[xersanozgen]

This is Isaac Asimov's mental experiment.

Reference please.
If Asimov is unfamiliar with relativity physics, I'd think him intelligent enough to consult with somebody who is before publishing something that's wrong.  SR predicts the two clocks will read the same at every meeting.

When A is preferred as the reference frame, according to SR, its clock will run at proper tempo and B's clock will fall behind.

This is blatantly false. You seem to be attempting to apply an inertial relation to a non-inertial frame.

Asimov  GUIDE TO SCIENCE section: Waves/ Light


In relativity we can choice any one of  actors for reference frame.

[Colin2B]

You twisted the logic, requesting something about some equations but we do not have time for these equations.

I don’t understand. I haven’t twisted any logic. You raised Tom’s research, so it was relevant to reply and explain why Hertz rejected his own equations. I’m sorry you don’t have time for this as there are some important aspects in there.

If the SR is reciprocal then it leads to delta in coordinate times based on the observers.
This means that different observers do not agree on a proper time of a world line.
If observers do not agree on the world line proper time they do not have time for any equations, partial or full time derivatives.

Galilean relativity is symmetrical/reciprocal, but if you understand it then you won’t get confused; similarly with the Lorentz relativity. Your last sentence looks at it from the wrong point of view.

What I am saying there is no problem till the proper time is settled.
The Einstein's paper starts with time not the electrodynamics.

Remind me of the title of Einstein’s paper, people might be forgiven for thinking it has everything to do with electrodynamics. That’s where it starts.

Anyway, best of luck with your search.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

You twisted the logic, requesting something about some equations but we do not have time for these equations.

I don’t understand. I haven’t twisted any logic. You raised Tom’s research, so it was relevant to reply and explain why Hertz rejected his own equations. I’m sorry you don’t have time for this as there are some important aspects in there.

If the SR is reciprocal then it leads to delta in coordinate times based on the observers.
This means that different observers do not agree on a proper time of a world line.
If observers do not agree on the world line proper time they do not have time for any equations, partial or full time derivatives.

Galilean relativity is symmetrical/reciprocal, but if you understand it then you won’t get confused; similarly with the Lorentz relativity. Your last sentence looks at it from the wrong point of view.

What I am saying there is no problem till the proper time is settled.
The Einstein's paper starts with time not the electrodynamics.

Remind me of the title of Einstein’s paper, people might be forgiven for thinking it has everything to do with electrodynamics. That’s where it starts.

Anyway, best of luck with your search.

Colin,
The title is "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES".
The moving bodies is the subject. The subject has an attribute - electrodynamics.
That's how I see it.
It appears Einstein as well because he started with frames, time, distance, ...
There is no electrodynamics if we do not have bodies in existence and motion before.
The simple causality.
Therefore the agreement on time, length, simultaneity, frames, ... has to come prior to electrodynamics.

Having said that, do you remember your discussion with Thomas?
Jano

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Colin,
The following is an interesting analysis.
The acceleration can be simplified.



One friend pointed out this to me. We can complete an acceleration in some finite time, yes? Let's take the time it takes to go from stationary to whatever fraction of c we are going to use R (in the original rest frame). The minimum time for the journey in that frame is thus 4R. We spend the first R accelerating outwards, the second R decelerating back to zero, the third R accelerating back, and the fourth R decelerating. In this scenario, we need to account for the finite acceleration when calculating the proper time for the traveling twin.

But you could extend the journey. Spend the first R accelerating outwards. Then spend a bunch of time X at constant velocity outbound. Then turn around, and spend a bunch of time X coming back. And then spend the last R decelerating. So the total time would be 4R+2X.

Now suppose X = R. The fact that the acceleration isn't instant still matters, right? Sure.

But what if X = 100R? What if X = 1,000,000R? What if X = 10¹⁰⁰ R? At some point, X is sufficiently large compared to R that the total proper time is dominated by what happens during X, and what happens during R becomes an irrelevant perturbation that we don't care about anymore. And that's true no matter what value of R you started with. You can always construct the problem such that you just don't care.

And that's why it's OK to simplify the problem by assuming instantaneous acceleration. It doesn't matter that instantaneous acceleration is impossible. You can construct the problem such that it's an arbitrarily small part of the problem, and therefore you can ignore it.



The above text is a standard accepted point of view by some relativists. Do you agree with that?
Now...





I assume it is OK to use X/R calculation, right?
The traveling twin accelerates from A and decelerates to B.
Using X/R we are going to ignore the acceleration and deceleration.
But we know it happened and the traveler stopped at B.
They are again in the same reference frame.
What is the distance between them when the traveler stops at B?

If gamma = 2 did the traveler crossed 3.4641cs in 2 seconds?
Jano

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

If gamma = 2 did the traveler crossed 3.4641cs in 2 seconds?

You seem to be expressing the speed as proper speed (distance traveled in one frame per unit of time measured in another). This is not limited to light speed, so yes, he moves at a proper speed of 1.7c. 'Decelerating' (as you put it) at the destination is not necessary.
In the same measure, given a fast enough ship, I can visit the far side of the galaxy 60000 light years away before I die.  I'd need a gamma a bit better than 2 to do that.

The traveling twin has to see the stay home twin's 4s of proper time as 8s coordinate time in travelers frame.
That cannot happen if there are 2s of proper time on the traveler's clock. That's the problem,
Jano

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

The traveling twin has to see the stay home twin's 4s of proper time as 8s coordinate time in travelers frame.
That cannot happen if there are 2s of proper time on the traveler's clock. That's the problem,

All clocks measure their own proper time, so using the word the way you are is redundant.

So the travelers clock reads 2s at one event, and 8s at a different event. There's no problem with that.

Coordinate time is the ordering of events via any coordinate system of your choice, but you've instead chosen multiple coordinate systems, so your post has no coherent meaning. So pick one.

Halc,
there is a train car with L₀=3.4641cs and the platform frame.
Front of the train car is x'=0 and t'=0 and it is align with the platform origin x=0 and t=0.



So the green B is platform origin and train car front (the train origin) aligned.
There is no motion at the beginning, the motion starts at t=t'=0.
The acceleration, then the deceleration as per the diagram.
It takes 4s of the platform time.
Then everything stops again.
The back of the train car is aligned with the platform origin.
There is a time dilation so the front train clock and the back train clock have both 2s on them, agreed?

How did the platform origin crossed 3.4641cs of the train frame in 2s of the train frame?
Jano

[Halc]

But what if X = 100R? What if X = 1,000,000R? What if X = 10100 R? At some point, X is sufficiently large compared to R that the total proper time is dominated by what happens during X, and what happens during R becomes an irrelevant perturbation that we don't care about anymore. And that's true no matter what value of R you started with. You can always construct the problem such that you just don't care.

And that's why it's OK to simplify the problem by assuming instantaneous acceleration. It doesn't matter that instantaneous acceleration is impossible. You can construct the problem such that it's an arbitrarily small part of the problem, and therefore you can ignore it.

The scenario below does not reflect this sort of acceleration.  It has no X at all, and is all acceleration both ways.

there is a train car with L₀=3.4641cs and the platform frame.
Front of the train car is x'=0 and t'=0 and it is align with the platform origin x=0 and t=0.



So the green B is platform origin and train car front (the train origin) aligned.
There is no motion at the beginning, the motion starts at t=t'=0.
The acceleration, then the deceleration as per the diagram.
It takes 4s of the platform time.
Then everything stops again.
The back of the train car is aligned with the platform origin.

Sorry, but the diagram doesn't show that.  There are no units labeled on the diagram, but you declare the horizontal lines to be separated by 1 second, then the train car seems only of proper length about 1.25 or so.
A 3.46 cs object cannot be moved its own length and stopped in only 4 platform seconds, at least not with a rigid object as depicted.  A 1.25 cs object can.

There is a time dilation so the front train clock and the back train clock have both 2s on them, agreed?

No.  The scenario depicted shows something more like 1.25 cs long, and in that scenario, (max speed of about .47c in the picture), clocks at either end will read about 3.75 seconds.

How did the platform origin crossed 3.4641cs of the train frame in 2s of the train frame?

Because if the train is fast enough in the platform frame, it's clock is dilated as much as you want.  There is no surprise to this.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

But what if X = 100R? What if X = 1,000,000R? What if X = 10100 R? At some point, X is sufficiently large compared to R that the total proper time is dominated by what happens during X, and what happens during R becomes an irrelevant perturbation that we don't care about anymore. And that's true no matter what value of R you started with. You can always construct the problem such that you just don't care.

And that's why it's OK to simplify the problem by assuming instantaneous acceleration. It doesn't matter that instantaneous acceleration is impossible. You can construct the problem such that it's an arbitrarily small part of the problem, and therefore you can ignore it.

The scenario below does not reflect this sort of acceleration.  It has no X at all, and is all acceleration both ways.

there is a train car with L₀=3.4641cs and the platform frame.
Front of the train car is x'=0 and t'=0 and it is align with the platform origin x=0 and t=0.



So the green B is platform origin and train car front (the train origin) aligned.
There is no motion at the beginning, the motion starts at t=t'=0.
The acceleration, then the deceleration as per the diagram.
It takes 4s of the platform time.
Then everything stops again.
The back of the train car is aligned with the platform origin.

Sorry, but the diagram doesn't show that.  There are no units labeled on the diagram, but you declare the horizontal lines to be separated by 1 second, then the train car seems only of proper length about 1.25 or so.
A 3.46 cs object cannot be moved its own length and stopped in only 4 platform seconds, at least not with a rigid object as depicted.  A 1.25 cs object can.

There is a time dilation so the front train clock and the back train clock have both 2s on them, agreed?

No.  The scenario depicted shows something more like 1.25 cs long, and in that scenario, (max speed of about .47c in the picture), clocks at either end will read about 3.75 seconds.

How did the platform origin crossed 3.4641cs of the train frame in 2s of the train frame?

Because if the train is fast enough in the platform frame, it's clock is dilated as much as you want.  There is no surprise to this.

Yes, there is no X in the yellow diagram. It tries to show that after traveling to the right both twins are in the same frame, that's all.
If we have L₀=3.4641cs train car accelerating/decelerating to the right for 4s of the stay home platform frame then these are the diagrams:




Where are the B and C events on the right diagram?
B is on ct' axis at t'=2s'. Do you agree?
Where is C?
Jano

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Yes, there is no X in the yellow diagram. It tries to show that after traveling to the right both twins are in the same frame, that's all.

The other picture shows far more than that.

If we have L₀=3.4641cs train car accelerating/decelerating to the right for 4s of the stay home platform frame then these are the diagrams:

Those diagrams do not show that at all.  It shows inertial motion without any acceleration, and it does even that incorrectly since no length contraction is depicted, so you get self-contradictions.
I mean, look at the green platform line. You have it moving at -1.73c, which is impossible.

Where are the B and C events on the right diagram?

You see, a contradiction.  The right diagram does not depict the same scenario as the left, so there is not necessarily a B or C in it.

B is on ct' axis at t'=2s'. Do you agree?

Sort of.  It's a different (smaller) train car, so not clear if there's any correspondence between the diagrams at all. If we remove the trains and platforms altogether and just consider the two coordinate systems, then yes.

Where is C?

A is the origin of both frames. B is on the t' axis at 2' seconds and C is 4s on the t axis, which is coordinate t'=8, x'=-6.928 which is immediately below the "ct" label at the top of the chart.
Left chart shows the left end of a train present at C, and the right chart does not, so the two charts do not correspond to the same scenario.

Halc,
they do correspond to the same scenario.
This is a better diagram:




The C event is the problem one.
It shows that the platform ruler crossed the 3.4641cs distance in 2s'.
That's what happened.
How else can we show it?

[puppypower]

Special relativity has three variables which are mass, distance and time. If we only use two variables, such as only time and distance, reference can and will appear relative. Mass allow us to feel inertia such as the wind through our hair to confirm motion. It also allows us to do an energy balance since motion will imply velocity and velocity times mass, which gives us momentum and kinetic energy, as well as action and reaction affects. Pretending in only space and time will not do this.

Say one reference mass is m and the other reference mass is 2m and we ignore the mass, then it will appear to be relative motion, If we include the mass each scenario in the relative motion illusion will create a different energy balance due to different mass. Then we will realize that that relative motion violates energy conservation, unless you assume both have the exact same mass. This s why we use the twin paradox. This allows a reactive reference magic trick based on hiding the mass. Instead of twins, use father and son, with the father having twice the mass of the son then you see something is wrong.

Where the problem originally stemmed was in astral physics and astronomy There we depend on  light and energy to observe motion in the universe. Light has only frequency and wavelength, but not mass. Therefore we can only use two of the three SR variables by default. Einstein warned that this situation will create relative reference magic tricks. He was not stating that relative reference was a truth of nature, but giving us a warning that two of three SR variables will create a spatial illusion A spatial illusion will make 2-D appear 3-D or flat 2-D logic will appear like a ball; universal truth,  due to the shadowing and highlights (denial and partial data). .

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Now everything is moving faster than light on the right picture.  Fail
You're also trying to add acceleration (of the platform no less) to it, in which case you need to make it look like the yellow diagram which shows acceleration.  If you want to add a long X time where it is inertial, then fine, but you'll need a significantly larger graph.

This recent thing depicts inertial motion, and needs to stay that way.

How else can we show it?

[ Invalid Attachment ]

Actually read my prior post, and not just one sentence of it.

Halc,
there is not relative motion after 2s'.
How is it captured in your diagram?
Why there is ct still under angle?
Jano

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Special relativity has three variables which are mass, distance and time. If we only use two variables, such as only time and distance, reference can and will appear relative. Mass allow us to feel inertia such as the wind through our hair to confirm motion. It also allows us to do an energy balance since motion will imply velocity and velocity times mass, which gives us momentum and kinetic energy, as well as action and reaction affects. Pretending in only space and time will not do this.

Say one reference mass is m and the other reference mass is 2m and we ignore the mass, then it will appear to be relative motion, If we include the mass each scenario in the relative motion illusion will create a different energy balance due to different mass. Then we will realize that that relative motion violates energy conservation, unless you assume both have the exact same mass. This s why we use the twin paradox. This allows a reactive reference magic trick based on hiding the mass. Instead of twins, use father and son, with the father having twice the mass of the son then you see something is wrong.

Where the problem originally stemmed was in astral physics and astronomy There we depend on  light and energy to observe motion in the universe. Light has only frequency and wavelength, but not mass. Therefore we can only use two of the three SR variables by default. Einstein warned that this situation will create relative reference magic tricks. He was not stating that relative reference was a truth of nature, but giving us a warning that two of three SR variables will create a spatial illusion A spatial illusion will make 2-D appear 3-D or flat 2-D logic will appear like a ball; universal truth,  due to the shadowing and highlights (denial and partial data). .

Physical objects have mass and energy centroids (centers).
The centroids are frame dependent.
This is very tricky and puzzling,
Jano

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Halc,
here is the reciprocity of the Special Relativity:



Therefore this cannot happen and as you said: "You have it moving at -1.73c, which is impossible."




... but this is the correct diagram:





This tells us that the traveling twin's proper time is 4s' to cross the 3.4641cs' distance.
The conclusion is that when the traveling twin accelerates and then decelerates the proper time is going to be the same as the stay home twin.
Jano

[David Cooper]

I have just thought of a way to break one key part of relativity by narrowing the absolute frame down to a small range, and this is possible because the big bang is a universal starting gun.

Suppose most of the material in the universe is close to being at rest rather than moving at relativistic speed. In such a situation, if you were to travel for billions of years at relativistic speed, you could measure the age of the stars and galaxies that you’re passing and you would determine that they’re aging faster than you, which reveals that you are the one moving at relativistic speed. However, if all of that material is actually moving at relativistic speed and you are the one who is close to being at rest, you will make the same kind of measurements and see that you are the one who’s aged much faster than the rest of the content of the universe.

We can’t do that experiment today unless we happen to find some ancient star passing us at relativistic speed which can in some way tell us how much time it thinks it’s measured since the early days of the universe, but we could in principle do it over billions of years in the future and add this to the experiments that have already revealed that LET is right and that STR is wrong, although it would also take a long time to relay the results of the experiment back home.

Note that if we had multiple ancient stars flung out of ancient galaxies passing us in different directions at high relativistic speed, it would be impossible for them all to have aged the same amount. With only one such star, we could be moving at the same speed as it in the opposite direction, but with many such stars moving in different directions, that wouldn’t be possible for each of them in relation to us: some of them would have to have very different measurements of how long they have existed since the big bang (and when they came into being) because it would violate the rules of relativity for them not to show up such differences, and this would necessarily help us to pin down the identity of the absolute frame to a narrow range.

[Halc]

I have just thought of a way to break one key part of relativity by narrowing the absolute frame down to a small range, and this is possible because the big bang is a universal starting gun.

If it breaks relativity, then it breaks whatever you're pushing because you claim it makes no different predictions.

Suppose most of the material in the universe is close to being at rest rather than moving at relativistic speed.

You're describing a different universe then, one with no recession of distant galaxies.

In such a situation, if you were to travel for billions of years at relativistic speed, you could measure the age of the stars and galaxies that you’re passing and you would determine that they’re aging faster than you, which reveals that you are the one moving at relativistic speed.

Let's see, you have a universe full of clocks that are mostly A) relatively stationary relative to inertial frame X, and B) in sync only in frame X.  That would indeed suggest a preferred frame, one in which there was no big bang, but rather a static-sized universe in which time started everywhere at once.  All very nice, but it's not our universe.
It would not break SR because SR does not forbid such a situation, except perhaps the strawman SR that you invoke.  It would break GR, because GR describes our universe, not this thing you're describing. There would definitely be empirical differences.

We can’t do that experiment today unless we happen to find some ancient star passing us at relativistic speed which can in some way tell us how much time it thinks it’s measured since the early days of the universe

OK, I'll bite.  Suppose there's a galaxy somewhere that does not have a velocity relative to its surroundings.  At a time the universe appears about 1.7 billion years old to an observer there, they fire a clock in the direction of us at .999999c or however fast you like. The local universe will appear 12 billion years older (13.7 BY) when it gets here.
It seems that you claim a discrepancy between your view and relativity.  SR has nothing to say about it since SR is not a model of the universe.  So my question is, what is the empirical difference?  So some interesting questions:
1) What is the proper distance between the event of that clock being fired and the material that would eventually become our solar system?  Assume our solar system is similarly relatively stationary relative to its surroundings.
2) How fast does this clock move as it passes by Earth?
3) What does the clock read?  Assume it was zeroed when fired.  It's moving fast, so probably less than 12 BY.

If the theories produce different answers, I need both. If they don't, then what does the experiment demonstrate?
Personally I don't think you're up to that, and thus are free to believe whatever you want in ignorance.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

The thread title is about the SR reciprocity.
Can we settle that the reciprocity of the SR is a fact?
It follows from this...




... and this...





Assuming this is the case the discussion turned what it means for the twin paradox.
So I just want to clarify that we agree on the fact that the SR is reciprocal.

[David Cooper]

If it breaks relativity, then it breaks whatever you're pushing because you claim it makes no different predictions.

No. LET is fully compatible with relativity breaking in this way - it simply reduces the range of the phenomenon of relativity by providing a means to pin down the absolute frame.

You're describing a different universe then, one with no recession of distant galaxies.

Wrong again. The expansion of the universe simply means that the absolute frame at one location isn't the same as the absolute frame at another location. That doesn't make any dent in this proof. I explained the complications of defining the absolute frame in an expanding universe before where the expansion reveals that the absolute frames which are different for different locations are merely pseudo-absolute frames while the real absolute frame within which the universe is expanding need not correspond to any frame in the universe.

Let's see, you have a universe full of clocks that are mostly A) relatively stationary relative to inertial frame X, and B) in sync only in frame X.  That would indeed suggest a preferred frame, one in which there was no big bang, but rather a static-sized universe in which time started everywhere at once.  All very nice, but it's not our universe.

No. I'm describing a universe that expands out from a big bang. If something moves through the expanding fabric, it ages more slowly than something that merely goes where the fabric takes it.

It would not break SR because SR does not forbid such a situation, except perhaps the strawman SR that you invoke.  It would break GR, because GR describes our universe, not this thing you're describing. There would definitely be empirical differences.

STR is so broken that it doesn't take much to invalidate it, as I've shown before, but you just trust in the authority of apes over the authority of mathematics and reject every proof that goes against your beliefs, just like a follower of any other religion. This latest proof destroys STR in a new way, and breaks relativity too as a bonus. GTR is also horribly broken, but this new proof only adds to that destruction indirectly in that anything that damages STR damages GTR too.

Suppose there's a galaxy somewhere that does not have a velocity relative to its surroundings.  At a time the universe appears about 1.7 billion years old to an observer there, they fire a clock in the direction of us at .999999c or however fast you like. The local universe will appear 12 billion years older (13.7 BY) when it gets here.

Yes, and that's the part that doesn't directly reveal anything until you think through the other case where the galaxy is moving at 0.999999c and sends the clock out at a speed that turns out to be zero. Instead of that clock having its functionality nearly frozen, it ticks inordinately faster than the clocks in all the galaxies which are moving in the same direction through space at 0.999999c.

It seems that you claim a discrepancy between your view and relativity.  SR has nothing to say about it since SR is not a model of the universe.

When that clock arrives here in the second case, if finds a universe that looks much younger than in the first case, so this is a way to measure absolute speed through the space fabric.

So my question is, what is the empirical difference?

The difference is that LET survives the breaking of relativity as it doesn't depend on it lasting, whereas STR depends totally on this breakage not occurring.

1) What is the proper distance between the event of that clock being fired and the material that would eventually become our solar system?  Assume our solar system is similarly relatively stationary relative to its surroundings.
2) How fast does this clock move as it passes by Earth?
3) What does the clock read?  Assume it was zeroed when fired.  It's moving fast, so probably less than 12 BY.

You can fit your own numbers to it. All you need to do is go where the thought experiment takes you. I've written a new version of it which I'll post after this post so as not to have all this bloat as an unnecessary header on it.

If the theories produce different answers, I need both. If they don't, then what does the experiment demonstrate?

STR contradicts itself, so it can tell every girl that it's deeply in love with her and that it has no interest in any other, and they're all stupid enough to believe it. The key point with this proof though is that it breaks relativity itself, and it does it by applying LET and/or STR to a thought experiment that could be carried out in this universe, though with our starting point for it being so late it might take a trillion years to get an answer. Fortunately though, we can prove it in principle without having to do the actual experiment.

Personally I don't think you're up to that, and thus are free to believe whatever you want in ignorance.

Lovely. You're the one who might not be up to this stuff, but you're certainly closer to having that ability than most, so I wouldn't be greatly surprised if you're one of the first to make the transition away from Einstein's pile of pants. The ignorance is all yours here though - you've had proof after proof set in front of your eyes and you're blind to them, but that's the norm everywhere when trying to deprogram people who've been so viciously brainwashed by the establishment.

[David Cooper]

Disproof 7

This is a special disproof because it not only destroys STR (like the other disproofs), but it also breaks relativity by allowing the absolute frame to be identified if the right evidence is available, and it breaks it even if all we have to work with is this thought experiment. It all depends on the big bang serving as the start for a set of timers.

Imagine that a particular type of galaxy forms first and that there's a shortage of heavy elements in them because there haven't been any supernovae yet to create them. We can age galaxies and their stars by studying their composition. Now, suppose that all the galaxies are approximately at rest in the local absolute frame (local, because it varies from place to place in an expanding universe). In this case, which we'll call case 1, they will all age quickly. However, if they're all moving through the absolute frame instead at high relativistic speed in the same direction, they will all age slowly, but no one measuring them will be able to tell the difference. We'll call this case 2. Both cases look identical to the inhabitants at this point.

What happens though if there are some stars being flung out of galaxies at high relativistic speeds relative to them. If such stars exist, we could theoretically investigate them as they pass us and determine their age by studying their composition, and we can compare that with our own. If these stars show less aging than our galaxy's stars, then the visitors have been moving faster through the absolute frame. If they show more aging than our galaxy's stars though, then it must be our galaxy that's moving faster through space. We thus have a way of pinning down the absolute frame, or at least of narrowing down the range in which it sits.

This is like a special twins paradox, but with triplets or quads, or any bigger number: multuplets, might be the word (from multi, so pronounced mull-TYOO-plits). The multuplets are effectively separated at the big bang, although they don't actually come into existence straight away, but they do come into being at the same time because their galaxies are all moving at the same speed through space. Many of the the multuplets' stars wander too close to violently exploding objects and get jetted out of their galaxies at high relativistic speeds. Some of them come our way from their original galaxies and we an ask them their age as they fly by. If we are relatively stationary, they will all be younger than the multuplets that live here (the stay-at-home twins), and as they pass by, this counts as a reunion of "twins" (technically pairs of multuplets). They're moving faster relative to us, so STR tells us that these travelling "twins" (the ones who have accelerated) will have aged less. LET also predicts the same for case 1 where we are relatively stationary. However, in case 2 where all the galaxies are moving along through the absolute frame in the same general direction at high relativistic speed, some of the travelling twins will be at rest in that frame while they travel to us and so they will have aged more than us. On discovering that some of the travelling "twins" are much older than our multuplets, the establishment may wish to claim that we must have accelerated more than they did right at the time of the big bang, but no: the travelling "twins" would all have had to do that same acceleration too, so they've certainly accelerated more than we have once you add their jetting acceleration to that. Here we have a special case where we can tell that one specific "twin" is closer to being at rest in the absolute frame of the space fabric than us, and than the other travelling multuplets who are moving in other directions. Case 2 would show this up clearly.

If we happen to find a case 1 result, which is the most likely result, all the travelling twins who pass each other will have aged the same amount, so we don't have a result there that directly pins down (or narrows down) the identity of the absolute frame. However, these multuplets are a clever bunch. They anticipated this problem during the early times of the universe and sent out clocks at relativistic speeds relative to them in all directions, and all these clocks record the history of when and how this was done. So it turns out that we can identify sets of multuplets who are all moving in the same direction at the same speed and also identify the clocks sent out by them in specific directions at specific speeds. Set A of multuplets are all moving at relativistic speed in the direction we call north, while we are stationary (because this is case 1). Set A's clocks are clocks that Set A sent out at relativistic speed in all directions. Members of set A will pass clocks from their own set from time to time and these two sets of objects now serve as a case 2 equivalent where set A members stand in for galaxies and the clocks they've sent out serve as the stars shot out of those galaxies at relativisic speeds. When they ask those clocks their age, some of them will be older than set A members, and some will be younger than them, and the ones which are older than them must be closer to being at rest in the absolute frame. When we look at these clocks ourselves, we see some of them pass us at ridiculously high relativistic speeds much higher than those of the multuplets, but others aren't moving fast relative to us at all, and when we ask them their ages, the ones moving slowest relative to us are the oldest ones, so to us we see a result compatible with STR, but when we take in the measurements made by set A's multuplets, we get a different story from them: they can see what we can't tell directly without their help: they can pin down the absolute frame (at least to a narrow range).

So, it isn't just STR that breaks again, but relativity itself has broken. LET still describes the phenomenon of relativity correctly and predicts all the happenings of this thought experiment, but we find that the phenomenon of relativity itself has a chink in it and that we can crack it wide open.

[Halc]

You're describing a different universe then, one with no recession of distant galaxies.

Wrong again. The expansion of the universe simply means that the absolute frame at one location isn't the same as the absolute frame at another location.

OK, you're talking about the comoving frame, or the FLRW model, which is pretty much the accepted model. That wasn't clear. Most of your posts tend to think on an inertial mindset, so I assumed such a reference when you said everything was nearly stationary.

OK, I know the model.  Earth's 'proper' speed regularly ranges from about 0.13%c to over twice that, with its current speed near the low range of that. Few large objects are seen with proper speeds greater than say 0.5%c. A star isn't a large object. S2 for instance gets up to ~1.6%c, but that's relative to Sgr-A, not a proper speed.

STR is so broken that it doesn't take much to invalidate it

Nonsense. It isn't a model of the universe is all. It's a model of local spacetime without gravity in consideration. Given those conditions, it cannot be falsified.

Suppose there's a galaxy somewhere that does not have a velocity relative to its surroundings.  At a time the universe appears about 1.7 billion years old to an observer there, they fire a clock in the direction of us at .999999c or however fast you like. The local universe will appear 12 billion years older (13.7 BY) when it gets here.

Yes, and that's the part that doesn't directly reveal anything until you think through the other case where the galaxy is moving at 0.999999c and sends the clock out at a speed that turns out to be zero.

Now now, the condition is that the galaxy is stationary as you defined above. I'm accepting that. I'm asking you to answer the three questions. A 4th question could be the recession speed of that galaxy, but that is time dependent in the FLRW model, so it isn't receding as fast now as it was 12 billion years ago.

Instead of that clock having its functionality nearly frozen, it ticks inordinately faster than the clocks in all the galaxies which are moving in the same direction through space at 0.999999c.

Computations please.  You make it sound like some other theory predicts different numbers.

When that clock arrives here in the second case, if finds a universe that looks much younger than in the first case, so this is a way to measure absolute speed through the space fabric.

Numbers please, or this is all just your fantasy.

So my question is, what is the empirical difference?

The difference is that LET survives the breaking of relativity as it doesn't depend on it lasting, whereas STR depends totally on this breakage not occurring.

That's a paper difference, not an empirical one. Boo...

1) What is the proper distance between the event of that clock being fired and the material that would eventually become our solar system?  Assume our solar system is similarly relatively stationary relative to its surroundings.
2) How fast does this clock move as it passes by Earth?
3) What does the clock read?  Assume it was zeroed when fired.  It's moving fast, so probably less than 12 BY.

You can fit your own numbers to it. All you need to do is go where the thought experiment takes you. I've written a new version of it which I'll post after this post so as not to have all this bloat as an unnecessary header on it.

As I thought. You have no numbers. I thought my questions were reasonable. You have no evidence at all if you can't provide simple numbers.
It's not easy to just find on the web since almost all the sites talk about light getting here from the distant galaxy, and light always moves at c even through frame changes. So finding an article on a ballistic object like we're proposing here I thought was an interesting case.

STR contradicts itself

STR is mute on this experiment since it is not a local experiment. So you need to reach for GR, which does indeed have an answer, even it it isn't a trivial thing to compute.

Personally I don't think you're up to that, and thus are free to believe whatever you want in ignorance.

I was right though. No numbers. You're not up to it.
There's plenty beyond my skills as well, but I don't go asserting conclusions and contradictions then, and if I do see a contradiction (and I do quite often), I assume it is me making the mistake, and not that I've somehow found something that far smarter people cannot.

[David Cooper]

STR is so broken that it doesn't take much to invalidate it

Nonsense. It isn't a model of the universe is all. It's a model of local spacetime without gravity in consideration. Given those conditions, it cannot be falsified.

It invalidates itself in multiple ways. You simply reject proofs in the same way that religious people reject proofs that their God cannot meet the impossible qualifications required of him.

Yes, and that's the part that doesn't directly reveal anything until you think through the other case where the galaxy is moving at 0.999999c and sends the clock out at a speed that turns out to be zero.

Now 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.

Computations 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. If someone gives you an equation like a = b + c, you don't need to demand numbers to go with it as you can supply any values of your own to it. You are effectively being offered all possible numbers that fit the equation.

When that clock arrives here in the second case, if finds a universe that looks much younger than in the first case, so this is a way to measure absolute speed through the space fabric.

Numbers please, or this is all just your fantasy.

I gave you numbers. "Much younger" contains a number. "Ages more" contains a number. "Ages less" contains a number. These numbers don't have specific values, but they have ranges which don't overlap in any specific case here. You can pick any numbers you like which follow the rules in the description and they will match up to the stated claims. It's so trivially simple that you should be embarrassed about asking for specific numbers, just as you would be if you had to ask for numbers to understand a = b + c.

In case 1, the speed of the galaxies is approximately zero, so you can test that by using 0, or 0.1c if you like. All the multuplets are created at the same time as each other. 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. You could make the slow speed 0.49c and the high speed 5.1c if you like too, and it would still work, but the difference would be smaller, so it makes sense to go for a big difference when you assign numbers to this. 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, but it's a much later same time than in case 1 because the high speed of movement delays their creation considerably. And "considerably" is again a number, so stop asserting that I'm not giving you numbers. You need to learn what a number is, and I don't need to do your work for you when you pick values: you should be able to crunch them easily enough to see that they fit my claims every time, and you shouldn't even need to do any calculations to know that that will happen. Here's why:-

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 don't need me to calculate their ages and give you precise values for that to know that the above statements are correct, so you can do all that superfulous work for yourself. Go ahead and see if you can find any values using specific speeds that contradict the above statements which cover all possible speeds that you want to try. Asking me to do that for you is not something anyone serious in a discussion like this should be doing. There is no set of valid values (conforming to the set conditions) which breaks the claims of the above statements, and that should be obvious right from the start.

So my question is, what is the empirical difference?

The difference is that LET survives the breaking of relativity as it doesn't depend on it lasting, whereas STR depends totally on this breakage not occurring.

That's a paper difference, not an empirical one. Boo...

One theory survives relativity breaking and the other doesn't. That is the crucial difference. Theories are things that exist on paper, and they can be destroyed on paper.

You have no numbers. I thought my questions were reasonable. You have no evidence at all if you can't provide simple numbers.

On the contrary, I have all the numbers and so do you. You can crunch as many pointless specific values as you like, but they will not overturn what has already been proved with my open numbers which cover all valid values (where validity requires a lower value (the speed of the thing moving nearer to 0) to be lower than a higher value (for the thing moving nearer to c)).

STR contradicts itself

STR is mute on this experiment since it is not a local experiment. So you need to reach for GR, which does indeed have an answer, even it it isn't a trivial thing to compute.

STR is not exempt from being tied up in this experiment. It makes claims which are manifestly disproved by this. The symmetry is broken so badly that relativity itself breaks on it.

Personally I don't think you're up to that, and thus are free to believe whatever you want in ignorance.

I was right though. No numbers. You're not up to it.

The failure here was all yours: I supplied all the numbers you need and you failed to recognise it.

There's plenty beyond my skills as well, but I don't go asserting conclusions and contradictions then, and if I do see a contradiction (and I do quite often), I assume it is me making the mistake, and not that I've somehow found something that far smarter people cannot.

Your whole approach fails because you imagine that you're dealing with smarter people when you read establishment nonsense, and you fall in line behind it instead of trusting your own mind. You don't make progress by just trusting authorities to have done the homework which they failed to do.

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?

Case 2: galaxy speeds = a fraction under c; travelling multuplets' speed, a much wider range, some much higher speed than the galaxies, but some of them will be moving at zero speed, and we only need to find one of those to see that his age is much greater than that of the stay-at-home multuplets in our galaxy which have hardly aged at all while the travelling ones moving in one particular direction have aged more by the same amount as the stay-at-home multuplets in case 1, so we're seeing the exact opposite result. 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. No amount of me giving you specific numbers for cases which conform to the above claims will be worth anything, so you're just asking me to waste my time. No one in mathematics would ask me to do such pointless number crunching when there is no possibility of the results going against the above claims. It's trivial to do as well, but I refuse to waste battery power running a calculator even for a few seconds to do something so utterly ridiculous that no one with any self-respect should be demanding that anyone else do.