0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

q is not consequent on p, p is not antecedent to q.Try another logic book.

(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.

synonyms: ancestor, forefather, forebear, predecessor, progenitor; Moreadjective1.preceding in time or order; previous or pre-existing.

If twin one accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p), twin two also accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q), (‘if p then q ’) is accepted, →p=q∀Both twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive logical proofs.

If both twins think they are synchronous then both twins would be incorrect according to relativity. If you do not accept relativity your logic is based on ideas other than relativity. That's ok but proof is a non existent process. We can only follow observations and suggest causes. Math can follow a theory and the theory still be incorrect. There are no proofs. Time is like cars on the road the faster clocks go the slower they tick. The available energy is a ratio between kinetic (speed) used and available energy c left. You are a biological clock that slows down its tick rate with more kinetic (speed) energy being used. This is observed. p and q have the same use of energy (direction) but not always the same rate of energy used vs. available. There is no such thing as energy reverse so we have a time arrow. The electron cycles with angular momentum at c. Moving through space increases the path the electron has to travel slowing the tick of the cycle in SR. In GR its the dilation of space that increases the distance traveled and causes equivalence. Dilated space in GR increases the measuring stick in a confounded way with distance for light to travel. This insures the measurement of the speed of light the same in every framecolin2b is giving you good advice. Your logic is based on your own understanding as is every ones.

Before you use a term you need to define the term in the context that you are using the term. In this case you have to define time. If you define time as c being always constant then you are correct. But that is not the way physics defines time in relativity. Physics defines time as the reaction rate used vs. energy c left that is available to mass. The logic of relativity: c is constant if you can agree on that we can proceed. The cycle of the electron is how physics measures time. The electron cycle with the proton at rest cycles at its fastest tick rate in its frame. As you move the proton through space there is an accepted limit of c which is agreed cannot be passed. If mass could go c the electron could not cycle and time would be frozen as we measure time for its reaction rate. So complete rest of the proton has the fastest reaction rate of reaction as time while c has no reaction time. Physics measures time as its reaction rate as I explained. There is a non linear relationship from rest reaction rate to c non reaction rate. This is the focus of relativity twin paradox which is not a paradox at all. Your body has a reaction rate that slows down with increased velocity moving towards c.So if you define time as c only than you are correct. But if you want to discuss time as relativity cycles of the electron, than time reaction is the amount of space the proton moves through for its cycle. Cycle time decreases as the proton moves faster through space. This is directly related to reaction time of say your synapsis. So you think slower relative to your sense of time and your time is slower. You do not recognize any difference. Even if your second is relative to a year of someone else.So your logic for c as time is correct for your logic the rest of science moved on to relativities definition of relative cycle times of the electron.So define time you are discussing.

If twin one accepts firstly that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p), twin two also accepts secondly that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q), (‘if p then q ’) is accepted, →p=q∀

I have never argued c is not constant, my ideas this far are based on that fact, without that fact my idea would not work. The problem with relativity which I have tried explaining, is that the distance in the Lorentz contraction is not really there when considering time. I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away. Bare in mind I am pretty much self taught so will struggle to explain properly, that is why I am on these forums asking for and looking for help. I just want science to investigate my line of enquires, a small mention in WIKI would be nice .

What is "their moment of time"? .

Quote from: Thebox on 05/07/2017 15:16:26I have never argued c is not constant, my ideas this far are based on that fact, without that fact my idea would not work. The problem with relativity which I have tried explaining, is that the distance in the Lorentz contraction is not really there when considering time. I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away. Bare in mind I am pretty much self taught so will struggle to explain properly, that is why I am on these forums asking for and looking for help. I just want science to investigate my line of enquires, a small mention in WIKI would be nice .What would you want Wiki to say? thebox is lost in his understanding of how physics relates time to physics?