame, that's all.
If we have L0=3.4641cs train car accelerating/decelerating to the right for 4s of the stay home platform frame then these are the diagrams:
Where are the B and C events on the right diagram?
B is on ct' axis at t'=2s'. Do you agree?
Where is C?
Now everything is moving faster than light on the right picture. FailYou're also trying to add acceleration (of the platform no less) to it, in which case you need to make it look like the yellow diagram which shows acceleration. If you want to add a long X time where it is inertial, then fine, but you'll need a significantly larger graph.This recent thing depicts inertial motion, and needs to stay that way.QuoteHow else can we show it? inertial.jpg (17.12 kB . 201x182 - viewed 3749 times)Actually read my prior post, and not just one sentence of it.
How else can we show it?
Special relativity has three variables which are mass, distance and time. If we only use two variables, such as only time and distance, reference can and will appear relative. Mass allow us to feel inertia such as the wind through our hair to confirm motion. It also allows us to do an energy balance since motion will imply velocity and velocity times mass, which gives us momentum and kinetic energy, as well as action and reaction affects. Pretending in only space and time will not do this. Say one reference mass is m and the other reference mass is 2m and we ignore the mass, then it will appear to be relative motion, If we include the mass each scenario in the relative motion illusion will create a different energy balance due to different mass. Then we will realize that that relative motion violates energy conservation, unless you assume both have the exact same mass. This s why we use the twin paradox. This allows a reactive reference magic trick based on hiding the mass. Instead of twins, use father and son, with the father having twice the mass of the son then you see something is wrong. Where the problem originally stemmed was in astral physics and astronomy There we depend on light and energy to observe motion in the universe. Light has only frequency and wavelength, but not mass. Therefore we can only use two of the three SR variables by default. Einstein warned that this situation will create relative reference magic tricks. He was not stating that relative reference was a truth of nature, but giving us a warning that two of three SR variables will create a spatial illusion A spatial illusion will make 2-D appear 3-D or flat 2-D logic will appear like a ball; universal truth, due to the shadowing and highlights (denial and partial data). .
I have just thought of a way to break one key part of relativity by narrowing the absolute frame down to a small range, and this is possible because the big bang is a universal starting gun.
Suppose most of the material in the universe is close to being at rest rather than moving at relativistic speed.
In such a situation, if you were to travel for billions of years at relativistic speed, you could measure the age of the stars and galaxies that you’re passing and you would determine that they’re aging faster than you, which reveals that you are the one moving at relativistic speed.
We can’t do that experiment today unless we happen to find some ancient star passing us at relativistic speed which can in some way tell us how much time it thinks it’s measured since the early days of the universe
If it breaks relativity, then it breaks whatever you're pushing because you claim it makes no different predictions.
You're describing a different universe then, one with no recession of distant galaxies.
Let's see, you have a universe full of clocks that are mostly A) relatively stationary relative to inertial frame X, and B) in sync only in frame X. That would indeed suggest a preferred frame, one in which there was no big bang, but rather a static-sized universe in which time started everywhere at once. All very nice, but it's not our universe.
It would not break SR because SR does not forbid such a situation, except perhaps the strawman SR that you invoke. It would break GR, because GR describes our universe, not this thing you're describing. There would definitely be empirical differences.
Suppose there's a galaxy somewhere that does not have a velocity relative to its surroundings. At a time the universe appears about 1.7 billion years old to an observer there, they fire a clock in the direction of us at .999999c or however fast you like. The local universe will appear 12 billion years older (13.7 BY) when it gets here.
It seems that you claim a discrepancy between your view and relativity. SR has nothing to say about it since SR is not a model of the universe.
So my question is, what is the empirical difference?
1) What is the proper distance between the event of that clock being fired and the material that would eventually become our solar system? Assume our solar system is similarly relatively stationary relative to its surroundings.2) How fast does this clock move as it passes by Earth?3) What does the clock read? Assume it was zeroed when fired. It's moving fast, so probably less than 12 BY.
If the theories produce different answers, I need both. If they don't, then what does the experiment demonstrate?
Personally I don't think you're up to that, and thus are free to believe whatever you want in ignorance.
QuoteYou're describing a different universe then, one with no recession of distant galaxies.Wrong again. The expansion of the universe simply means that the absolute frame at one location isn't the same as the absolute frame at another location.
STR is so broken that it doesn't take much to invalidate it
QuoteSuppose there's a galaxy somewhere that does not have a velocity relative to its surroundings. At a time the universe appears about 1.7 billion years old to an observer there, they fire a clock in the direction of us at .999999c or however fast you like. The local universe will appear 12 billion years older (13.7 BY) when it gets here.Yes, and that's the part that doesn't directly reveal anything until you think through the other case where the galaxy is moving at 0.999999c and sends the clock out at a speed that turns out to be zero.
Instead of that clock having its functionality nearly frozen, it ticks inordinately faster than the clocks in all the galaxies which are moving in the same direction through space at 0.999999c.
When that clock arrives here in the second case, if finds a universe that looks much younger than in the first case, so this is a way to measure absolute speed through the space fabric.
QuoteSo my question is, what is the empirical difference?The difference is that LET survives the breaking of relativity as it doesn't depend on it lasting, whereas STR depends totally on this breakage not occurring.
Quote1) What is the proper distance between the event of that clock being fired and the material that would eventually become our solar system? Assume our solar system is similarly relatively stationary relative to its surroundings.2) How fast does this clock move as it passes by Earth?3) What does the clock read? Assume it was zeroed when fired. It's moving fast, so probably less than 12 BY.You can fit your own numbers to it. All you need to do is go where the thought experiment takes you. I've written a new version of it which I'll post after this post so as not to have all this bloat as an unnecessary header on it.
STR contradicts itself
Quote from: Halc on 26/08/2020 22:26:36STR is so broken that it doesn't take much to invalidate itNonsense. It isn't a model of the universe is all. It's a model of local spacetime without gravity in consideration. Given those conditions, it cannot be falsified.
QuoteYes, and that's the part that doesn't directly reveal anything until you think through the other case where the galaxy is moving at 0.999999c and sends the clock out at a speed that turns out to be zero.Now now, the condition is that the galaxy is stationary as you defined above.
Yes, and that's the part that doesn't directly reveal anything until you think through the other case where the galaxy is moving at 0.999999c and sends the clock out at a speed that turns out to be zero.
Computations please. You make it sound like some other theory predicts different numbers.
QuoteWhen that clock arrives here in the second case, if finds a universe that looks much younger than in the first case, so this is a way to measure absolute speed through the space fabric.Numbers please, or this is all just your fantasy.
QuoteQuoteSo my question is, what is the empirical difference?The difference is that LET survives the breaking of relativity as it doesn't depend on it lasting, whereas STR depends totally on this breakage not occurring.That's a paper difference, not an empirical one. Boo...
You have no numbers. I thought my questions were reasonable. You have no evidence at all if you can't provide simple numbers.
QuoteSTR contradicts itselfSTR is mute on this experiment since it is not a local experiment. So you need to reach for GR, which does indeed have an answer, even it it isn't a trivial thing to compute.
Quote from: HalcPersonally I don't think you're up to that, and thus are free to believe whatever you want in ignorance.I was right though. No numbers. You're not up to it.
There's plenty beyond my skills as well, but I don't go asserting conclusions and contradictions then, and if I do see a contradiction (and I do quite often), I assume it is me making the mistake, and not that I've somehow found something that far smarter people cannot.