21
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
22
New Theories / Re: What is non-returning twin paradox?
« on: 13/10/2023 21:58:47 »That's an amazingly dishonest trimming of my post, which completely removes the point.You should read the title of this thread.
You should read the posts in the thread. (Including your own!)
23
New Theories / Re: What is non-returning twin paradox?
« on: 12/10/2023 22:22:33 »
That's an amazingly dishonest trimming of my post, which completely removes the point.
24
New Theories / Re: What is non-returning twin paradox?
« on: 29/09/2023 04:41:31 »
Possibly there's some talking past each other in regards to "frame switching".
You are right (in short) that the explanation of the (not) paradox is that the scenario is not symmetrical, the reason for that being one observer remaining in a single frame, and the other not. *
But there's another kind of "frame switching" ... someone trying to analyse the thought experiment who willy-nilly flips from frame to frame (Alice, Bob going, Bob returning ...) without rigour and confusing themselves and everyone reading their words.
(* I prefer the triplet version: B passes A, later C passes B, back towards and eventually passing A. Nobody accelerates ever. Makes it clearer, I think, especially in the "frame switching" sense.)
You are right (in short) that the explanation of the (not) paradox is that the scenario is not symmetrical, the reason for that being one observer remaining in a single frame, and the other not. *
But there's another kind of "frame switching" ... someone trying to analyse the thought experiment who willy-nilly flips from frame to frame (Alice, Bob going, Bob returning ...) without rigour and confusing themselves and everyone reading their words.
(* I prefer the triplet version: B passes A, later C passes B, back towards and eventually passing A. Nobody accelerates ever. Makes it clearer, I think, especially in the "frame switching" sense.)
25
New Theories / Re: What is non-returning twin paradox?
« on: 28/09/2023 22:33:18 »Twin A finds twin B as younger than himself, hence he says that B experience time dilation.
No. While in relative motion they both consider/know that time is slow for the other. That's what is called "Time dilation".
And it goes both ways - it's reciprocal. After all, that is what puts "paradox" in "twins' paradox". (But to be clear, it's not actually a paradox, there's is no argument about that. The term comes from a naive partial understanding.)
On the other hand, Twin B finds twin A as older than himself, hence he says that A experience time contraction.
That one turns out a different age than the other is usually called "differential aging".
26
New Theories / Re: How to raise your IQ, how to achieve higher IQ, how to get higher IQ ?
« on: 30/08/2023 23:05:46 »Anyone can claim to have an IQ of 400. Providing evidence for it is another matter.
Either we've seen no evidence of that from the OP in the forum ... or we're all too dumb to recognise it!
27
New Theories / Re: Does the Thread Break or Not?
« on: 15/08/2023 02:01:31 »
If you have accelerometers at the front and back of a single spaceship, will they show the same acceleration?
28
New Theories / Re: A Quandary about Accelerated Motion in Special Relativity
« on: 28/06/2023 23:53:47 »
MikeFontenot thinks with his accelerometers he's found an absolutist loophole to get around relativity.
But two accelerometers on the _same spaceship_ (one at the front, one at the back) won't even agree with each other.
But two accelerometers on the _same spaceship_ (one at the front, one at the back) won't even agree with each other.
29
New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023
« on: 25/06/2023 23:25:04 »
It'd be nice to see posts composed of sense.
30
New Theories / Re: Redshift vs Negative Blueshift: An interesting discovery?
« on: 11/02/2023 20:12:22 »31
New Theories / Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?
« on: 26/01/2023 20:03:04 »
GIGO
32
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why does this twin paradox thought experiment fail for me?
« on: 26/01/2023 19:19:14 »
It may be simpler to not have a twin - I think it's easier to add a triplet.
Alice sits on her deck chair.
Bob zooms past Alice, away from Earth.
Bob later meets Carol, zooming towards Earth.
Carol eventually passes Alice too.
Nobody changes speed or direction at any time. No acceleration by anyone.
They all have perfect second-per-second timers (stopwatches).
When Bob passes Alice, they both start their timers.
When Bob passes Carol, he stops his timer, she starts hers.
When Carol passes Alice, they both stop their timers.
Some time later (experiment over) they get together and compare timers. Without relativity you'd expect Bob timer + Carol timer = Alice timer.
But they find Bob timer + Carol timer < Alice timer
(Essentially this is the instantaneous acceleration version of the twins paradox, but without the spherical cow.)
((In terms of your diagram in post #1, Alice's timer shows 10, Bob's and Carol's both show 4, adding to 8.))
Very very informally: when two observers are in relative motion, for both of them the others' time is slower. The "turnaround" has a sort of effect of picking up one of those "slower times" and bringing it to the other.
Alice sits on her deck chair.
Bob zooms past Alice, away from Earth.
Bob later meets Carol, zooming towards Earth.
Carol eventually passes Alice too.
Nobody changes speed or direction at any time. No acceleration by anyone.
They all have perfect second-per-second timers (stopwatches).
When Bob passes Alice, they both start their timers.
When Bob passes Carol, he stops his timer, she starts hers.
When Carol passes Alice, they both stop their timers.
Some time later (experiment over) they get together and compare timers. Without relativity you'd expect Bob timer + Carol timer = Alice timer.
But they find Bob timer + Carol timer < Alice timer
(Essentially this is the instantaneous acceleration version of the twins paradox, but without the spherical cow.)
((In terms of your diagram in post #1, Alice's timer shows 10, Bob's and Carol's both show 4, adding to 8.))
Very very informally: when two observers are in relative motion, for both of them the others' time is slower. The "turnaround" has a sort of effect of picking up one of those "slower times" and bringing it to the other.
33
New Theories / Re: A Proposed Experimental Test of My Gravitational Time Dilation Equation
« on: 01/11/2022 23:07:24 »It's a bit like your experiment needs you to move faster than light. You are relying on something that can't be done.
There isn't any faster than light motion in my scenario, or in my proposed experimental test.
I didn't say there was. Note the use of the word "like" in my post. I was trying to get you to see you are relying on something impossible, to show something else.
Before you can test your "Gravitational Time Dilation Equation", you need to take a step back and show your method would work.
34
New Theories / Re: A Proposed Experimental Test of My Gravitational Time Dilation Equation
« on: 01/11/2022 20:29:02 »
It's a bit like your experiment needs you to move faster than light. You are relying on something that can't be done.
Halc has shown your multiple accelerometers and rockets won't work the way you expect.
Halc has shown your multiple accelerometers and rockets won't work the way you expect.
35
New Theories / Re: Why does Mass/Energy Distort Spacetime?
« on: 21/10/2022 21:34:12 »In my model it is because mass is space points compactified on a circle. Then it is no mystery, since space attracts space. So energy must also be space points compactified on a circle.
When you've assumed the highlighted part, how is your story any more of an explanation than what mainstream science provides?
36
New Theories / Re: ground breaking technology
« on: 20/10/2022 21:50:35 »the first part is about inserting a superconductive tube inside a magnet to harvest energy
the second part on the page is about how to train children to become anti-machine agents and pro humans in the AI age
the last part is about leaving the planets and build new colonies for our race's advance.
details is very long how do i post a several page content in a forum post?
That's three very different topics. If you want things to go well in a discussion forum you will absolutely have to pick one of them to discuss in one thread. When that's done, then try the next topic.
37
New Theories / Re: ground breaking technology
« on: 20/10/2022 20:32:00 »
Instead of spamming/advertising your link everywhere, how about actually discussing it?
Cross ref:
https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/40003-ground-breaking-technology/
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128018-ground-breaking-technology/
Cross ref:
https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/40003-ground-breaking-technology/
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128018-ground-breaking-technology/
38
New Theories / Re: An Offer I Made to Utrecht University in the Netherlands
« on: 18/10/2022 22:10:40 »
What fascinates me most in these threads is how doggedly someone can remain fooled - by a fraud carried out three hundred years ago!
All these years and nobody (including the OP) has been able to make a working wheel; and science has shown it can't work.
But here we are.
Outside of religion (here I include stuff like the turin shroud), what fraud has persisted longer?
All these years and nobody (including the OP) has been able to make a working wheel; and science has shown it can't work.
But here we are.
Outside of religion (here I include stuff like the turin shroud), what fraud has persisted longer?
40
New Theories / Re: Attested Evidence of the Understanding of Quantum Mechanics & Cosmology Relation
« on: 09/10/2022 21:44:54 »
It's been a long running speculation topic (many threads) at science forums (.net).
e.g. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127558-the-universe-in-pictures-as-youve-never-seen-it-before/
e.g. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127558-the-universe-in-pictures-as-youve-never-seen-it-before/