[David Cooper]

Here is the link to the topic I opened on the french forum:
forums.futura-sciences.com/physique/794268-outil-comprendre-relativite.html

Thanks - I've read the first page of it now and have learned the word "cible" (target).

Here's a comment from Deedee that's worth thinking about:-

L'aberration n'a pas besoin de la contraction des longueurs.

That is true, particularly when the laser is aligned at 90 degrees to its direction of travel, but the direction the light actually goes in is certainly affected by length-contraction if the laser is aligned at other angles, so if you don't take length contraction into account, you will often fail to predict those angles of travel correctly. If you want to spell that out to him, point out that a circular ring of lasers pointing outwards provides a good understanding of the headlights effect - you need to length-contract that ring into an ellipse, then imagine it running along and trace out the path the light actually takes through space as it moves through each laser at the speed c in the frame of reference you're using (a frame through which the ring of lasers is moving).

To me, taking the ship as a reference frame would mean that it is the planet that would make the whole roundtrip: it would thus first accelerate away from the ship, then it would decelerate, accelerate back to the ship, and decelerate to land it. It is easier to figure it out with two ships though, and this way, I don't see how we could get out of it without knowing which one has accelerated, and my diagram about the distance between two atoms being contracted during acceleration shows how it would work. Of course, it doesn't fit with relativity, so I'm probably going to be moderated on the forum if I use that kind of argument, but I think it fits with LET. If it doesn't then we may need a new theory.

Although it's possible, it is best to avoid using frames of reference that require you to change frame along the way, so I would never tie a frame (used for analysing events) to any item that accelerates in any way that involves accelerating the frame with it. In your description, you have the planet "accelerating" away from the ship, but everyone involved knows that the ship is the one accelerating rather than the planet, so it's just adding a host of unnecessary complexities into the analysis. In LET it also serves no purpose to explore accelerating frames as they cannot be the preferred frame, so it's really a game best left to SR fans.

Here's a quote from you:-

En d'autres termes, même si on ne peut pas savoir lequel des deux jumeaux se déplace une fois que l'un d'eux a accéléré, on sait lequel des deux a accéléré, et c'est suffisant pour savoir que son horloge s'est contractée, donc que la lumière a pris plus de temps entre les miroirs pour lui que pour celui resté à terre.

Remember that the one that's felt an acceleration may actually have decelerated, so his/her clock might speed up as a result rather than running slower. All we can know is that on average for the two legs of the rocket's trip, its clocks will run slow.

(I've just learned another good word; déceler = detect.)

I think my computer's about to freeze, so I'll post this now.

[David Cooper]

Ne mélangeons pas tout. Il y a simulation et représentation, ce n'est pas la meme chose. Une simulation (dans le "vrai" sens du terme), consiste à résoudre des équations, représentatives de modèles. Si vous ne comprennez pas les modèles à l'origine des simulations, vous ne comprendrez pas plus les simulations elles-memes.

The interactive diagrams on my page are simulations directly driven by the maths (using JavaScript to move objects about by calculating their now positions on each move). You can see that clearly in the interactive diagram showing the two planets and two rockets because only a simulation can provide that degree of control as you change frame.

A se demander si ce n'est pas de l'auto-promotion...

So he now thinks you wrote my page. By the way, I noticed in your thread at anti-rel that someone showed you a diagram many months ago which showed something just like my moving laser with the light pulse moving down through through it vertically while actually tracing out a line down the screen at an angle. It shows how easy it is to see things and not take them in.

[Le Repteux]

Although it's possible, it is best to avoid using frames of reference that require you to change frame along the way, so I would never tie a frame (used for analyzing events) to any item that accelerates in any way that involves accelerating the frame with it. In your description, you have the planet "accelerating" away from the ship, but everyone involved knows that the ship is the one accelerating rather than the planet, so it's just adding a host of unnecessary complexities into the analysis. In LET it also serves no purpose to explore accelerating frames as they cannot be the preferred frame, so it's really a game best left to SR fans.

I'm new to relativity thinking, a few days ago I was totally anti, so I may be wrong, but I still see no way to tell which twin is getting younger than to know which one has accelerated.

Remember that the one that's felt an acceleration may actually have decelerated, so his/her clock might speed up as a result rather than running slower. All we can know is that on average for the two legs of the rocket's trip, its clocks will run slow.

That's what I was saying about the contraction between my two atoms a few posts away: if we decelerate the right atom, the contraction will reverse, so the dilation too.

The interactive diagrams on my page are simulations directly driven by the maths (using JavaScript to move objects about by calculating their now positions on each move). You can see that clearly in the interactive diagram showing the two planets and two rockets because only a simulation can provide that degree of control as you change frame.

I know, and I was about to tell him, but I think he didn't even look at it, so I guess he is only wanting me to stop.

By the way, I noticed in your thread at anti-rel that someone showed you a diagram many months ago which showed something just like my moving laser with the light pulse moving down through it vertically while actually tracing out a line down the screen at an angle. It shows how easy it is to see things and not take them in.

It's Cryptic, he is really good at it, but he did not use a laser as a source, so I couldn't see how the photon had to travel inside it, and I did not have you to insist on that point either, so I missed it. It takes a lot of chance to change ideas, and a lot of chance too to develop good ones. I'm having a hard time to convince the guys at the french forum to use that kind of tool to teach relativity, and with Obi watching me, I'm afraid I won't last long. No luck, it's the only scientific french forum I know, and it is exclusively mainstream. There is many english ones, and some of them let us expose our divergences, but I'm not so at ease with english.

[GoC (OP)]

There is many english ones, and some of them let us expose our divergences, but I'm not so at ease with english.

Nether am I and its my native language.

[guest4091]

David Cooper #352

In the case of A and B moving with a constant relative speed v, the initial conditions are the same for each, the observations are reciprocal. Increased freq (.27) when approaching and decreasing freq when separating (3.73).
When B departs, them returns to A, a closed course, the descriptions are NOT  symmetrical, but still reciprocal, thus the two ratios, 2:1 and 1:2.
In the 'twin' case, there can be an age difference, just as there is in this example. 
A can assume a pseudo rest frame with B changing course, or,
B can assume a pseudo rest frame with A changing course due to a temporary g-field

[Le Repteux]

To me, contraction appears at the beginning of acceleration, and it is due to acceleration, not speed. That's what the diagram with my two atoms means. When the left atom is accelerated, it moves before the right atom knows about that, so the distance between the two atoms automatically contracts, and the time light takes to travel between them increases. With that principle in hand, no need to ask which twin is getting younger, it is always the one that has accelerated.

[David Cooper]

I'm new to relativity thinking, a few days ago I was totally anti, so I may be wrong, but I still see no way to tell which twin is getting younger than to know which one has accelerated.

With the twins case, it is indeed the one that's accelerated that measures less time passing for him/her, but during one leg of the trip it may be the one that's experienced the accelerations which has the fastest running clock (in which case his/her clock will be the slowest running clock during the other leg of the trip).

That's what I was saying about the contraction between my two atoms a few posts away: if we decelerate the right atom, the contraction will reverse, so the dilation too.

What bothers me about what you're doing with the atoms is that you may just be producing a temporary contraction caused by the way you're accelerating it and that the contraction will not have anything to do with the length-contraction of relativity. I asked what would happen if you accelerated the leading atom instead of the trailing one and that appeared to reveal that you haven't bound the atoms together in any way. You should be able to accelerate either atom and have it move the other one with it, and the same length-contraction should then be seen on the molecule afterwards regardless of which one you put the energy into.

It's Cryptic, he is really good at it, but he did not use a laser as a source, so I couldn't see how the photon had to travel inside it, and I did not have you to insist on that point either, so I missed it.

Having just looked at it again, I was wrong about that animation - he (JammyTown) does use a laser, but he doesn't show the light pulse moving down through it because the animation starts with the light already on the point of leaving it.

I'm having a hard time to convince the guys at the french forum to use that kind of tool to teach relativity

But they don't want to use such diagrams precisely because they're keen to avoid introducing anyone to LET - they simply deny the need for a preferred frame and see no need of diagrams showing light taking longer to move through the (contracted) MMX apparatus as they can simply switch to the frame in which it is stationary and use that on the basis that that's what's "really" happening (completely ignoring the fact that they've just changed the speed of light relative to the apparatus and that their new account is in direct conflict with that of the previous frame they were using).

No luck, it's the only scientific french forum I know, and it is exclusively mainstream.

It has its uses - I've been in need of this kind of French reading matter for a long time, but I don't think my French will be good enough to post anything there for a long time.

To me, contraction appears at the beginning of acceleration, and it is due to acceleration, not speed.

But that contraction caused by acceleration is not the length-contraction of relativity. You only find the length-contraction of relativity after the compression or stretching forces of acceleration have gone and the material has settled back into an unstressed shape.

With that principle in hand, no need to ask which twin is getting younger, it is always the one that has accelerated.

That only holds for the average of the whole time between them separating and reuniting. If you take a pair of twins, send one away from the other and never reunite them, you can't know which one's clock is running slower because you don't know if the acceleration really accelerated a twin or decelerated him/her.

(Words learned today: pioche = pickaxe; s'écoule = flows.)

Je peux lui demander de nous montrer son logiciel si tu veux l'analyser!

The JavaScript source code is all there in the page source - anyone can view it by looking for the right menu option in their browser.

l'interprétation de Lorentz de la relativité restreinte empêche de poursuivre vers la relativité générale. Elle n'est pas focalisée sur les "bons" concepts.

LET has been extended to cover all the same ground as GR but with different explanations. The Conspiracy of Light website (linked to from my relativity page) is a good starting point for seeing what's been done with it.

Mais vous pouvez ne pas y croire, c'est votre problème. Par contre si vous essayez de vendre aux lecteurs que la LET est une bonne voie vers l'abord de la RG, nous manifesterons notre désaccord et demanderons des justifications solides.

The maths is the same for both LET and GR, so it really shouldn't be any disadvantage to approach it from an LET starting point, but I can't see any reason why people shouldn't all be introduced to both LET and SR at the start, and then when they move on to GR they should again be looking at the two rival interpretations rather than just being presented with a biased view of everything.

Et demande à Cooper (à moins qu'il veuille venir ici l'expliquer) comment il fait pour définir que "le (un) temps s'écoule plus lentement" ( donc qu'une horloge ralentit)?

I haven't managed to find anything on my page that that might be a translation of, so if it's supposed to be something I said, I'd need to know what the context is. In LET, time never flows more slowly (though clocks run slow because they can't record all the time that's passing), and in SR time shouldn't be able to flow more slowly either (although that results in event-meshing failures if that rule is actually applied consistently).

[David Cooper]

When B departs, them returns to A, a closed course, the descriptions are NOT  symmetrical, but still reciprocal, thus the two ratios, 2:1 and 1:2.

Correct. When I made the claim about it being the same for both rockets, that was a case where the rockets were moving passing each other and never being reunited. I didn't make that claim about the twins scenario where they are reunited and where one measures twice as much time passing as the other.

In the 'twin' case, there can be an age difference, just as there is in this example. 
A can assume a pseudo rest frame with B changing course, or,
B can assume a pseudo rest frame with A changing course due to a temporary g-field

For B to measure more time passing than A does, you'd need to apply a temporary g-field to B as well so that when it does it's acceleration to "stop and move back the other way" it is actually maintaining its speed in the same direction throughout (merely firing its engines to cancel out the force from the temporary  g-field). That would enable one twin to feel no acceleration at all while the other twin feels a lot of acceleration and yet ends up looking much older than the twin who felt no acceleration.

[Le Repteux]

With the twins case, it is indeed the one that's accelerated that measures less time passing for him/her, but during one leg of the trip it may be the one that's experienced the accelerations which has the fastest running clock (in which case his/her clock will be the slowest running clock during the other leg of the trip).

With acceleration causing motion, it is impossible that the twin who is accelerating away from the other is not the one that is moving faster in that direction. So even if I'm wrong about acceleration causing contraction, we could still consider acceleration as a way to know which one is moving away, but you are right, if both twins were already moving in a certain direction with regard to aether before the acceleration, the one that accelerates in the other direction may well be getting older for a while, but as you describe, he would still have to run faster getting back, so he would still be getting younger overall. It works very well, but we absolutely have to know which twin has accelerated, and the relativists cannot take acceleration into account since it would contradict the relativity principle. Even Galileo could have thought about that. With modern accelerometers, we can detect very small accelerations, and as my small steps show, matter is probably able to register them with an absolute precision if light is absolutely precise and if inertial motion depends on its precision.

What bothers me about what you're doing with the atoms is that you may just be producing a temporary contraction caused by the way you're accelerating it and that the contraction will not have anything to do with the length-contraction of relativity. I asked what would happen if you accelerated the leading atom instead of the trailing one and that appeared to reveal that you haven't bound the atoms together in any way. You should be able to accelerate either atom and have it move the other one with it, and the same length-contraction should then be seen on the molecule afterwards regardless of which one you put the energy into.

If we could pull on the right atom, it would of course get away from the left one before the information reaches that left one, so the distance between them would lengthen during the acceleration instead of getting contracted, but for time to get dilated, they would have to be traveling with regard to aether, and we cannot know about that, so it seams that my idea about length contraction being due to acceleration doesn't help.

Having just looked at it again, I was wrong about that animation - he (JammyTown) does use a laser, but he doesn't show the light pulse moving down through it because the animation starts with the light already on the point of leaving it.

I was talking about Kryptic's simulation here (anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61995#p61995). Do you have a link for Jammy Town's one?

With that principle in hand, no need to ask which twin is getting younger, it is always the one that has accelerated.

That only holds for the average of the whole time between them separating and reuniting. If you take a pair of twins, send one away from the other and never reunite them, you can't know which one's clock is running slower because you don't know if the acceleration really accelerated a twin or decelerated him/her.

Exactly. So, where do we start the sit-in? Time Square, La Bastille, Tian'anmen? :0)

[GoC (OP)]

When you bring them back together one will have less accumulated time than the other. That's the one with more velocity. That's if you synchronize your clocks before you start. Its not the acceleration but the energy portion of c being used for velocity through space. We are accelerated to the center of the Earth but surface clocks run faster than clocks would in the center of the Earth. How can electrons speed up in deceleration if atoms expand after being contracted? Your logic is backwards to your distance increase for the electron travel distance and tick rate. Science will eventually come to the conclusion c is the Aether matrix and light is a wave on that matrix. The matrix is energy c. Its not the electrons that are fundamental energy. Fundamental energy c is of space not mass. Fundamental energy allows mass to move. Without it everything would be frozen in position. No gravity, no magnetism, no strong or weak force and no time!!!! Time is energy c.

[guest4091]

With acceleration causing motion, it is impossible that the twin who is accelerating away from the other is not the one that is moving faster in that direction. So even if I'm wrong about acceleration causing contraction, we could still consider acceleration as a way to know which one is moving away, but you are right, if both twins were already moving in a certain direction with regard to aether before the acceleration, the one that accelerates in the other direction may well be getting older for a while, but as you describe, he would still have to run faster getting back, so he would still be getting younger overall. It works very well, but we absolutely have to know which twin has accelerated, and the relativists cannot take acceleration into account since it would contradict the relativity principle.

Here is a paper that should explain the 'twin' scenario.If you need clarification on anything, ask.
https://app.box.com/s/m3708rlqj9kg2e6hjdinu2xx06ldhp1h

[guest4091]

For B to measure more time passing than A does, you'd need to apply a temporary g-field to B as well so that when it does it's acceleration to "stop and move back the other way" it is actually maintaining its speed in the same direction throughout (merely firing its engines to cancel out the force from the temporary  g-field). That would enable one twin to feel no acceleration at all while the other twin feels a lot of acceleration and yet ends up looking much older than the twin who felt no acceleration.

I'm only showing the B perception of the 4 yr/2 yr scenario. B changes speed which he interprets as a g-field, which explains A's curving course, his perception.

[David Cooper]

With acceleration causing motion, it is impossible that the twin who is accelerating away from the other is not the one that is moving faster in that direction.

Do you really mean "impossible" there or did you intend to say "possible"?

So even if I'm wrong about acceleration causing contraction, we could still consider acceleration as a way to know which one is moving away, but you are right, if both twins were already moving in a certain direction with regard to aether before the acceleration, the one that accelerates in the other direction may well be getting older for a while, but as you describe, he would still have to run faster getting back, so he would still be getting younger overall.

Assuming that the accelerations haven't been hidden in some way by temporarily tampering with g-fields, the twin who feels a series of accelerations will measure less time passing by the end of the round trip than the twin whose speed through space never changed. There is no disagreement between LET and SR on this point.

It works very well, but we absolutely have to know which twin has accelerated, and the relativists cannot take acceleration into account since it would contradict the relativity principle.

No - the accelerations aren't a problem for SR. The only conflict is in the interpretation of events, because SR considers all accounts of events (based on different frames of analysis) to be equally valid whereas LET says that most of the accounts must be wrong because they contradict each other (by such means as having the same acceleration make a clock run both slower and faster than it was ticking before). This dogma in SR about there being no preferred frame flies in the face of logic, but we have generations of physicists who simply reject reason on this point while claiming that they are not rejecting it (in the same way religious people do while breaking the rules of reason), and there appears to be no way to get them to see sense, no matter how clearly you spell things out for them.

I was talking about Kryptic's simulation here (anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61995#p61995). Do you have a link for Jammy Town's one?

Look for the diagrams (which have a black background) 2/3 of the way down the first page of that thread.

So, where do we start the sit-in? Time Square, La bastille, Tian'anmen? :0)

There is nothing that can be done until AGI takes over as the authority. My proof that Spacetime models don't work without having Newtonian time added to them has been online for many years now, and the interactive exam was added to it a couple of years ago to try to force people who made nebulous objections to it to point to the place where they imagine that the proof must have a fault in it. They now just go silent instead and slip away while pretending they haven't looked.

Quote from a modérateur:-

Bonjour,
bon, on va faire simple : la théorie de l'ether a été réfutée il y a plusieurs décennies déjà.

He's now pushing a standard falsehood, and that's what happens with this subject on most science forums because they are usually run by people who have learned about relativity from biased sources which filled their heads with propaganda about the aether being disproven. There is a rational explanation for this happening though, because a number of experiments which claimed to measure the one-way speed of light superficially appeared to show that the speed of light across any object in any direction is always c, but when they were debunked (and every single one has been debunked because they've made fundamental errors such as failing to take into account Doppler shifts between points on moving and rotating turntables or the twisting of rotating objects that are moving fast through space), the false claims have been left in place in the literature without any corrections or retractions being added, and the same debunked stuff appears all over the Web too because so few people realise that it's been debunked, so they keep putting it up there.

Et conformément à la charte du forum :

6. Ayez une démarche scientifique. Ce forum n'est pas un lieu de discussion sur de soi-disant phénomènes paranormaux ou "sciences" parallèles. Toutes idées ou raisonnements (aussi géniaux soient ils) doivent reposer sur des faits scientifiquement établis et non sur de vagues suppositions personnelles, basées sur d'intimes convictions. [...] D'autre part la seule vocation de Futura-Sciences étant la vulgarisation scientifique de bon niveau ce n'est pas le lieu pour des questionnements ou remises en cause de théories admises dont seuls des spécialistes ont les compétences pour débattre, ni pour l'exposé de théories strictement personnelles. Une telle démarche aurait sa place uniquement dans un séminaire ou un congrès scientifique.
Par conséquent, ether = pas ici.

Passing the buck - "it is for experts only to discuss such matters, so we are entitled to go on making false claims here and to ban anyone from challenging our false claims".

It really isn't worth wasting any more time on them. It's just the world in microcosm - you set a proof before people's eyes and they reject it because they are incapable of reasoning correctly and they don't respect correct reasoning if it generates conclusions that go against the beliefs of the clergy. They are followers who only ever follow authority - they simply do not trust their own minds, and that's really sad.

[David Cooper]

For B to measure more time passing than A does, you'd need to apply a temporary g-field to B as well so that when it does it's acceleration to "stop and move back the other way" it is actually maintaining its speed in the same direction throughout (merely firing its engines to cancel out the force from the temporary  g-field). That would enable one twin to feel no acceleration at all while the other twin feels a lot of acceleration and yet ends up looking much older than the twin who felt no acceleration.

I'm only showing the B perception of the 4 yr/2 yr scenario. B changes speed which he interprets as a g-field, which explains A's curving course, his perception.

I thought when you said "B can assume a pseudo rest frame with A changing course due to a temporary g-field" that you were applying the temporary g-field to A to make it accelerate without knowing it was being accelerated, but I see now that you meant it should be applied to B (and I should have realised that from the word "pseudo").

[GoC (OP)]

   Both A and B are going 0.87c. B decelerates increasing the speed of his clock. B will hit a position of maximum tick rate and continue to blow past that point slowing his clock. Can you consider the maximum tick rate position in space the position of rest? No, there is no rest position just because the electrons are cycling their fastest. That is just a position of maximum fundamental energy and minimum kinetic energy.

If you were in a ship that could go faster than light in sub light speed as you accelerated and had a magic telescope to look at Earth the rotation rate would appear to slow around the sun. At the speed of light earth would stop but no light could reach you to view the image. Faster than light you could turn around 180 degrees and watch the Earth reverse direction. Is that time travel? No!!! Just a visual recording.

Both Voyagers left the solar system and appeared to slow down. The reason they appeared to slow down was the tick rate duration decreased. Less time on Earth clocks between beeps suggesting a slow down. What they refuse to consider is the aura of dilation in our solar system. They both left our solar system aura into a more dense energy state of space increasing the clocks tick rate on board the voyagers. Simple relativity but it violates the standard model of space being empty. LET was proven by the voyagers. But the design of LET has to be fundamental Energy of time being of space and not mass.

If we sent a probe with only a clock on board to follow the north star the probe would increase its tick rate much less of a distance since the aura is a rotating disk.

[Le Repteux]

With acceleration causing motion, it is impossible that the twin who is accelerating away from the other is not the one that is moving faster in that direction.

Do you really mean "impossible" there or did you intend to say "possible"?

Sorry, I'm still making mistakes. I should always add "with regard to ether" after the word "speed", at least in my mind.

So even if I'm wrong about acceleration causing contraction, we could still consider acceleration as a way to know which one is moving away, but you are right, if both twins were already moving in a certain direction with regard to aether before the acceleration, the one that accelerates in the other direction may well be getting older for a while, but as you describe, he would still have to run faster getting back, so he would still be getting younger overall.

Assuming that the accelerations haven't been hidden in some way by temporarily tampering with g-fields, the twin who feels a series of accelerations will measure less time passing by the end of the round trip than the twin whose speed through space never changed. There is no disagreement between LET and SR on this point.

Do you mean that relativists have the right logical answer about the Twins' paradox and that I simply didn't get it? On the wiki page about that paradox, many interpretations effectively talk about acceleration, but it is always to determine if acceleration itself affects the clocks. The interpretation that resembles the most the idea that acceleration tells us which twin is traveling is the one that says one of the twins changes reference frames, so if I understand well, for those relativists, that twin is getting younger at the same rate both ways, whereas for LET, the twin might be getting older one way, and a lot younger the other way. To me, that SR interpretation is simply illogical. They present the muon experiment as a proof that SR works, while with LET, some of those muons could very well be traveling slower than the earth with regard to ether, thus they could be having a shorter life than the laboratory ones. At one place, they say: «Car objectivement, seul le jumeau voyageur peut mesurer les effets de l'inertie et nous savons donc que le chemin constitué de deux segments est forcément celui du jumeau voyageur.» So they admit that we can use acceleration to determine which twin is traveling, but in the same breath, they don't admit that it breaks the relativity principle.

It works very well, but we absolutely have to know which twin has accelerated, and the relativists cannot take acceleration into account since it would contradict the relativity principle.

No - the accelerations aren't a problem for SR. The only conflict is in the interpretation of events, because SR considers all accounts of events (based on different frames of analysis) to be equally valid whereas LET says that most of the accounts must be wrong because they contradict each other (by such means as having the same acceleration make a clock run both slower and faster than it was ticking before). This dogma in SR about there being no preferred frame flies in the face of logic, but we have generations of physicists who simply reject reason on this point while claiming that they are not rejecting it (in the same way religious people do while breaking the rules of reason), and there appears to be no way to get them to see sense, no matter how clearly you spell things out for them.

What is important is that the data can be explained by the theory, and it seems that the muon can really live longer whatever the direction it takes with regard to ether, what contradicts LET.

Passing the buck - "it is for experts only to discuss such matters, so we are entitled to go on making false claims here and to ban anyone from challenging our false claims".

It really isn't worth wasting any more time on them. It's just the world in microcosm - you set a proof before people's eyes and they reject it because they are incapable of reasoning correctly and they don't respect correct reasoning if it generates conclusions that go against the beliefs of the clergy. They are followers who only ever follow authority - they simply do not trust their own minds, and that's really sad.

I did change my mind and I know I'm like others as far as resistance to change is concerned, so my explanation is that anything takes time to change and that hazard is part of the game. That's what my theory on mass means. It shows how particles resist to accelerate, but it doesn't show how they succeed to overcome the resistance, so I figured that it was due to hazard at the components' scale, the same way species succeed to change if they are lucky. This idea helps me not to automatically put the blame on others when they don't seem to understand, so it might help us to use the words that convince instead of using those that increase their resistance. It's hard to use any words when the subject is closed though. :0)

P.s.  After having closed the thread, Obi erased my last message where I cited the wiki page on ether to show that Einstein himself, in a conference at Leyde in 1920,  admitted that, without it, light couldn't propagate:

« Nous pouvons résumer comme suit : selon la théorie de la relativité générale, l'espace est pourvu de propriétés physiques, et dans ce sens, par conséquent, il existe un éther. Selon la théorie de la relativité générale, un espace sans éther est impensable, car dans un tel espace non seulement il n'y aurait pas de propagation de la lumière, mais aussi aucune possibilité d'existence pour un espace et un temps standard (mesuré par des règles et des horloges), ni par conséquent pour les intervalles d'espace-temps dans le sens physique du terme. Cependant, cet éther ne peut pas être conçu comme pourvu des qualités des medias pondérables et comme constitué de parties ayant une trajectoire dans le temps. L'idée de mouvement ne peut pas lui être appliqué. »

[David Cooper]

Do you mean that relativists have the right logical answer about the Twins' paradox and that I simply didn't get it?

SR accounts for it in much the same way as LET, but not everyone in the SR camp understands it correctly and they frequently explain it badly. LET approaches it by saying, "IF the stay-at-home twin is stationary throughout and the other twin moves away and comes back, the moving twin's clock (and functionality) slows down and makes him age less".  LET can also produce an infinite range of other conditional accounts of the same kind which all start with "IF" and apply different speeds of movement to the stay-at-home twin. SR does things a little differently by getting rid of the "IF" and replacing it with, "Because the stay-at-home twin is both stationary and moving (depending on which frame you want to use, all of which are equally valid), we can simply assert that he's stationary and that the moving twin will travel through less time on both legs of the trip than the stay-at-home twin, and this is as correct as any other interpretation. It is also correct in SR to claim, "Because the stay-at-home twin is both moving and stationary, we can simply assert that he is moving throughout at a speed which leads to the moving twin being stationary during one leg of his trip and moving very fast on the second leg, so he moves through less time in total than the stay-at-home twin and we don't care about the details as to when he might have been moving through more time than the stay-at-home twin during the first leg because we have banned all discussion of simultaneity at a distance and therefore don't accept any ideas about how much time the stay-at-home twin had travelled through by the time the moving twin had turned around.

That is what they always do, and they have to do this in order to hide the point at which they are playing fast and loose with the laws of reason. The only way to push them to the point where their abuse of logic shows up is to get them to program a simulation of what happens and to do it with two sets of twins with the stay-at-home twins moving relative to each other, because at that point they have to commit the system to behaving in a rational manner which forces them to decide which clocks are going to have to run slow (or which legs of which trip travel through less time), and it's then that they suddenly realise that they cannot fudge it if the simulation is to function correctly - they can no longer just assert that the whole round trip for a travelling twin takes him through less time without coming up with proper numbers for each of the two legs of his trip. Very few of them have ever written such a simulation and most refuse to discuss how they would do so when they realise that they're being pushed into a corner. The few who actually have written such simulations must know damn well that they have imposed a preferred frame of reference on the events and that they have no alternative other than to do so. They will also realise that the universe itself cannot work by magic either and that it must likewise control the unfolding of events by using the Newtonian time of a preferred frame to control the unfolding of events.

On the wiki page about that paradox, many interpretations effectively talk about acceleration, but it is always to determine if acceleration itself affects the clocks. The interpretation that resembles the most the idea that acceleration tells us which twin is traveling is the one that says one of the twins changes reference frames, so if I understand well, for those relativists, that twin is getting younger at the same rate both ways, whereas for LET, the twin might be getting older one way, and a lot younger the other way. To me, that SR interpretation is simply illogical.

Given that most of the people speaking for SR don't understand it correctly, they also fail to explain it correctly and write confused things about the accelerations. They typically believe the accelerations have some kind of magic power to ensure that the travelling twin is always moving through less time on both legs of the trip, but what they're really doing is displaying the fact that they're not allowed to discuss the issue properly because of the dogma about not being allowed to consider simultaneity at a distance, and because time is never allowed to run slow, they can't contemplate a clock being slower during one leg of the trip and faster on the other leg - they simply aren't allowed to accommodate that idea because it is blasphemous.

They present the muon experiment as a proof that SR works, while with LET, some of those muons could very well be traveling slower than the earth with regard to ether, thus they could be having a shorter life than the laboratory ones.

With LET they could indeed be decaying more quickly, but the measuring equipment's movement through space leads to a synchronisation of clocks which makes it look as if the muons have decayed more slowly, so no such experiment can split the two theories. The only place where the two theories can be split is where one of them departs from reason by tolerating contradictions and introducing magic as part of its mechanism.

At one place, they say: «Car objectivement, seul le jumeau voyageur peut mesurer les effets de l'inertie et nous savons donc que le chemin constitué de deux segments est forcément celui du jumeau voyageur.» So they admit that we can use acceleration to determine which twin is traveling, but in the same breath, they don't admit that it breaks the relativity principle.

I can't see how they're breaking the relativity principle - it puts no ban on accelerating anything, and the same things are accelerating no matter which frame of reference you are using as the base for your observations.

What is important is that the data can be explained by the theory, and it seems that the muon can really live longer whatever the direction it takes with regard to ether, what contradicts LET.

The behaviour of muons is fully compatible with both theories.

P.s.  After having closed the thread, Obi erased my last message where I cited the wiki page on ether to show that Einstein himself, in a conference at Leyde in 1920,  admitted that, without it, light couldn't propagate

That post still appears to be there, and the thread has been unlocked (for now at least).

[Le Repteux]

The thread has effectively reopened, Mach 3 has probably asked for it. I wouldn't have bet my shirt that this thread would last 5 pages. :0)

I can't see how they're breaking the relativity principle - it puts no ban on accelerating anything, and the same things are accelerating no matter which frame of reference you are using as the base for your observations.

The relativity principle says that any reference frame is good, so if we consider the twin that has accelerated as the reference, we are forced to consider that it is the other twin that changes directions, and we can apply the relativistic calculations to him. I know it's illogical, but it is nevertheless what SR is all about That's what considering the speed of light as invariant leads to. It is invariant with regard to ether, but not with regard to bodies.

[David Cooper]

The relativity principle says that any reference frame is good, so if we consider the twin that has accelerated as the reference, we are forced to consider that it is the other twin that changes directions, and we can apply the relativistic calculations to him. I know it's illogical, but it is nevertheless what SR is all about.

I see what you're saying now - clearly the relativity principle shouldn't apply to "accelerated frames" because that actually involves changing through a wide range of frames of reference. If some people are claiming that it does apply to such "accelerated frames", then clearly they're wrong, but do any of the people making such a claim have any actual authority to make such a claim or are they just SR fans who are overstating the case because they don't really understand SR?

By the way, I attempted to post on the French forum, but they used the excuse that I wrote in English as an excuse to "move" it  into a black hole inaccessible to all except mods. The greater priority  for them is clearly to protect the propagation of misinformation.

Bonjour,
bon, on va faire simple : la théorie de l'ether a été réfutée il y a plusieurs décennies déjà.

That is a common belief, but it is not correct. A number of experiments have supposedly disproved the existence of the aether (fabric of space) by showing that the one-way speed of light is always c relative to the apparatus used to measure it, but in every case they have failed to take some fundamental factor into account, such as Doppler shift (in the case of the experiment with a turntable which has an emitter in the middle and detector at the edge - correct calculations show that the frequency of the radiation at the detector should never change regardless of how fast the apparatus is moving through space) and the twist of rotating cylinders (when light is only able to pass through the slits in both ends if it moves through the cylinder at a very specific speed - the movement of the rotating cylinder through space warps it and thereby tunes it to the actual speed the light is moving at relative to the apparatus). In each case, these experiments and the claims associated with them have remained in the literature long after their claims were shown not to be valid. I even have a university textbook which asserts that the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that there is no aether, so there is an ongoing failure of education which continues to encourage such misinformation to be propagated. The reality is that LET is still a fully viable theory (which has also been extended to cover the full ground of General Relativity in addition to SR, generating the same numbers from the same maths and differing only in interpretation).

It is bizarre that in physics there are so many people who feel the need to suppress the discussion of a key theory which is a powerful rival to a very dodgy theory which has become some kind of holy cow for them. There is some weird psychological phenomenon in play here.

Le point déjà soulevé est que vouloir comprendre la Relativité en partant de la LET est une trèèèès mauvaise chose...(pour le moins qu'on puisse dire).

Indeed, it's almost psychopathic.

[GoC (OP)]

I see what you're saying now - clearly the relativity principle shouldn't apply to "accelerated frames" because that actually involves changing through a wide range of frames of reference. If some people are claiming that it does apply to such "accelerated frames", then clearly they're wrong, but do any of the people making such a claim have any actual authority to make such a claim or are they just SR fans who are overstating the case because they don't really understand SR?

Acceleration has nothing to do with a clocks tick rate in a frame. Deceleration increases a clocks tick rate while acceleration decreases a clocks tick rate. Both create gravity as acceleration in a=g. On the Earth the surface ticks faster than the center in tick rates. There is no acceleration in the center.

The relativity principle says that any reference frame is good, so if we consider the twin that has accelerated as the reference, we are forced to consider that it is the other twin that changes directions, and we can apply the relativistic calculations to him. I know it's illogical, but it is nevertheless what SR is all about That's what considering the speed of light as invariant leads to. It is invariant with regard to ether, but not with regard to bodies.

Direction has nothing to do with it except on a rotating body like a planet. That is different from space forward and back. On a planet you are returning to the same position and carrying your own frame's aura. You are only moving faster in one direction and slower in the other direction due to distance changes which exactly corrects for the other no matter your speed. Atomic clocks walking to the speed of light in a photon. This is different from free space.

SR accounts for it in much the same way as LET, but not everyone in the SR camp understands it correctly and they frequently explain it badly. LET approaches it by saying, "IF the stay-at-home twin is stationary throughout and the other twin moves away and comes back, the moving twin's clock (and functionality) slows down and makes him age less".  LET can also produce an infinite range of other conditional accounts of the same kind which all start with "IF" and apply different speeds of movement to the stay-at-home twin. SR does things a little differently by getting rid of the "IF" and replacing it with, "Because the stay-at-home twin is both stationary and moving (depending on which frame you want to use, all of which are equally valid), we can simply assert that he's stationary and that the moving twin will travel through less time on both legs of the trip than the stay-at-home twin, and this is as correct as any other interpretation. It is also correct in SR to claim, "Because the stay-at-home twin is both moving and stationary, we can simply assert that he is moving throughout at a speed which leads to the moving twin being stationary during one leg of his trip and moving very fast on the second leg, so he moves through less time in total than the stay-at-home twin and we don't care about the details as to when he might have been moving through more time than the stay-at-home twin during the first leg because we have banned all discussion of simultaneity at a distance and therefore don't accept any ideas about how much time the stay-at-home twin had travelled through by the time the moving twin had turned around.That is what they always do, and they have to do this in order to hide the point at which they are playing fast and loose with the laws of reason. The only way to push them to the point where their abuse of logic shows up is to get them to program a simulation of what happens and to do it with two sets of twins with the stay-at-home twins moving relative to each other, because at that point they have to commit the system to behaving in a rational manner which forces them to decide which clocks are going to have to run slow (or which legs of which trip travel through less time), and it's then that they suddenly realise that they cannot fudge it if the simulation is to function correctly - they can no longer just assert that the whole round trip for a travelling twin takes him through less time without coming up with proper numbers for each of the two legs of his trip. Very few of them have ever written such a simulation and most refuse to discuss how they would do so when they realise that they're being pushed into a corner. The few who actually have written such simulations must know damn well that they have imposed a preferred frame of reference on the events and that they have no alternative other than to do so. They will also realise that the universe itself cannot work by magic either and that it must likewise control the unfolding of events by using the Newtonian time of a preferred frame to control the unfolding of events.

There are no direction issues in space. The only thing your clock measures is the ratio between kinetic energy used vs. fundamental energy available of which only fundamental energy available is measured on your clock as tick rate. So available tick rate ratio is strictly based on that ratio. LET creates the framework that creates the photon wave and the electron cycle. Energy is conserved in the electron through motion through space. All the motion is calculated in the cycle rate of your clock. Its the extra space the electron has to move through that slows the cycle completion duration. It follows geometry.

Communication is done through a LET type information system. This is what Einstein was trying to understand as a process when he claimed there was a matrix type. It could not have motion of direction and still follow relativity he suggested.

One other issue is in communication styles. He claimed all views have equal validity. In the German language this also means no view is valid. He could have a negative claim in a positive expression. In reality no one has a Gods eye view. We all have simultaneity of relativity view.

Time as reaction rates becomes clear when related to the ratio of c being used in conservation of energy.