1

New Theories / Re: How does Hamdani explain the twins paradox?

« on: 20/02/2024 21:06:19 »

Take Alice and Bob passing each other in space, in inertial relative movement.
Alice can consider herself at rest, and Bob is passing at 100 kph.
Bob can consider himself at rest, and Alice is passing at 100 kph.
Alice has a clock that ticks at 1 second per second, but for her, Bob's clock is slow.
Bob has a clock that ticks at 1 second per second, but for him, Alice's clock is slow.
Thus, their clocks cannot be synchronised. This is basic relativity.

Well, yes, you can insert Carol who remains between Alice and Bob, for whom they are both doing 50 kph. For Carol, Alice and Bob's clocks tick at the same rate.

Your scenario seems to have the clocks meet at a common event, ...

No, I don't think it does.

... but to generalize a bit, and to remove all unnecessary observers, consider flat spacetime containing two inertial clocks at arbitrary locations, moving at arbitrary velocities, and set to arbitrary times.
In exactly one frame C will those clocks be moving in equal and opposite velocities. ...

Yes, the simple scenario implies this. Though I named two velocities to try to make it less abstract for the OP.

(Personally, I think the OP is diving off into Twins' Paradox etc, with ever increasing complexity, when they don't really grasp the significance of the basics of relativity. I think the explanations need to get simpler, not more complex.)

2

New Theories / Re: How does Hamdani explain the twins paradox?

« on: 08/01/2024 22:19:07 »

... Because Craft is moving Forward ...

According to whom is the craft moving forward? You, at rest in it?

3

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".

4

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?

5

New Theories / Re: Do rocket engines violate the equivalence principle?

« on: 27/11/2021 22:30:46 »

The original thought experiment on this specifies there's no window for the occupant of the box to simply look out of to decide what's going on.

The fuel gauge is essentially putting that window back ... providing mundane evidence.

It's a red herring.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: An expanding flat universe?

« on: 11/06/2020 23:22:16 »

Flat, here, does not mean like a pancake or CD.
It's about whether it's curved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Curvature

7

New Theories / Re: Weakest point of special relativity

« on: 26/03/2020 23:10:43 »

If you could drop the "mentality" stuff, and just clearly show the claimed defect, that would help.

Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to justify an argument from incredulity.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do I explain tidal locking to a ten year old?

« on: 06/09/2019 23:19:35 »

Take a bicycle into class. Hold up the front and spin the wheel. Tell them to pretend it's the (a) Moon spinning, close to a planet.

You'd need to explain that due to friction in the bearings and with the air, the wheel will slow down; but in space the Moon would just keep spinning.

Now stick a big blob of plasticine or blu-tack on a spoke, near the rim.

Explain that this represents that the density of the moon is not perfectly even (see mascon), and that the moon isn't perfectly smooth (see mountains). So the mass is not perfectly distributed.

Spin the wheel, it'll (if the bearings are good!) always stop with the extra weight down.

... there's lots wrong with this, but in a "lies to children" way I think it's a reasonable graphic demonstration.

(e.g. The worst thing here is it implies a stop to rotation, but a tidally locked Moon is of course still spinning, just the rate has matched its orbit. You'd need to explain that the bicycle is stationary on the floor of the classroom and you can't demonstrate that part, but if they can imagine the bike orbiting the Earth they might be able to see what would occur.)

9

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 12/09/2016 06:05:16 »

When you say and agree you can see through the tube, you are admitting you can see through space, I. E the start point and end point of the tube simultaneously and at the same time being seen,   ...

No. That's your silly literal interpretation of a figure of speech.

Seeing "through the tube", in reality, simply means light from a distant object can pass through the tube and reach our eyes.

... a rocket travelling up the tube is seen for the entire journey, because the very fact the space is see through. If you cannot understand how useless your photon is after that , then I suggest you are illogical.

What's illogical is your idea that we can see things "instantly" even though they are distant, and light takes time to travel.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does the subjective ''visual'' experience throw difficulties on time dilation?

« on: 22/06/2016 01:35:11 »

Hello, I have just returned after my Ban, elsewhere I learnt two words , objective and subjective.

And gosh do I regret that. You now throw those words into sentences like salt onto food.

For several years I have told science they are wrong and they have told me I am wrong, however I was mostly talking about the subjective experience rather than your objective thoughts. In fact what I was talking about when thinking about the subjective was correct even though I was told it was wrong, but never mind I have become ''enlightened'' and now understand the science objective thinking.

Where you go wrong here, is that you think subjective experience proves objective reality.

For example, nobody can argue against you if you find "blue" makes you feel happy and "green" makes you sad. That's your subjective experience.

But, while we may need to look at things to measure them, that's not subjective, because it's repeatable common experience - as close to "reality" as we can get. For example, you can take a paint-chip card from a home decorator shop and find that most (non colour-blind) people will (however they subjectively experience, or feel about colour) agree that a cloudless day is "blue" and grass is "green". We can also build devices to measure colour, which will get consistent results from these things. We can even shine white light through a prism and reliably and repeatably generate these things we call "blue" and "green".

So I don't deny your internal representation of how you perceive distance; this "gin clear" thing of yours - but when you try to use that subjective experience of yours to deny or re-wind thousands of years of scientific  progress, I certainly say you are wrong.

However, in consideration of time dilation and all experiments that prove time dilation, all these objective thoughts and experiments are view through the subjective constant visual of ''gin-clear'' space, I feel regardless of what happens in the experiment and objective thought, the constant subjective ''visual'' remains constant and sheds some doubt to the authenticity of a time dilation.

Your feeling does not show the actual experiments performed by scientists to be wrong. For example, the experiments that show light speed to be finite; proving your 'subjective constant visual of ''gin-clear'' space' to not be applicable to reality.

For example the objective analogies of things like v shaped path laser beams to show time dilation, are subjectively none existence as we do not ''see'' laser beams naturally in space without a medium.

Seeing the beam in transit has nothing to do with the path the beam is known to take.

Also subjectively and evidently a laser beam does not subjectively have a reflective beam of a brick wall unless there is a mirror re-directing the beam.

What?

What do you think?

You remain wrong.