0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: HalcNow now, the condition is that the galaxy is stationary as you defined above.There are two cases, and you're homing in on the one that doesn't directly show up anything. You have to look at the other case that you see what matters here.
Now now, the condition is that the galaxy is stationary as you defined above.
QuoteComputations please. You make it sound like some other theory predicts different numbers.You should be able to fit your own numbers to it without needing help from me.
Computations please. You make it sound like some other theory predicts different numbers.
I gave you numbers. "Much younger" contains a number. "Ages more" contains a number.
In case 2, the speed of the galaxies is any high relativistic speed, so you can make that anything from 0.99999999c or 0.9c.
I don't know why you want me to choose specific numbers when I'm giving you a free choice.
In case 2, all the multuplets are created at the same time again
Case 1: the galaxies are stationary. The multuplets ejected from them at 0.999...c practically stop aging as they travel through space, so when multuplets pass us, we see them in an ancient state.
Case 2: the galaxies are moving at 0.999...c.
Some of he multuplets ejected from them are moving through space at zero, and when we run across them we can see that we are the ones in an ancient state compared to them.
you fall in line behind [establishment nonsense] instead of trusting your own mind.
Case 1: galaxy speeds = 0. Travelling multuplets' speed, a fraction under c. Age of all travelling multuplets is much younger than the stay-at-home multuplets in the galaxies they're passing.
Why the heck would anyone need to ask for specific values about their exact ages for that when the travelling ones must be younger in all possible illustrations of case 1?
Again, why the heck would anyone need to ask for specific values about their exact ages for that when this subset of the travelling multuplets must be older in all possible illustrations of case 2?
Either you should accept that or you should provide your numbers for a counterexample which breaks the above claims.
Quote from: David Cooper on 26/08/2020 23:27:42Quote from: HalcNow now, the condition is that the galaxy is stationary as you defined above.There are two cases, and you're homing in on the one that doesn't directly show up anything. You have to look at the other case that you see what matters here.There is no other case.
I'm not the one making a claim about a difference in a pair of theories. You're the one claiming some sort of inconsistency with a theory. You should be able to show where the numbers don't work out. I should be able to show the errors in your calculations, but I've seen none.
QuoteI gave you numbers. "Much younger" contains a number. "Ages more" contains a number.Fair enough. GR predicts the clock will have less than 12 billion years on it when it gets here. No contradiction so far. Not sure what you consider to be 'much less'. My gut says maybe 9-10 billion years on the clock, but that's just my gut. That doesn't sound like 'much less'.
But no theory posits a galaxy moving at a speed like that, except in a local exotic inertial frame (such as the inertial frame of a muon striking Earth), which, being local, is pretty meaningless at a larger scale. The muon was recently accelerated. The galaxy cannot be.
QuoteI don't know why you want me to choose specific numbers when I'm giving you a free choice.I did choose. I said relative speed between the clock and the galaxy that ejects it is arbitrarily close to light speed. I chose a case where it gets here now given a ballistic trajectory from a point in time when the universe appears 1.7 GY old. I specifically pushed it that far back so that the clock wasn't 'recently accelerated'.
I used a clock since that is a better indication of age than that of a hypothetical immortal human. Not sure why there needs to be observers travelling with clocks, but you can add them if you want.
QuoteIn case 2, all the multuplets are created at the same time againNo, they're not created at the same time since you're not ordering their ages in the same way as the FLRW coordinate system. In any inertial frame, the ages multuplets from case 1 are all out of sync. Or are you unware of RoS?
QuoteCase 1: the galaxies are stationary. The multuplets ejected from them at 0.999...c practically stop aging as they travel through space, so when multuplets pass us, we see them in an ancient state.Oopsie. This only happens in a SR universe, and you said you were not using that model. And we would see them in a very young state, almost no time on the clocks.
Use a model where the universe is expanding. They'll pass by quite slowly, and have billions of years on their clocks.
QuoteCase 2: the galaxies are moving at 0.999...c.No theory allow this, not LET and not GR. Of course it will fail.
QuoteSome of he multuplets ejected from them are moving through space at zero, and when we run across them we can see that we are the ones in an ancient state compared to them.Oopsie again. What they see is objective fact, and cannot differ just due to an abstract coordinate change. If your theory predicts the above statement, then it is wrong. They will see our unaccelerated clocks with more time on them than on their accelerated clocks. Acceleration is objective after all.
I trust my mind fine. I've not looked at any websites or anything during this discussion.
I've managed to point out several mistakes in your 'numbers' above, mostly due to failure to apply RoS through a coordinate system change. You're making amateur mistakes.
QuoteCase 1: galaxy speeds = 0. Travelling multuplets' speed, a fraction under c. Age of all travelling multuplets is much younger than the stay-at-home multuplets in the galaxies they're passing.They'd have to continuously accelerate to do something like that. But they're posited as being ballistic, so this isn't true.
There are galaxies that their light will reach but their ballistic selves will never reach, which would not be true if all these galaxies are flying by in pretty much negligible time.
QuoteWhy the heck would anyone need to ask for specific values about their exact ages for that when the travelling ones must be younger in all possible illustrations of case 1?Because your assertions are wrong, and numbers show this better than talk. Otherwise I wouldn't much need it.
QuoteAgain, why the heck would anyone need to ask for specific values about their exact ages for that when this subset of the travelling multuplets must be older in all possible illustrations of case 2?Because you did a frame change and still asserted that all their ages were the same.
RoS says that cannot be. FLRW says nothing is capable of accelerating a galaxy to the kinds of speeds you're talking about. If it cannot accelerate, and the mass/energy from which it is composed has existed since the big bang, then it is still stationary. Motion slows under FLRW coordinates, which is why nothing can move fast for long, and why the clock will pass us by at a sedate speed no matter the power of the explosion that sent the thing our way.
QuoteEither you should accept that or you should provide your numbers for a counterexample which breaks the above claims.I did. I said 'no fast galaxies' and 'sedate speed'.
Of course there's another case. There are two possible cases, and both of them can be combined into a single case, which is how the proof works.
Set A of the travelling multuplets are all the ones moving along parallel paths aligned with the direction we call north.Each of them will have defined that direction with reference to distant objects in the universe straight ahead of and behind them, and the name "set A" is applied to them retrospectively when they've been grouped with others moving along parallel paths. The same documentation is carried by all the clocks that they send out. Some of those clocks will be sent out ahead at even higher relativistic speed, but others will be sent out behind and will end up with non-relativistic speed. Set A of multuplets and the clocks sent out by that set serve as a case 2 scenario within a case 1 scenario.Ten seconds is all it took for me to spot this, and I didn't have anyone else spelling it out to help me, so what's taking you so long? But you're still the fastest mind I've found to discuss this kind of thing with.
My gut says maybe 9-10 billion years on the clock, but that's just my gut. That doesn't sound like 'much less'.
If we go for really extreme speeds, you don't need to reach for a calculator at all to handle this.
The high relativistic speed can be so close to c that we can just treat it as c and assume practically no aging at all for the object moving at that speed.
Suppose the multuplets are all created a billion years after the big bong.
Some of them are sent out in many directions at close to c. These travellers are encountered by other stay-at-home multuplets in other galaxies ten billion years later, and in case 1 they find that the travelling multuplets are a year old while the stay-at-home ones who meet them are ten billion years old.
If it's case 2 though, it's radically different.
The stay-at-home multuplets have aged a year
The case 2 result allows the absolute frame's identity to be pinned down to a small range.
If you only have a case 2 system, you only need to see the age of multuplets passing you to be able to pin down the absolute frame.
And if we set up a case 2 system within a case 1 universe, we can see case 2 results and use them to pin down the absolute frame.
and the result is that you never understood that the direction the proof is driving in is that can we recreate a case 2 system within a case 1 universe and use that to pin down the absolute frame.
The case 1 result also does this, but it only becomes clear that this is so after you've realised that case 1 and case 2 have to be able to coexist in the same system.
The multuplets sent out from case 1 galaxies (when the universe is a billion years old) who immediately send out clocks in many directions become a case 2 system within a case 1 system.
Set A of those multuplets can look at clocks passing them which were sent out by other set A multuplets and the find that the clocks in that set are aging faster then them if they're moving relative to them in one direction and slower than them if they're moving in the opposite direction.
QuoteNot sure why there needs to be [biological] observers travelling with clocks, but you can add them if you want.They are essential to create a case 2 system within a case 1 system.
Not sure why there needs to be [biological] observers travelling with clocks, but you can add them if you want.
They are all created at around the same time after the big bang.
We aren't using the time of a skewed frame: we have an expanding universe with an even expansion across the part of the universe we're using
STR also requires them to age hardly at all between leaving one galaxy and arriving at another.
These assessments of ages are also not things that vary for different observers: all observers see them as being the same specific age when they arrive at another galaxy. The same traveller on reaching galaxy X cannot be seen as being older than the native multuplets of that galaxy by one observer and younger than them by another observer.
QuoteUse a model where the universe is expanding. They'll pass by quite slowly, and have billions of years on their clocks.If you're imagining the travellers slowing down and aging a lot as a result
Quote from: HalcQuoteCase 2: the galaxies are moving at 0.999...c.No theory allow this, not LET and not GR. Of course it will fail.LET does allow for it.
Quote from: HalcQuoteSome of he multuplets ejected from them are moving through space at zero, and when we run across them we can see that we are the ones in an ancient state compared to them.Oopsie again. What they see is objective fact, and cannot differ just due to an abstract coordinate change. If your theory predicts the above statement, then it is wrong. They will see our unaccelerated clocks with more time on them than on their accelerated clocks. Acceleration is objective after all.Ten seconds, it took for me to see the whole thing. I'm not going to call it two days for you as that would be unfair, but given the amount of writing you've now done about this, we're talking about a good few minutes.
What they see is facts agreed on by all observers. In a case 1 system, the travellers all age less than the non-travellers.In a case 2 system, some of the travellers age less than the non-travellers
You've brought all that establishment baggage along for the ride
On the contrary, you have found no mistakes in my numbers
All that matters is that enough travellers meet enough non-travellers for us to get the data we need about their relative ages.
some of them will be moving slower than their stay-at-home equivalents in case 2 throughout their trips. The age differences will thus reverse between the two cases regardless of this factor.
We don't need them to be able to travel from every galaxy to every other galaxy. It is sufficient for some of them to make a trip between two galaxies taking long enough to do so for the age differences to show up.
I've been talking about billions of years, but if the speeds of travel are close to c and the universe is young with the galaxies close together, and if the timers are accurate, we can use much shorter trips.
It's like with the Michelson-Morley experiment: if we want to show it visually in a software demo, we might have it travel at 0.866c to provide a clear understanding of what's going on, but in real life we move it at very low speed and depend on high-precision measurements instead.
but in the real world it would be done with low speeds and we'd be looking to use very accurate timers instead of just looking at multuplets and trying to assess their age by how gray their hair is.
I gave you two different cases involving different universes to illustrate the two possibilities. I then combined the two cases within a single universe, and observers using all frames agree about the relevant facts there about the relative ages of multuplets when they meet up.
but you need to fix the RoS mistakes you make that I pointed out, not a trivial task under GR.
]So far so good, but you haven't got to the point where you assert that all the case-2 clocks carried by the 'stationary' observers are somehow still in sync. I got what you're describing, but you falter on that point, and draw conclusions based on an assumption that their clocks will be in sync in some (what??) coordinate system.
In what sort of coordinate system are all these observers all stationary? You need to find a solution to the Einstein equations which combine FLRW spacetime with relativistic motion, and neither of us is up to that task.
Also, I object to your term 'multiplets' which implies that they are all twins born at the same time and place, which is violated by you putting them all in different galaxies without explanation of how they got separated like that. So I'm using the more accepted term 'observer'.
The ages at any meeting of observers are objective events, so both case 1 and case 2 must yield identical results.
Those are objective (not coordinate system dependent) observations, so that will be observed in case 2 as well. You don't seem to realize that.
How long the stay-at-home guy ages depends on your coordinate system, but you're using a Minkowskian transformation over a coordinate system that isn't Minkowskian. You can't apply SR to this situation. You explicitly specified using constant cosmological time for the the frame in case-1, not some Minkowskian inertial frame. You cannot translate freely between the two.
OK. This isn't news. The identity of that frame (called the comoving frame, or the cosmological coordinate system) has been well known for nearly 100 years. Surely you know this already. Calling it an absolute frame is a choice. The physics community simply identifies the foliation as the only one symmetrical at cosmological scales. It is overwhelmingly the choice of absolute frame for those that posit the meaningfulness of such a thing. It doesn't foliate all of spacetime, which seems to be a fatal flaw in declaring it to be absolute, but that's just my observation.
Twice more, your goal seems to be to pin down this one special coordinate system, which has already been done. Is that your point? I agree, such a frame has been identified. GR uses it. Can we go home now?
By defining case2 within case 1 like that, you seem to have defined a coordinate system with non-orthogonal axes which is the only way to keep all those different clocks in sync in this new case 2 coordiante system. Nothing wrong with that, but the mathematics is more complicated, and you have the axes so close to parallel that the tiniest change along the space axis will result in a massive change in the time axis. So the 10 BY change is expected in one year of time in this squashed coordinate system. But your conclusions assume orthogonal axes, where two events separated on a spatial line would have an unchanged coordinate on the other axes.
QuoteSet A of those multuplets can look at clocks passing them which were sent out by other set A multuplets and the find that the clocks in that set are aging faster then them if they're moving relative to them in one direction and slower than them if they're moving in the opposite direction.You lost me here. What case are we talking? Who is Set A? The accelerated observers? How can any clock overtake them if they all accelerated identically.
How is the tick-rate of the passing clock measured? Using a local inertial frame, or by looking at a successive clock assumed to be synced with it? The two methods will yield vastly different numbers.
I cannot think of one thing that a human can do better in any of these scenarios that isn't better done with clocks, lasers, mirrors, and other machines.
QuoteThey are all created at around the same time after the big bang.Relative to the cosmological frame, yes. Not relative to the case2 'frame' that you've not really worked out, but you seem suddenly to assume there's an inertial frame or something where all these observers are stationary (there isn't) and far worse, where their clocks are still in sync, said amateur mistake that seem to fall back on some kind of Newtonian thinking.
QuoteWe aren't using the time of a skewed frame: we have an expanding universe with an even expansion across the part of the universe we're usingNot in the case 2 frame it isn't. There's only the one frame that has even expansion, and it isn't an inertial one. This is what I mean by case 2 not being valid until you come up with a coordinate system that has the properties you claim of it.
QuoteSTR also requires them to age hardly at all between leaving one galaxy and arriving at another.STR is inapplicable, but I agree that GR also describes this.
QuoteQuote from: HalcQuoteCase 2: the galaxies are moving at 0.999...c.No theory allow this, not LET and not GR. Of course it will fail.LET does allow for it.Of course it doesn't. LET asserts an absolute frame, so the speed of any object is a property of the object, not a relation with an abstract frame. The speed of any galaxy is pretty much stopped under that view.
Well maybe you should take more than 10 seconds, giving you more time to realize that clocks synced in one frame are not synced in another.
QuoteWhat they see is facts agreed on by all observers. In a case 1 system, the travellers all age less than the non-travellers.In a case 2 system, some of the travellers age less than the non-travellersFrame reference omitted big time. What manner of coordinate system is used to make this statement?
It seems to just be a 'case 2 system', which is not a description of a coordinate system. Case 1 used the cosmological frame. OK, I get that. But case 2 system is undefined, especially since you added all these travelers going every which way. Pick one maybe, and then describe how to relate the others, because in his local inertial frame, most of the other observers don't even exist.
I could not describe such a coordinate system, especially in 10 seconds. Your admission of this indicates you are not putting thought to your scenario, and seeming just using Newtonian physics with time dilation, as if that's all that relativity is. Of course you get contradictions using that. It's wrong.
Nobody follows the dogma of established physics since there's not a buck in doing so.
Fame and fortune is taken by those that find flaws in established theory, and especially those that propose theories that make better predictions. That's why LET gets no traction since it adds more premises without benefit of better predictions. Better predictions is what sells.
QuoteAll that matters is that enough travellers meet enough non-travellers for us to get the data we need about their relative ages.Can't do that unless they meet those non-travellers more than once, else they don't know the age of them (in their own frame) when they started. But you've made no mistakes in your numbers, so my pointing this out must be me not knowing my Newtonian mechanics properly.
So I meet a non-traveler on a planet and he's 10 billion and I'm a child. So he was born way before me. I've not shown anything else.
Quotesome of them will be moving slower than their stay-at-home equivalents in case 2 throughout their trips. The age differences will thus reverse between the two cases regardless of this factor.What do you mean by 'age differences'? It's not like a pair of people ever meet more than once for an objective comparison, so if one is a year old and the other is 10 billion, it might just be because the one started out at a microsecond less than 10 billion.
So what do you mean by those words, and what do you think that shows? Remember your coordinate references when answering. Oh right, you've not defined a coordinate system, so you can just make up nonsense.
Why not just use a pair of stars 100 LY apart, stationary in the cosmological frame? It makes the math so much simpler. Why the stupid big scale that forces these exotic coordinate systems?
Putting it closer to the BB doesn't solve any of the problems since the GR math still needs to be used.
The trick is to get away from that event. We're assuming we've already pinned down this special frame. It's really easy to do with a simple microwave measurement in say 6 places in the night sky.
High speed is fine with me. It's not like we're funding a real thing. My problem is the usage of curved coordinate systems that you don't understand, and the lack of known solutions to the field equations to allow a frame shift like you describe.
Keep it local and the same thing can be demonstrated with simpler inertial coordinate systems.
QuoteI gave you two different cases involving different universes to illustrate the two possibilities. I then combined the two cases within a single universe, and observers using all frames agree about the relevant facts there about the relative ages of multuplets when they meet up.If they all agree, where's the contradiction? What are we trying to demonstrate again? Oh right, pinpointing the special frame, which is as simple as a couple trivial measurements done from Earth. I'm not contesting that conclusion.
These two flashes of light travel alongside each other all the way to the observer who sees them both arrive simultaneously. How did the two flashes of light know to travel at the same speed as each other? Did they decide to travel at c relative to one ship rather than the other ship?
Einstein's insistence that the speed of light is always c relative to any observer is nothing more than a contrived mathematical abstraction
There are no such mistakes to fix.
In case 2 it's similar, but all the galaxies are moving through the expanding space fabric at relativistic speed. It takes longer for them to evolve due to their slowed functionality, but again they all reach the same stages of development at the same time because they all have the same amount of slowed functionality.…The correct coordinate system to use for this is one that expands with the universe.
You should not be attempting to use one in which we are fixed in place while other galaxies are moving and where some (outside the observable universe) are moving through that grid at superluminal speeds.
But with case 2 you get a very different result because it's the galaxies that are moving fast while all the travellers moving in one particular direction are at rest, so for them the journeys take vast amounts of time and they arrive at galaxies where very little has had a chance to happen due to their almost completely frozen functionally.
QuoteThose are objective (not coordinate system dependent) observations, so that will be observed in case 2 as well. You don't seem to realize that.No - it can't be the same in case 2.
If STR can't apply to this, it has no business being applied to our universe at all.
With this thought experiment though, we show that it is the absolute frame of the kind which objects can either be at rest in or moving through and where they have absolute speeds of motion through it which determine how fast their clocks tick. That's the bit that's news
This is about pinning down the absolute frame at a location. It isn't merely about pinning down a coordinate system.
akin to a twins paradox and that's traditionally done by sending a person
In case 2 they are all moving at the same speed through space and in the same direction, so their clocks must remain in sync so I'm not making any mistake.
Light does not propagate relative to an object!
The propagation speed of light in space is constant and INDEPENDENT of its source.
The big word being the most significant, meaning light does not acquire the speed of the source. This distinguishes light motion from material object motion.
This demonstrates the equivalence of inertial motion and rest, and an example of SR postulate 1, the same description of physics is valid in all inertial frames.It also shows a need for a definition of 'rest' different from that of Newton. There is only motion and 'rest' is a special case when two systems A and B, have identical velocities.Thus each can be in motion while at rest relative to each other.
The MGP experimentThe motion can be represented as a cylinder with the ct axis through the origin, and d equal to the circumference. The cylinder is unrolled to a flat surface with only constant velocities, the origin (black) and light (blue). Light speed is constant in SR. The rotation is absolute motion, with the origin approaching in the cw direction and receding in the ccw direction.
Are those effects included in your simulations?
When considering motion, light speed is c, object speed is v.It is necessary to use the forms of c-v and c+v in calculations, as closing speeds, rates of change for a spatial separation. There is no physical thing moving at those speeds.
Quote from: David Cooper on 29/08/2020 05:56:48There are no such mistakes to fix.In that case you’re talking about your own new theory where simultaneity isn’t frame dependent.
That’s consistent for an absolutist, but having the galaxies being the thing moving is not consistent with the view. So you’ve alienated every view I can think of. If you find an inconsistency, it just means the new theory doesn’t work so well.
QuoteThe correct coordinate system to use for this is one that expands with the universe. This is what I mean. I cannot think of any known coordinate system where this is the case, which is why I’ve said case 2 doesn’t exist. FLRW metric is such a solution, but that metric does not have frame rotation operators defined like SR does with Minkowski coordinates, so there’s just the one frame.You’re free to find a solution to Einstein’s field equations that satisfies all these conditions, but until then, there’s little to discuss about it.
The correct coordinate system to use for this is one that expands with the universe.
]FLRW metric does not have anything moving at superluminal speeds.
QuoteBut with case 2 you get a very different result because it's the galaxies that are moving fast while all the travellers moving in one particular direction are at rest, so for them the journeys take vast amounts of time and they arrive at galaxies where very little has had a chance to happen due to their almost completely frozen functionally.This is wrong. You’re using a Minkowskian property on a non-Minkowskian coordinate system. You’re also denying Minkowskian RoS above, but still attempting to apply dilation with Minkowskian rules. You’re not being self consistent.
QuoteNo - it can't be the same in case 2.It must be. If objective observations are different from one case to the other, then one of the cases is wrong, which is what I’ve said from the beginning.
No - it can't be the same in case 2.
QuoteIf STR can't apply to this, it has no business being applied to our universe at all.Much better. And yet you’re trying to use it above, but incorrectly.
QuoteWith this thought experiment though, we show that it is the absolute frame of the kind which objects can either be at rest in or moving through and where they have absolute speeds of motion through it which determine how fast their clocks tick. That's the bit that's newsIt’s not news. The general idea has been known for 90 years. It still doesn’t foliate all of spacetime, which suggests that there is no absolute frame at all. This is just a special one, but not necessarily absolute. If you want to demonstrate the latter, you need to find a valid way to falsify the view that there isn’t one.
QuoteThis is about pinning down the absolute frame at a location. It isn't merely about pinning down a coordinate system.A frame has a location? If not, what’s the difference between a coordinate system and a frame? They’re the same thing to my knowledge.
What are the absolute coordinates of our solar system? Seems funny to call it absolute if you can’t answer that. “2nd star to the right and straight on till morning” is a relative reference for example.
Quoteakin to a twins paradox and that's traditionally done by sending a personEvery physical demonstration of the twins scenario has been done with atomic clocks, never people.
QuoteIn case 2 they are all moving at the same speed through space and in the same direction, so their clocks must remain in sync so I'm not making any mistake. Ouch. Why do I bother if this is your understanding?