In Twin Paradox Twist, the Accelerated Twin is Older

Jun 09, 2009 By Lisa Zyga feature
In Twin Paradox Twist, the Accelerated Twin is Older
Scientists have found that, when twins are orbiting a massive object, time dilation can cause the accelerated twin to be older if that twin is moving slower than the other twin; in this case, velocity is the deciding factor of age, and the twin with the greater velocity is younger. ©2005 Cetin Bal.

Just when you thought you were beginning to understand the twin paradox (maybe), scientists have found something new to ponder. In the original version of the famous thought experiment on time dilation, one twin stays on Earth while the other twin takes a rocket at nearly light speed into space, and returns to find that he is younger than his twin on Earth. But a new version of the story now shows that the twin who experiences an acceleration can be older than the twin who doesn’t accelerate, under slightly different conditions.

Physicist Marek Abramowicz of Goteborg University in Sweden and astronomer Stanislaw Bajtlik of the Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center in Warszawa, Poland, have proposed the surprising new version of the twin paradox, which at first seems to run contrary to the traditional version. However, the scientists show that the traditional version is actually a specific case of a more general concept.

“In the best known version of the twin paradox, the twin who is accelerated is younger,” Abramowicz and Bajtlik told PhysOrg.com. “In the version discussed by us the accelerated twin is older. It is quite surprising. It is almost as to say that ‘the older twin is younger.’”

In 1905, described the ideas behind the twin paradox to demonstrate the effects of time dilation according to special relativity. In 1911, physicist Paul Langevin turned the concept into a concrete story involving two hypothetical twins. Ever since then, scientists have offered various explanations for exactly why this aging paradox occurs, and whether it is even a true paradox at all.

As Abramowicz and Bajtlik note in their study, it is often claimed that the twin paradox can be explained by the acceleration of the traveling twin that occurs when he turns around to go back to Earth. Abramowicz and Bajtlik show, however, that it is not the acceleration that causes the age difference in most cases. By presenting a scenario in which the accelerated twin is older at the reunion, the scientists show that the final time difference between the twins often depends only on their velocities as measured with respect to an absolute standard of rest, and not on acceleration.

In the new scenario, both twins are in circular orbit at different velocities around a large body, with the velocities measured by observers rotating with zero angular momentum with respect to the sky. Abramowicz and Bajtlik considered what happens when twin A stops moving, and so has a velocity of zero, and therefore a non-zero acceleration. Twin B continues to orbit at a set velocity corresponding to Keplerian free orbit and therefore has zero acceleration. Twin A is the accelerated twin, and twin B is not accelerated. As the scientists calculate, contrary to the classical version of the paradox, twin B is younger.

The scientists then considered a situation where the large body that the twins orbit decreases in mass, while the twins’ orbiting radius stays the same. Under these circumstances, twin B’s orbiting velocity no longer follows Kepler’s laws, and so he experiences an acceleration like twin A. However, the ratio of the twins’ proper times still depends only on their velocities, not on their acceleration. Since the twins’ velocities stay the same, with twin B orbiting at a larger velocity than twin A (who is not moving at all), twin B is still younger.

“According to Einstein's relativity theory, the time measured by moving clocks runs more slowly,” Abramowicz and Bajtlik explained. “If two twins move relative to each other, for each of them the time measured by the other one runs more slowly. There is nothing contradictory or paradoxical about that. Note that, quite similarly, two twins who look at each other from a distance both have the impression that the brother looks smaller. For the twin paradox to occur, they should be brought to the same place. At the reunion the twins will find that they do not differ in size, but they may differ in age. What breaks the symmetry here? The standard answer is the acceleration. However, in many situations in which the absolute motion may be defined, the moving twin is younger, regardless of acceleration.”

In the examples so far, the faster twin is younger, regardless of any acceleration. However, if the mass of the large body decreased to zero, the situation becomes the original twin paradox: twin A is not accelerated, and twin B is accelerated. In this special case, twin B is still younger - but not because he is moving faster. As the scientists explain, when the mass of the large body is zero, the explanation for the paradox changes: time dilation here is due to twin B’s acceleration, not his velocity.

“The mass causes a non-zero curvature of the spacetime, and curvature gives the spacetime a structure that defines the absolute standard of rest,” the scientists explained. “In Minkowski spacetime there are no such structures, and there is no way to tell who of the twins in moving faster in an absolute way.”

This version of the twin paradox is not the first to suggest that the paradox can be explained by a difference in velocity between the twins. As in the current version, previous versions also show that the twin who moves or orbits faster is younger. As the scientists emphasize, this explanation holds true for all situations in which the absolute motion of the twins can be defined in terms of some global properties of spacetime. Possibly, the scientists suggest, the explanation might even be extended to the traditional version of the twin paradox by referring to the sky, although this would require further investigation.

More information: Marek A. Abramowicz and Stanislaw Bajtlik. “Adding to the paradox: the accelerated twin is older.” arXiv:0905.2428v1.

Copyright 2009 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.

Explore further: Superconducting circuits, simplified

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

LSU professor resolves Einstein's twin paradox

Feb 14, 2007

Subhash Kak, Delaune Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at LSU, recently resolved the twin paradox, known as one of the most enduring puzzles of modern-day physics.

Identical twins not as identical as believed

Feb 15, 2008

Contrary to our previous beliefs, identical twins are not genetically identical. This surprising finding is presented by American, Swedish, and Dutch scientists in a study being published today in the prestigious journal ...

A proposed IVF ban could lower twin births

Sep 18, 2006

With increasing numbers of twins swamping intensive care units, British women may soon be barred from having twins through in vitro fertilization treatment.

Recommended for you

Superconducting circuits, simplified

Oct 17, 2014

Computer chips with superconducting circuits—circuits with zero electrical resistance—would be 50 to 100 times as energy-efficient as today's chips, an attractive trait given the increasing power consumption ...

Protons hog the momentum in neutron-rich nuclei

Oct 16, 2014

Like dancers swirling on the dance floor with bystanders looking on, protons and neutrons that have briefly paired up in the nucleus have higher-average momentum, leaving less for non-paired nucleons. Using ...

Cosmic jets of young stars formed by magnetic fields

Oct 16, 2014

Astrophysical jets are counted among our Universe's most spectacular phenomena: From the centers of black holes, quasars, or protostars, these rays of matter sometimes protrude several light years into space. ...

User comments : 84

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Ashy
4 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2009
Liza, could you give basic equations, please? It's very interesting topic.
LariAnn
2 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2009
Intriguing thought experiment; however, what is being compared is relative motion, not time. Using an analog clock as the standard, notice that it is the motion of the hands of the clock, which is a spatial motion or change relative to a stationary point, that is being compared to the spatial motion occurring on another clockface. The "aging" of the twins is just a comparison of the relative motion occurring on the clocks. This "change over time" has no meaning unless compared to a reference change, which is what our clocks, or the atomic clock, serve as. But it is still spatial motion compared to spatial motion, not "passage of time". To really grasp this, one needs to recognize that movements along each of the spatial dimensions are dimensions in themselves, and that time enables this movement, but is not measured by it. http://fractalica...onos.htm
Hyperion1110
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2009
Yeah, I had to miss something in there somewhere. The whole argument doesn't make sense to me. How can an object orbit a body, yet be stationary with respect to the background? Also, how is an object in orbit, but not accelerating? Unless I missed something, acceleration is a vector, so any change in speed or direction is an acceleration; if they're in orbit, they're accelerating.
Hyperion1110
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2009
Intriguing thought experiment; however, what is being compared is relative motion, not time. Using an analog clock as the standard, notice that it is the motion of the hands of the clock, which is a spatial motion or change relative to a stationary point, that is being compared to the spatial motion occurring on another clockface. The "aging" of the twins is just a comparison of the relative motion occurring on the clocks. This "change over time" has no meaning unless compared to a reference change, which is what our clocks, or the atomic clock, serve as. But it is still spatial motion compared to spatial motion, not "passage of time". http://fractalica...onos.htm




Why does everyone always seem to hate time?! Folks, without time, there is no motion. Sure, there can be space without time. But you know what would happen there? Nothing! Timeless space is changeless space. Without change, there is nothing: no dogs or cats, no string cheese, no thermodynamics, and no relavity.



I have been having this debate with various people for the better part of a decade. Whether you believe that time is an intuition of the mind or a fundamental aspect of reality separate from observers, time is EVERYTHING! You (plural) can either try to understand it, or pretend it's not there. And if you believe the latter, try writing a response to this post.
LariAnn
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2009
Hyperion1110,

No hate for time was expressed or implied in my post; rather, my position is congruent with yours, in that without time, existence as we know it would not take place. My point is that while time is essential, time is not what most people think it is, and it is certainly not measured by clocks. Time cannot be "lost" any more than space can be "lost". In a very real sense, time can neither be created nor destroyed. I am all for striving to understand time, but also recognize that the way time is taught makes it refractory to understanding.
jimbo92107
3 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2009
You could call this example, "Twins born on a spaceship." Traveling near light speed, one twin must decelerate (accelerate down from light speed) relative to planet Earth, leaving the other twin aboard the spaceship. Later, both twins reunite on Earth, only to find the first twin has aged after accelerating downwards earlier from the ship's speed to Earth's relative stillness.
kasen
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2009
One thing that always bugged me about this whole gravity-affecting-time thing is how could one test this. I know there've been experiments done with high-altitude planes and the ISS, but couldn't the time difference be explained by the clock mechanism operating slightly faster due to less gravitational pull? I can't help thinking about a pendulum clock in an accelerating spaceship, or train. Can we really build a clock that's not affected by acceleration?
jmracek
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2009
> the final time difference between the twins often

> depends only on their velocities as measured with

> respect to an absolute standard of rest



Failure to grasp the concept. The whole point of Special Relativity is that there is no absolute standard of rest. No frame of motion is privileged.


Agreed. Furthermore, I don't think special relativity applies to situations in which there is a gravitational field present... something about the whole article didn't make any coherent sense to me. They say that the time difference depends on their absolute velocities; however, this would automatically insinuate that there is a way to measure absolute velocity. The principle of relativity explicitly forbids this measurement... it is the entire reason that the speed of light was assumed to be a constant in all reference frames.

Either I'm too ignorant to know exactly what's going on here or some people with PhD's REALLY dropped the ball on this one. How embarrasing.
Hyperion1110
3 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2009
Hyperion1110,

No hate for time was expressed or implied in my post; rather, my position is congruent with yours, in that without time, existence as we know it would not take place. My point is that while time is essential, time is not what most people think it is, and it is certainly not measured by clocks. Time cannot be "lost" any more than space can be "lost". In a very real sense, time can neither be created nor destroyed. I am all for striving to understand time, but also recognize that the way time is taught makes it refractory to understanding.


Oh, now I understand you. As you can probably tell, I have a lot of frustration about this whole time business :)

One thing that always bugged me about this whole gravity-affecting-time thing is how could one test this. I know there've been experiments done with high-altitude planes and the ISS, but couldn't the time difference be explained by the clock mechanism operating slightly faster due to less gravitational pull? I can't help thinking about a pendulum clock in an accelerating spaceship, or train. Can we really build a clock that's not affected by acceleration?


No, I think GR is quite quite correct on this point. The effect of gravity on time is critical to everyday telecommunications. Because of gravitational redshift, changes in transmission wavelengths must be taken into account when communicating between, say, a DirecTV satellite in GEO and the dish on top of my house. Without the correction, I wouldn't be able to watch the Penguins beat the Red Wings (please, no comments about that last gave...I freely acknowledge the suckiness of it!).
kasen
2 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2009
I knew that gravity affects EM waves, it's not all that counter-intuitive. What I was thinking was if an observer's clock is affected in a more Newtonian/inertial way, rather than in a space(time) distortion way. Again, a pendulum on an accelerating train. Now, given, atomic clocks are quite a long way from grandpa's clock, but mass is involved at one point.
All in all, since time can only be measured by frames of reference, I guess the question is kinda moot. However it's explained or calculated, and I understand GR is the most accurate method yet, the effect is still there, and confirmed by quite a few experiments.
blf
4 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2009
Doesn't make sense.

In the classic twin paradox, the "acceleration" of the young twin explains the break in symmetry. a) From the old twins perspective, he is at rest and the young twin zooms away and returns. b) from the young twin's perspective, it is the old twin who travels quickly away and returns. The difference is that the young twin accelerates, and the old twin does not.

The interesting thing is that clearly is not the acceleration that causes the age difference (imagine 1 hour of acceleration followed by a 10 minute trip, as compared to 1 hour of acceleration followed by a 20 year trip).
javjav
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2009
I do not agree. In this scenery, the observer itself is rotating. Then, he is not a real observer in an inertial system. You can not apply Einstein relativity to this scenery.
hooloovoo
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2009
I don't have much real education in this subject, and am only a physicist by hobby, but I consider myself fairly knowledgeable. As I was reading this article I was getting very confused by some statements. It appeared that many of them were directly contradicting things I 'knew', and I wasn't sure if it was because something I 'knew' was incorrect, the writer of the article wasn't very skilled, or the scientists themselves had made some huge mistakes.

After reading the comments I'm fairly confident that it's one of the latter two. Seems like SOMEONE dropped a fairly large ball. Possibly onto someones soft, spongy scalp.
jamesrm
2 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2009
http://arxiv.org/.../0403111
Sagnac effect, twin paradox and space-time topology - Time and length in rotating systems and closed Minkowski space-times

We discuss the Sagnac effect in standard Minkowski coordinates and with an alternative synchronization convention. We find that both approaches lead to the same result without any contradictions. When applying standard coordinates to the complete rim of the rotating disk, a time-lag has to be taken into account which accounts for the global anisotropy. We propose a closed Minkowski space-time as an exact equivalent to the rim of a disk, both in the rotating and non-rotating case. In this way the Sagnac effect can be explained as being purely topological, neglecting the radial acceleration altogether. This proves that the rim of the disk can be treated as an inertial system. In the same context we discuss the twin paradox and find that the standard scenario is equivalent to an unaccelerated version in a closed space-time. The closed topology leads to preferred frame effects which can be detected only globally. The relation of synchronization conventions to the measurement of lengths is discussed in the context of Ehrenfest's paradox. This leads to a confirmation of the classical arguments by Ehrenfest and Einstein.

:~
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2009
The only question about the article is WHO SCREWED IT UP. That it is a mess is certain.

Its possible that the writer simply didn't notice that the scientists were trying to say. They seemed to have made up new versions of the original Twin Paradox and compared their new one the their version of the original. Catch is it wasn't the original it was a Straw Man. Acceleration was not significant in the original.

Acceleration and velocity are covered by General and Special Relativity, respectively. In the usual Twin Paradox its purely Special Relativity and the acceleration in reaching a higher velocity is ignored especially since the original was devised before Einstein came up with General Relativity. If the acceleration is taken into account then there is time dilation based on General Relativity BUT that only occurs DURING the acceleration. Time dilation due to Special Relativity continues when coasting at the higher speed.

Basically, the idea of acceleration being involved in the original Twin Paradox is something they made up.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
BigJesus
not rated yet Jun 09, 2009
Funny. I had explained the initial point or something roughly similar to it to the physics professor of my modern physics class in engineering school regarding the twin paradox being simply understood when the perspectives are cast cleanly into inertial frames of reference. To take the simplest example, say the twins are as usual such that Bob stays on earth and Alice travels away from earth at a constant velocity, then at some point in the distance reverses direction and travels back at the same velocity (more complicated but essentially similar scenarios like the counterexample involve Alice taking a more complicated path). Despite this situation appearing to have two essential reference frames, one for Bob on earth and one for Alice taking a trip, Alice's frame, not being inertial at the point of reversal, splits into two separate inertial frames for Alice's forward and return trips. If one draws out the path as seen by these three frames the asymmetry in Bob and Alice's time is clear from all of them. Imagine for example the perspective of a third person Alex who follows Alice away from earth at the same velocity, but maintains it as Alice reverses in the other direction. From Alex's perspective Bob appears to be moving away at one velocity and Alice appears to be catching up with him eventually intersecting. (Drawing some Minkowski diagrams will make this clear). This clears up the paradox beautifully despite not appearing anywhere accompanying the initial confusion. Needless to say, my classmates understood my clarification and my professor had no idea what I was talking about.

Furthermore, this point is clear from the fact that change in proper time is measured as the difference between the squares of time and spatial changes. Applying this metric to everything elucidates the idea.
brentrobot
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2009
The twin at rest near the massive object is not accelerating through space, it is space itself which is flowing past/through the at rest twin, towards the massive object. The orbit twin experiences this same space flowing past/through himself towards the massive object, and in addition he also has his forward motion around the object.



Any motion through space is also a forward movement through time, directly proportional to the distance involved but also subtracted from subjective time. There has never been a need to factor in acceleration. All that is required is total travel distance, as long as you also factor in the linear amount of space flowing through you near a gravitating body.



1 light second forward through space = 1 second forward in time



1 light second of space flowing past you do to gravity = 1 second forward in time



Acceleration is a red herring, and always has been.
jeffsaunders
not rated yet Jun 09, 2009
As Ethelred said two different classes of math General and Special. When you mix up the two in an example then for a time one or the other may be applicable and may even be working in reverse of each other.

It does not make the example very clear and does not help in anyone's understanding but there can be cases that can be described where one twin experiences less aging during a high velocity trip than the other one experiences under constant acceleration. In any case as I said the experiment does not clear anything up.

When you mix gravitational effects which appear to be acceleration (but are treated differently in general relativity than say a straight acceleration caused by jet engine) with high velocity under no gravity then there are a lot more variables that need to be solved than the classical twin a twin b.
mattytheory
not rated yet Jun 10, 2009
LOL the one moving faster HAD to be ACCELERATED to that faster speed... even if at a lower rate of acceleration... therefore, even though the twin moving faster is moving at a constant velocity, time still moves slower at the higher velocity and hence he ages less than his slower moving, higher accelerating brother...

??
smiffy
2.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2009
All the treatments on the Twin Paradox I have seen rest on the introduction of asymmetry into the problem, then 'resolve' the paradox by appealing to that very asymmetry!



If you frame the paradox in the way it should be framed - that is as identical twins with identical voyages then it's clear that you have a real paradox that is unresolved and is a flat contradiction to the concept of Time Dilation, and therefore to Special Relativity and therefore, as I understand it, to General Relativity. This seems to have been conveniently 'overlooked' by everyone.



If the twins have identical flight paths with one twin heading off in the opposite direction to his sibling, then when they return to Earth they must regard each other as younger than the other - which is patently absurd. Their parents would have to see each twin as younger than what they would have expected but still the same age as each other.



The parents say that they are the same age; each twin says the other twin is younger. Get out of that, Albert.

Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2009
It is called the Twin Paradox but its not a paradox EXCEPT by Newtonian mechanics. The other thing going on here is the concept of rest motion. While there is no single thing that can speed can be related to it is possible to use the whole Universe as is done in General Relativity. And it IS speed, not velocity, that counts in T vs Tau time.

If identical twins went on identical voyages they would age the same amount. There would be no Newtonian paradox. Might as well put them in the same space ship and expect an age difference, that would save the cost of the second ship and not change your version.

The Twin Paradox isn't. Its just poor nomenclature. It should be called The Twin Thought Experiment or whatever the original multisyllable German word is. Gedankenexperiment or some such.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
Razy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2009
It depends on the rate of change and direction the twin is formed, and how fast bast light speed the paradox is moving (with and without respect of time and vector direction of course)
Razy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2009
The old could have formed first and last, like electron movement. The speed and velocity is irrelevant for different dimensional co-existence. No linear boundaries. When the light moves past it's natural velocity is separates it's hold and creates a further existence... Matter - that which is lights creative solid form. The light breaks it's barrier of time and causes a change reaction at the string threshold. SOme light passes out of existence leaving a tangle of knots that form matter... the matter is attracted to light and itself and moves a cycle to spin into bigger atomic structures.... easy peazy boys and girls.

Ask for a Jedi Master to solve or your problems in future.

Thank you
Razy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2009
bentrobot, acceleration is the rate of change, and object is subjected to it in the first instance of motion, the acceleration is everything... all existence be subject to motion on a sub-sub-primary-atomic layer...
Razy
1 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2009
time may not be able to be created of destroyed, but if you move faster than a photon you can watch it's tale move back in time. Time existence spans across the entire linear universe... it only moves out of existence when it moves too far ahead of itself towards a 3 dimensional sphere.
Andragogue
not rated yet Jun 10, 2009
What about angular acceleration. Was it ignored? Why?
Ant
1 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2009
Here we go again- the same old argument there is no such entity as time! Therefore it can not be dilated or travelled in either forward or backward. You can dilate the pupils of the eye because it exists; Time doesnt certainly not in any way other than mechanical/electrical clocks and science fiction
So where did Einstein get this crack pot idea from? We know that he studied light speed and its possibilities and one can imagine that he considered a craft travelling fast than this would leave it image behind it which would catch up with the craft if it were to slow down and as the closest image would reach the craft first the furthest would catch up last giving a potential theory that at an observed point the oldest image would appear the most current. Therefore if it were possible for a craft to jump to instant light speed at the departure point and keep travelling at that speed for a long distance and return to the start point without slowing and instantly stop then a fixed observer would eventually see an approaching image of the ship as it was at the point of departure. This is just a mechanical effect with no reference to time whatsoever.

In a way this effect happens all the time: 2 people at 10 yards and 1000 from a third person will see that third person making gestures at different times. This isnt time dilation, like sound, light has a definitive speed and the further it travels the longer it takes.

If you want to discuss time dilation then you must first prove that there is an entity TIME.







smiffy
2 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2009
If identical twins went on identical voyages they would age the same amount.
They would if the voyages were exactly identical. To be exactly identical would result in such a truism. But I did go on to say that their journeys would be in different, opposite directions, thereby maintaining the symmetry. After such journeys they would certainly not regard each other as having aged the same. Which is as impossible as going back in time before your parents were conceived and killing your own Grandfather, an argument routinely used to dismiss time-travel.

I sympathize with your dislike of the vague word, Paradox. But it's very well estabished now, as this list shows
http://en.wikiped...radoxes.

What about the Twin Contradiction?
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2009
But I did go on to say that their journeys would be in different, opposite directions, thereby maintaining the symmetry. After such journeys they would certainly not regard each other as having aged the same.


Why not? You stipulated that the journeys should be the same except for the direction. Direction is irrelevant only the speed matters, therefor the time would be the same. That is their clocks would have the same time.

One way to test this would be to put a clock on satellites that orbit the Earth in opposite directions. The GPS system has to take Special Relativity into account but all the satellites are most likely orbiting in the same direction.

Time out for a Reality Check.

Well that was interesting. I thought General Relativity would be a trivial component of the system. My mistake. Its greater by a factor of more than six.

The satellites are in six different orbital planes. So they aren't going the same directions but the corrections are the same for all the satellites since its the speed and altitude that matters, not the direction.

http://en.wikiped...lativity

According to the theory of relativity, due to their constant movement and height relative to the Earth-centered, non-rotating approximately inertial reference frame, the clocks on the satellites are affected by their speed (special relativity) Special relativity predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by about 7.2 %u03BCs per day.

For the GPS satellites, general relativity predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick more rapidly, by about 45.9 microseconds (%u03BCs) per day, because they have a higher gravitational potential than atomic clocks on Earth's surface.


---------------------------------------------------

. Which is as impossible as going back in time before your parents were conceived and killing your own Grandfather, an argument routinely used to dismiss time-travel.


The only thing impossible in the situation you proposed was the conclusion, though if the Twins had Issues with each other I suppose they could manage to have an argument through the simple expedient of not checking their clocks which would show the same amount of time had passed for both.

Why kill your Grandfather? Did you have Issues with him? Its a silly argument. I doubt the universe cares one wit about Grandfathers. A great deal about the atoms that make up the grandfathers though. Also the air that would be disturbed in by the time traveler.

The only way I can see traveling backwards in time as being possible is for the Multi Words model of QM to be true or at least something like it. That way the death of the Grandfather or the disturbance of the Butterfly will not effect the past of the time traveler which will then be down a different time path.

Of course if look around you will see I am a proponent of the Multi-Worlds model.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
Hyperion1110
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2009
If you want to discuss time dilation then you must first prove that there is an entity TIME




LOL...actually, the first thing you would have to do is define entity; you and I surely do not have the same understanding of the term. I know of know intellectual schema, philosophical, mathematical, or physical, where time is held to be an extant object.



The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. Hermann Minkowski, 1908

smiffy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2009
You stipulated that the journeys should be the same except for the direction. Direction is irrelevant only the speed matters,
. Direction is irrelevant. That's the point.
therefor the time would be the same. That is their clocks would have the same time.
Wrong.

Twin B's clock, as perceived by Twin A, would be showing a earlier time than Twin A's because of the time dilation induced by B travelling at high speed in A's inertial reference frame.

Twin A's clock, as perceived by Twin B, would be showing a earlier time than Twin B's because of the time dilation induced by A travelling at high speed in B's inertial reference frame.

When A meets B back on Earth they would both maintain the other's clock is earlier than their own perception of their own clock - which is a technical way of saying that both twins would insist that the other twin was younger. Which clearly cannot be.
superhuman
3 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2009
The only question about the article is WHO SCREWED IT UP.

You can read the article on arxiv
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2428

Acceleration was not significant in the original.

Acceleration is crucial if you want to explain how the twins can be the same age when they meet again.

Acceleration and velocity are covered by General and Special Relativity, respectively.

Both cover acceleration and velocity, SR does not cover gravitation.

Why not? You stipulated that the journeys should be the same except for the direction. Direction is irrelevant only the speed matters, therefor the time would be the same. That is their clocks would have the same time.

No, to compare their clocks you have to choose a reference frame, in the frame of each twin the other twin's clock will tick slower.

However if the twins are to meet they have to turn around and acceleration involved in turning around leads to gravitational time dilation, this time dilation speeds up the other twin's clock (in the reference of each twin) by the exact amount required for the clocks to show the same time once the twins meet.
Ant
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2009
Hi Hyperion1110
I had great difficulty in trying to use a term for something which does not exist and would take on advisement any that you considered to be more appropriate. We exist on the knife edge of the future to past interface which I often term as "now" as the word "present" implies a length of time between the two. As no one seems to be able to define "now" in clock terms it is fair to beleive that the inreface has no time period. Even now giving the non existant "time" a general name is proving impossible other than in descriptive terms such as : "that that does not exist but is known as time"

Regards Ant AKA ARtone
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2009
Both cover acceleration and velocity, SR does not cover gravitation.
This is not true, as SR handles situation of inertial reference frame only.

That the laws only stay the same in inertial reference frames does not mean you cannot describe accelerated motion.
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2009
You can, but not by using of theory, the postulate of which considers inertial motion...

I think you misunderstand SR and the Einstein statement you yourself quoted. You can describe acceleration in Special Relativity and you can also use accelerated reference frames.
by Einstein original words special relativity assumes a postulate "the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K".

What Einstein means here in that the laws and equations of motion stay the same in all inertial reference frames (=stationary or moving at a constant speed), this is important because in non-inertial reference frames (=accelerated ones) you have to add terms which depend on the movement of those frames and so equations can differ from frame to frame.
NeilFarbstein
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2009
I told you ten times...you have to state which relativity you are talking about. Frames in special relativity are handled differently than in general relativity.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2009
Direction is irrelevant. That's the point.


That is why I pointed out that what you were doing was identical to putting the Twins into the same ship. Because the only difference was direction. And direction doesn't matter, as you just admitted.

Wrong.

Twin B's clock, as perceived by Twin A, would be showing a earlier time than Twin A's because of the time dilation induced by B travelling at high speed in A's inertial reference frame.

Twin A's clock, as perceived by Twin B, would be showing a earlier time than Twin B's because of the time dilation induced by A travelling at high speed in B's inertial reference frame.


Since we know that this result will not happen, look at the GPS links, why do you keep saying I have it wrong. You won't get the results you are claiming. Both will travel at the same speed and acceleration so where the hell are you getting a clock difference.

The answer is you are using TWO DIFFERENT REFERENCE frames. Both of those the wrong reference frames. The leave point A and travel to either C or D and then return to A. A is the CORRECT reference frame.

The frames you insist on choosing are not inertial. A strange result is often due to a bad choice of point of view. You have chosen not just one bad POV, but two.

Which clearly cannot be.


Well that part you are correct on. Now take the next step and figure what you are doing wrong.

The answer is the reference frame. You picked exactly the wrong ones.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2009
Thanks for the link. Not that I can follow the math.


Acceleration is crucial if you want to explain how the twins can be the same age when they meet again.


In Smiffy's example the acceleration is the same so its not crucial. For that matter so is the speed so that is isn't crucial either. Its the point of view and choice of reference that is crucial.

And in the original its the speed that counts and the twins are different ages in the original. As in the original article this thread was started with, that you linked to, the faster twin was always the younger.


Both cover acceleration and velocity, SR does not cover gravitation.


Therefor it does not cover acceleration. According to GR acceleration and gravity are equivalent and cannot be distinguished from each other by any test within the frame. Well unless I have totally misunderstood the concept. In fact, Einstein claimed it was his thinking about light in a space ship that started him on GR.


No, to compare their clocks you have to choose a reference frame, in the frame of each twin the other twin's clock will tick slower.


That is not A frame of reference. It's two. If you chose a frame of reference that leads to a paradox you have chosen the wrong reference. Since the evidence from GPS satellites shows that you won't get the claimed result it is clear that a poor choice of reference frame was made. The RIGHT reference frame is the starting and ending point.

Its really pretty simple. Don't choose an acclerating frame of reference unless you are trying to get the wrong answer.


However if the twins are to meet they have to turn around and acceleration involved in turning around leads to gravitational time dilation, this time dilation speeds up the other twin's clock (in the reference of each twin) by the exact amount required for the clocks to show the same time once the twins meet.


Or you could have chosen the origin point of the twins and seen that:

Speed of A=Speed of B
Accelation of A = Accelaration of B
And they both cancel out. Both outbound and inbound.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
Alexa
Jun 12, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
smiffy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2009
Quoting smiffy/Ethelred...Direction is irrelevant. That's the point.

That is why I pointed out that what you were doing was identical to putting the Twins into the same ship. Because the only difference was direction. And direction doesn't matter, as you just admitted.
Sorry. My fault. I was getting ahead of argument and didn't explain clearly enough. Let me clarify the ambiguity I carelessly introduced.

Where direction does matter is when it affects the relative speed of Twin A with Twin B. Clearly if both twins are travelling in the same direction at the same speed, as you suggested, there will be zero relative speed between them, and therefore no time-dilation. If they are travelling in different directions at the same speed (as measured from the Earth) then the relative speed between them will be double this speed, and there will be time-dilation.

Where direction doesn't matter is in regard to the *sign* of the time-dilation effect itself. Whether the twins are receding from one another, or approaching one another, the effect of time-dilation in either instance is a slowing down of the other's clock. So on the outward bound journey Twin A will regard Twin B's clock as slowing down - say by t seconds. On the homeward leg of the journey Twin A will regard Twin B's clock as continuing to slow down. In total by 2t seconds. The homeward leg does not cancel the outward leg.
smiffy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2009
Quoting Superhuman... Acceleration is crucial if you want to explain how the twins can be the same age when they meet again.


How can this be if the trip can be arranged so that the time both twins spend in the same inertial frame (i.e. when they are receding or approaching each other at constant speed) is as long as you care to choose, while the effect of the acceleration/deceleration on the clocks of A and B will always be the same?
Alexa
Jun 12, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alexa
Jun 12, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alexa
Jun 12, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2009
Ethelread, you are obviously wrong on the points I quoted and yet as usual in such cases you twist the arguments beyond recognition in a desperate attempt to show this is not the case.
Acceleration is crucial if you want to explain how the twins can be the same age when they meet again.

In Smiffy's example the acceleration is the same so its not crucial. For that matter so is the speed so that is isn't crucial either. Its the point of view and choice of reference that is crucial.

I was not talking about Smithy example here, I quoted and answered your mistaken assertions that in the original "Twin paradox" acceleration does not matter. You made those claims before Smithy even commented, here are the relevant quotes from your post:
Its possible that the writer simply didn't notice that the scientists were trying to say. They seemed to have made up new versions of the original Twin Paradox and compared their new one the their version of the original. Catch is it wasn't the original it was a Straw Man. Acceleration was not significant in the original.

and
Basically, the idea of acceleration being involved in the original Twin Paradox is something they made up.

Wrong and wrong, here is a definition of the original twin paradox from wiki:

"In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity, in which a twin who makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket will return home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on Earth. This result appears puzzling on this basis: the laws of physics should exhibit symmetry. Each twin sees the other twin as traveling; so each should see the other aging more slowly. How can an absolute effect (one twin really does age less) result from a relative motion? Hence it is called a "paradox"."

The only thing that breaks symmetry here is the acceleration - one twin experiences inertial forces the other doesn't, so the acceleration is critical here. It's the acceleration that causes the traveling twin to go from one inertial frames to the other. Without accelerations the situation would be perfectly symmetric. So you are certainly wrong when you claim "the idea of acceleration being involved in the original Twin Paradox is something they made up."

Both [GR and SR] cover acceleration and velocity, SR does not cover gravitation.

Therefor it does not cover acceleration. According to GR acceleration and gravity are equivalent and cannot be distinguished from each other by any test within the frame. Well unless I have totally misunderstood the concept.

You have totally misunderstood the concept. SR covers acceleration. If you don't believe me just google it, there's plenty of info on the subject, here is a quote from physics FAQ for example, it even mentions Twin Paradox as the usual context in which this misconception surfaces!

"It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames. It is claimed that general relativity is required because special relativity only applies to inertial frames. This is not true. Special relativity treats accelerating frames differently from inertial frames but can still deal with them. Accelerating objects can be dealt with without even calling upon accelerating frames.

This error often comes up in the context of the twin paradox when people claim that it can only be resolved in general relativity because of acceleration. This is not the case."
Source: http://math.ucr.e...ion.html

So again you are wrong when you claim SR does not cover acceleration.
No, to compare their clocks you have to choose a reference frame, in the frame of each twin the other twin's clock will tick slower.

That is not A frame of reference. It's two.

LOL! That has to be the silliest counterargument I've seen you make. There are infinitely many reference frames in every physical problem! Your error on which I commented is that you compare local times of both twins without specifying a reference frame you are using which is a serious error in relativity as the difference depends on the reference frame. Each frame I mention is just as good as any other.

If you chose a frame of reference that leads to a paradox you have chosen the wrong reference.

The frames I was talking about DO NOT lead to a paradox, you don't understand relativity it seems. Each brother only sees the past of the other and this past is stretched due to time dilation this is a basic and experimentally confirmed effect of special relativity not a contradiction or a paradox as you think.
The RIGHT reference frame is the starting and ending point.

And you try to teach others about relativity! The most important conclusion from both special and general relativity is that there is no such thing as a "RIGHT" reference frame, every frame is just as good as any other this is the whole reason it is called RELATIVITY. And before you try to claim inertial frames are right, inertial frames are just as good as non-inertial ones the only advantage is that you don't have to take fictitious forces in them into account. And finally both reference frames I was talking about ARE inertial so in either case you are wrong.
Its really pretty simple. Don't choose an acclerating frame of reference unless you are trying to get the wrong answer.

You really have no idea about relativity if you think you can get a wrong answer by choosing an accelerating reference frame.
You can chose any frame you want accelerated or not and you will still get the RIGHT answer unless you messed up the math. The only difference is that calculations might be easier in certain frames then others.

So as you can see above you've just managed to expose your ignorance of the subject, next time at least google the topic before arguing. I really hope you can accept that you are wrong here since I'd hate to have to repeat this all over again.
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2009
.You can describe acceleration in Special Relativity ..
Nope, you cannot, because the validity of SR depends on the nonacellerated motion.

Yes, you can. Just google "acceleration in special relativity" to see countless pages proving you wrong.
Here is the top link I've already quoted from in the reply above to Ethelred:
http://math.ucr.e...ion.html
Hyperion1110
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2009
Hi Hyperion1110

I had great difficulty in trying to use a term for something which does not exist and would take on advisement any that you considered to be more appropriate. We exist on the knife edge of the future to past interface which I often term as "now" as the word "present" implies a length of time between the two. As no one seems to be able to define "now" in clock terms it is fair to beleive that the inreface has no time period. Even now giving the non existant "time" a general name is proving impossible other than in descriptive terms such as : "that that does not exist but is known as time"



Regards Ant AKA ARtone


Hi Ant,

I am by no means an expert in this area (if there can be such a thing...pun intended). But I can give you my thoughts on the matter.

Consider the conditions for material existence. In order for a thing to be extant, it must have extension of some kind. In our universe, this means it must have volume. But already, with this simplest of definitions, there is a problem. If a thing is extended, it is analytically certain that there must be a condition antecdent to that extension; this we call space. But it is also true in our universe that no thing is static; things change. For this also, there is a necessary precondition that is analytically certain: time. Now, whether you believe space/time to be part of an objective reality or you believe they inhere in the subject, what is certainly true is that each of these are foundational preconditions for material existence.

To me, time is not a thing (a thesis to which most people subscribe, I would assume). Rather, it is a necessary ordering that places antecdent before consequent, cause before effect. Time is the first axiom, a self-evident truth that is implicit in all systems, whether mathematical, physical, or otherwise. Now, note the use of the word "necessary" above. Suppose that there is only one monolithic and homogeneous thing is existence. At this point, one might be tempted to conclude that there would be no such thing as time, for, if there is only one thing, how could it change? If it could not change, it must not have had a beginning; that is, it must be uncreated. But is an object, which is uncreated, singular, monolithic, and homogeneous truly an object? Is it material, with no antithesis to compare it to? With only one extant object, can it be said to have extension? To be honest, my mind is likely incapable of conceiving of such things. My point, though, is this: I don't think it's possible for there to be a single, uncreated object as presented above. Owing to that impossibility, one would require time in any other scenario. For instance, if it were created, it would have a beginning. If it had a beginning, that means that something would have to have come from nothing, which, I assume all would agree, is logically impossible. If it did not come from nothing, it came from something. But that something itself had to created, as it was not changeless insofar as it begot something else, and so on, ad infinitum. Now, here there are two things to note. First, if the object was created, there is no longer one object but many; this implies difference, which violates the particularity of the object (they are many rather than one). And second, that there are many, with the latter derived from the former, implies that there is time.

I know I am straying into quasi-philosophical realms with this rant. But, what is important is that, to me, time is a principle, THE principle, that makes all other things possible.

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this one, but if you're interested in some good reading that has substantial bearing on the notions of existence and time, look into the philosophical basis for the Triune God (notice I say philosophical, not theological). The idea of unity within diversity, being both one and many, and its implications for the beginning of, well, everything is conceptually well-developed and fascinating, even if you don't believe in a Creator.
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2009
Acceleration is crucial...

How can this be if the trip can be arranged so that the time both twins spend in the same inertial frame (i.e. when they are receding or approaching each other at constant speed) is as long as you care to choose, while the effect of the acceleration/deceleration on the clocks of A and B will always be the same?

The effect of the acceleration/deceleration on how one twin sees the other twin's clock relative to his own one is not the same, it depends on the distance between the twins.

This can be seen on the Minkowski diagram, during acceleration involved in the U-turn the relative plane of simultaneity of each twin sweeps a large area and ends up in a different orientation.

Here is a similar diagram to the one I have in mind, this is from wiki only this one concerns stationary and moving twin, so in our case you have to imagine that instead of the left wordline being straight it is symmetrical to the right one.
http://en.wikiped...gram.png

If you were to draw additional simultaneity planes for the twins during the U-turn you would notice that each twin sees the other twin's clock as greatly speeding up relative to his own one. This speed up is required for the time each twin sees as passing for the other twin to agree with the time that twin measured for himself on his clock once they meet.

Good info on the Twin Paradox can also be found on it's wiki page, from which the diagram is from:
http://en.wikiped..._paradox
Razy
not rated yet Jun 12, 2009
Anyone who quotes Wikipedia and expects it to assume infallibility is a bull shit article.

Ant, are you down with the acceleration of light creating the dimensional universe? The photon radiation creates the medium.
Razy
not rated yet Jun 12, 2009
The radiation is caused by the changing force of acceleration proceeding beyond threshold in a quadratic fashion to a power exponential.

The integration of radiation creates the dimensional medium... and further makes matter when it cools.
Razy
not rated yet Jun 12, 2009
hey superhuman, get an oxford dictionary and a subscription to Britannica and call me in the morning.
smiffy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2009
Here is a similar diagram to the one I have in mind, this is from wiki only this one concerns stationary and moving twin, so in our case you have to imagine that instead of the left wordline being straight it is symmetrical to the right one.
http://en.wikiped...gram.png
No. The Minowski diagram will be identical for both A and B. The diagram you quote might have been used to illustrate an Earthbound A with B as the traveller. But the diagram for A *in A's inertial reference frame* would look the same if A was travelling as I posited earlier. In A's inertial reference frame A does not move along the X (horizontal) Axis. From A's point of view he is static. The Earth and B are both moving away. B moves twice as fast, represented in a Minowski diagram by a more 'shallow' worldline. If you want to preserve the left/right or 'West/East' nature of the scenario then, ok, you would have B as moving on the vertical axis with A moving to the left or West in a mirror image to the diagram you quoted. But it's clear that this would have no effect on the time-dilation.

Let me repeat. From A's point of view B's clock slows down on both the outward and homeward legs of the journey (as the diagram shows). From B's point of view A's clock slows down on both the outward and homeward legs of the journey (as the diagram shows whether you have B on the left or the right of the vertical axis). The time-dilation does not go into reverse at any time (neglecting the small proportion of time spent in accelerating and decelerating, which proportion can be made to be as small as you please).
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2009
Here is a similar diagram to the one I have in mind, this is from wiki only this one concerns stationary and moving twin, so in our case you have to imagine that instead of the left wordline being straight it is symmetrical to the right one.
http://en.wikiped...gram.png]http://en.wikiped...gram.png[/url]
No. The Minowski diagram will be identical for both A and B. The diagram you quote might have been used to illustrate an Earthbound A with B as the traveller.

Did you even read what I said and you quoted? I specifically said the diagram in the picture is NOT the same I am talking about and that you have to MODIFY it by imagining that B is symmetrical to the A on the left of the diagram. Obviously such a symmetrical diagram is identical for both twins!

If you want to preserve the left/right or 'West/East' nature of the scenario then, ok, you would have B as moving on the vertical axis with A moving to the left or West in a mirror image to the diagram you quoted.

No, B is not moving along the vertical axis, in the diagram I am talking about Earth is on the vertical axis and it's stays. Both twins start at the same time at the bottom of y axis and B moves to the upper left while A moves to the upper right then when both are on the same height they make a U-turn - B turns to the upper right and A turns to the upper left and they go on until they meet again on Earth by crossing the y axis on the same height. The diagram looks like a rhombus with the y axis being the Earth worldline and both A and B worldlines being symmetrical relative to it. It's almost the same as the diagram I quoted with the only difference being that quoted diagram only shows the right half of my diagram.
http://en.wikiped...gram.png]http://en.wikiped...gram.png[/url]
Let me repeat. From A's point of view B's clock slows down on both the outward and homeward legs of the journey (as the diagram shows). From B's point of view A's clock slows down on both the outward and homeward legs of the journey (as the diagram shows whether you have B on the left or the right of the vertical axis). The time-dilation does not go into reverse at any time (neglecting the small proportion of time spent in accelerating and decelerating, which proportion can be made to be as small as you please).


This is exactly what I said with one crucial exception - acceleration cannot be neglected, it is *critical* if you want to get a proper result. It is exactly this acceleration which changes the relative simultaneity planes of both twins and in the process introduces time dilation which cancels out the time dilation present on both legs of the journey.

It is obvious from the Minkowski diagram I described if you draw it properly. During both legs of the journey each twin sees the others time as moving slower - his simultaneity planes cross both his and his brother wordlines but the points marked on his wordline are further apart then points on his brother's wordline which means his brother's clock ticks slower. Then when they make an U-turn each twins simultaneity plane keeps crossing his wordline almost in the same point yet it sweeps a huge distance of his brother wordline, in other words he sees his brother's clock speed up greatly (these simultaneity planes are interpolations between the red and blue lines on the diagram, just longer versions of the ones on the linked one so they cross into the other half, they all have one point in common yet they differ in the angle which changes from that of the blue line to that of the red line). This is the effect which cancels out the time dilation created on both legs of the journey. Also from the diagram you can clearly see that the farther apart the brothers are when they turn the larger the speed up they see of each others clock. As the diagram is symmetrical both twins experience exactly the same effects and when they meet each sees his clock and his brother clock show the exact same time.

So once again, the acceleration is critical as it is what cancels out the time dilation and it's effect depends on the distance between brothers when they turn back, if you neglect the acceleration you get absurd results. It may be counter intuitive to you but this is how relativity works.
docknowledge
not rated yet Jun 12, 2009
....I sympathize with your dislike of the vague word, Paradox. But it's very well estabished now, as this list shows

http://en.wikiped...radoxes.


But see: http://en.wikiped.../Paradox

This whole idiocy stems from childhood arguments on the playground, where the reasoners are far too unsophisticated to be able to dissect arguments. By their later years, when they are, the concept that such a thing as a "paradox" exists is already taken for granted.



"This statement is a lie." ... a perfect example of how many people believe that anything that can be put into words has a rational meaning. hahaah...but anybody familiar with political speeches should know better.
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 14, 2009
Obviously there is a universal "preferred" reference frame, and also a locally varing one due to mass in the neighbourhood. Most mass in anything from universe-galaxy-solarsystem-planet/moon system- even the darkmatter components of our own conciousness and individual cells is dark matter/energy in spherical nonrotating halos around denser nuclei and/or co-rotating disks.



Old dayton found 3 different etheric components. A polar solar nth/sth axial flow that we now know is the mixed-matter hoop of the half consumed sagatarius galaxy that the sun was born in that loops around the milkyway, a component riding the solar wind from the sun in the system disk plane, and another disk plane component in a near circular orbitlike flow. Maybe the suns emmitted darkstuff coming slowly back that last one.



http://www.orgone...ller.htm



" ... this ghost universe of dark matter ...

This unseen matter seems to be in a spherical halo that extends probably 10 times farther than the visible stellar halo around galaxies...

..what we actually see at a mere 1 percent...

.. dark matter is not a uniform mist enveloping clusters of galaxies. Instead, dark matter forms smaller clumps that look superficially like the galaxies and globular clusters we see in our luminous universe. The dark matter has a dynamic life independent of luminous matter...

each of these clumps, the halos are not smooth, but instead have intricate substructures. The dark world has a dynamic life of its own."

...

The ghost universe of dark matter is a template for the visible universe...



"Our galaxy, the Milky Way, has about a dozen satellites, but in simulations we see thousands of satellites of dark matter," she said. "Dark matter in the Milky Way is a dynamic, lively environment in which thousands of smaller satellites of dark matter clumps are swarming around a big parent dark matter halo, constantly interacting and disturbing each other."



In addition, astrophysicists modeling the motion of dark matter were puzzled to see that each clump had a density that peaked in the center and fell off toward the edges in the exact same way, independent of its size. "



What about time dilation/contraction by direct aether density manipulation, rather than making do with what local gravity is supplying?

Is that what the resonant chambers in the two pyramids the conehead egyptians built are for? pumping aether in to high densities to make time slow down inside?

Sounds like it in this story:



" Yima, under divine superintendence, reigned over the world for 900 years. As there was no disease or death, the population increased so that it was necessary to enlarge the earth after 300 years; Yima accomplished this with the help of a gold ring and gold-inlaid dagger he had received from Ahura Mazda, the Creator. Enlargement of the earth was necessary again after 600 years. When the population became too great after 900 years, Ahura Mazda warned Yima that destruction was coming in the form of winter, frost, and subsequent melting of the snow. He instructed Yima to build a vara, a large enclosure with four sides, in which to keep specimens of small and large cattle, human beings, dogs, birds, red flaming fires, plants and foodstuffs, two of every kind. The men and cattle he brought in were to be the finest on earth. Within the enclosure, men passed the happiest of lives, with each year seeming like a day. "[Frazer, pp. 180-182; Dresden, p. 344]
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 14, 2009
http://www.scienc...ys.shtml
was where those clips were from. editing thing timed out:-(
"New Method To Map Dark Matter "
dan42day
1 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2009
It seems that a distinction was made as to which twin experienced acceleration.

I would usually assume that experiencing acceleration would mean that a measurable force was applied, such as the g-forces experienced by our astronauts and Corvette drivers.

What if the change in relative velocity was caused by gravitational forces such as the planetary assists that our deep space probes use to change their direction and velocity?

Since both twins are subject to these gravitational changes in direction and velocity, (the twin on the planet is traveling in a very convoluted path, both spinning with the planet and orbiting the sun as it orbits the galaxy and so on), would it be possible to absolutely identify one twin as the one who accelerated away?

smiffy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2009
No, B is not moving along the vertical axis, in the diagram I am talking about Earth is on the vertical axis and it's stays
Here's how I see the Minowski diagrams for the case where both twins go on voyages in opposite directions.

You must consider 3 relevant diagrams - one for each point of view of the participants, twin A, twin B, their parents.

1. The common ground I think we share is the diagram in the inertial frame of the Earth, where the parents are.
The parents' diagram is the one you seem to have depicted. That is, the parents along the vertical axis, Twin A along a line at an angle to the vertical axis to the left (West), Twin B along a line at the same angle to the vertical axis to the right (East). Because of the symmetry the parents would regard both A and B as having aged by an identical amount when the twins return to Earth.

2. The diagram for Twin A must place A's worldline on the vertical axis. There will then be a worldline for the parents at an angle to the right of the vertical. A further worldline representing Twin B at a shallower angle also to the right of the vertical.

3. The diagram for twin B must have B's worldline along the vertical axis. The rest of the diagram is a mirror image of the diagram for A, swapping right for left.

----------------------------

I'm afraid that I cannot follow this idea of yours that acceleration 'sweeps a large area'.

Imagine you are with Twin B and can physically see twin A's clock. (B has very good telescope)
We agree that on both the outward and homeward legs B can actually physically see A's clock slow down.

Are you really saying that as the rocket ships perform their U turn that A's clock can be seen by B to speed up to (or gain) exactly twice the amount that it had already lost in the outward leg? anticipating that the homeward leg will result in an equal amount of slowing down? and that B sees A's clock make the gain exactly within that part of the journey it takes to turn the rockets around?
dan42day
1 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2009
Twin A remains on the planet while Twin B accelerates away using a chemical rocket reaching a modest relative velocity of 25,000 fps. Twin B's path takes him toward a series of planetary encounters raising his speed until he exits the solar system and encounters a perfectly set up billiard table of black holes that increases his velocity to 99.99% light speed (relative to Twin A). After several years of travel at that speed, another perfect set of black holes decelerate Twin B and send him back into the solar system for further decelerations from the planets and re-entry into earth where he experiences a 25,000 fps deceleration due to atmospheric drag.

Other than the non-relativistic 25,000 fps accelerations of Twin B, both twins simply followed a straight path through curvatures in space-time with neither "experiencing" any acceleration.

Which Twin would be older? Why?
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2009
You must consider 3 relevant diagrams - one for each point of view of the participants, twin A, twin B, their parents.

One diagram is enough, each diagram if done correctly has to give exactly the same result, the one I described is easier to understand since it's from the pov of an observer in an inertial reference frame.
I'm afraid that I cannot follow this idea of yours that acceleration 'sweeps a large area'.

Imagine you are with Twin B and can physically see twin A's clock. (B has very good telescope)

We agree that on both the outward and homeward legs B can actually physically see A's clock slow down.

Are you really saying that as the rocket ships perform their U turn that A's clock can be seen by B to speed up to (or gain) exactly twice the amount that it had already lost in the outward leg? anticipating that the homeward leg will result in an equal amount of slowing down? and that B sees A's clock make the gain exactly within that part of the journey it takes to turn the rockets around?


Yes, this is how it works, but it's not an anticipation or a coincidence, rather it's a consequence of how space and time are combined to form spacetime.

Really, try to understand the diagram I described as this is IMO the best way to understand it. You can also read the paradox wiki page, they also describe this effect of acceleration on the distant clock only in the context of their own asymmetrical version with has one twin on the planet, it's first mentioned in the sections on SR and described more fully in the section on GR interpretation:
http://en.wikiped...lativity
http://en.wikiped...lativity
smiffy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2009
You must consider 3 relevant diagrams - one for each point of view of the participants, twin A, twin B, their parents.





One diagram is enough, each diagram if done correctly has to give exactly the same result, the one I described is easier to understand since it's from the pov of an observer in an inertial reference frame.
I've looked at the links you gave (not for the first time I have to say) and I still say that you need to look at the situation from the pov of a travelling twin. If you construct the Minowski diagram for the pov of a twin (which looks like a rhomboid leaning over) then you will see that there will be a difference in the ages of the twins when they meet up back on Earth. If you stick to the pov of the Earth (or parents in my scenario) you will be bound to get no age difference between each twin at all points in the journey. From the pov of the parents each twin is aging at the same rate throughout, albeit at a different rate from the rate at which the parents age.



Or are you saying that Minowski diagrams fail to work if there is, at any point, acceleration of the chosen frame?
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 14, 2009
I think we should listen to Einsteins final word on these calcs, before we start claiming anything is "the correct answer."

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
%u2014 Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
%u2014 Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
%u2014 Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)

Or else we are just doing math that approximately fits some observations.

The wiki piece on the two planes flying round the world east and west does not at all confirm sr or gr. They have the plane flying near twice the earths spin speed east-ward experiencing faster clock speed than the one flying west at near zero compared to the earth-nonrotating frame of reference.

What about if one twin spends his days having lots of fun and the other one a boring job? ;-)
Time goes fast when we having fun as we all know. So the fun twin should stay younger right? Maybe he's attracting more darkmatter/darkenergy? :-).
(Its not "mysticism" if you call it DM/DE,instead of Aether is it? We need a term for the rest of the eleven dimensions so we of the science church don't feel like those other primate troops that all talk about 7 more dimensions of the "unseen world" too I reckon. And we should make them stop using "interaction with the unseen universe" as a definition for magic too. Otherwise we have to let them say gravity is magic, since DM,DE interact with it. ;-) )
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 14, 2009
Looks like SR-GR falling over here:
Refined Hubble Constant narrows explanations for dark energy.
http://www.physor...906.html
"Their result is consistent with the simplest interpretation of dark energy: that it is mathematically equivalent to Albert Einstein's hypothesized cosmological constant, introduced a century ago to push on the fabric of space and prevent the universe from collapsing under the pull of gravity. (Einstein, however, removed the constant once the expansion of the universe was discovered by Edwin Hubble.)"
heres a paper on both positive and negative velocity anomalies in spacecraft flying by earth and DM densities in earths halo : http://www.dapla....dler.pdf
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 15, 2009
WAIT! I think I've worked it out:

Buy aether wave to see analogy is like 3d space and spaceship carried twin is boat with twin on 2d surface of sea. As boat move forward at constant speed below wave speed will build wave in front and behind like spaceship push some aether that stick to it. As boat sink into 3d ocean between waves, Spaceship sink into 4d hyperspace between dense Aether waves and this time slows.
When steady speed some of waves travel away from both crafts, some forward at speed just more little. With acceleration crafts catch up with some of these and make bigger wave. Orbit heavy star like is boat in deep whirlpool, sink into next dimension.
If boat is on river then can go past no flow pond faster down but slower up. Faster than wave speed hard is as boat sink in deep hole. But past speed of waves like is with spacecraft can then lift out of 3dimensions and skim over surface of universe at much extra lightspeed.

(Giggles.)

What about the twin who spends all day driving real fast and crashing lots, but is very lucky and not hurt bad, While other twin lies on couch.
Everyone knows the rest of the world slows down when you drive real fast. And lots of people know that when you crash sometimes you can in well less than a second: put everything in the car in a safe place, sort your mail, make a cuppa, and count the pieces of windscreen glass before they get more than a few inches out of the frame.

Is the sofa twin going to be younger?
How come with that crash time thing Inertia feels like normal when you move you and stuff but when you do the sums it seems like you would have needed 50x your full strength sometimes. Its not too hard to get conscious control over it either. All the national and world champ racers I've employed do it. :-)
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2009
Ethelread, you are obviously wrong on the points I quoted and yet as usual in such cases you twist the arguments beyond recognition in a desperate attempt to show this is not the case.


As usual you engage in distorted reasoning to claim that others are distorting things. You need to stop that.


I was not talking about Smithy example here,


Too bad you were unclear. I was aware that you were ambiguous so I covered BOTH. You failed to notice. Most likely because you were upset that I would have the temerity to disagree with your Superhumaness again.

quoted and answered your mistaken assertions that in the original "Twin paradox" acceleration does not matter.


And as usual I was right and you were mistaken. Partly. Doing things the hard way is silly. Just pick the right point of view and things get much easier. That is what makes it the right point view as opposed to the stubborn point of view.

Wrong and wrong, here is a definition of the original twin paradox from wiki:


Wikipedia is very good on some things. For physics its necessary to keep in mind that those are not the things that is always good on.

How can an absolute effect (one twin really does age less) result from a relative motion? Hence it is called a "paradox"."


Because is not relative to each other but to a non-accelerating reference frame. Unless you insist on making things hard.

The only thing that breaks symmetry here is the acceleration - one twin experiences inertial forces the other doesn't, so the acceleration is critical here.


You should have looked at the article you linked to. The one the article that spawned this discussion was based on. I read it. You linked to it. Thanks again for that.

Those thought experiments by Abramowicz and Bajtlik had the person experiencing acceleration being the OLDER. They did a number of variants and each case the person that traveled faster was the younger. Whether they were accelerated or not.

So you are certainly wrong when you claim "the idea of acceleration being involved in the original Twin Paradox is something they made up."


As you can see if you read that paper acceleration is not the key. Speed is. Keep this in mind, in SR the time dilation is related to speed and speed only.

You have totally misunderstood the concept. SR covers acceleration.


No. I haven't. SR can HANDLE acceleration by using more difficult equations but acceleration is not the cause of the time dilation. You made this same mistake in replies to several others as well. You misunderstood what all us of meant when we said that acceleration is covered by GR.

Only in GR is there time dilation due to acceleration. This does not mean that SR cannot, with great effort, be forced into using accelerating reference frames.

Please, this time calm down before you reply. This is not a personal attack. Take a day to think about it. Like I did. Of course, I waited because I was short on sleep not upset. I don't get upset with you. You are quite capable of saying things that are interesting. You just insist on making things personal when they aren't.

"It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames.


Didn't say it couldn't. I said it doesn't DEAL with acceleration. GR does that.

To quote a great line from Cool Hand Luke.

What we have here.....is a failure....to communicate.


I can do a really do impersonation of that line even though I never really liked the actor that said it.

. Accelerating objects can be dealt with without even calling upon accelerating frames.


Which is what I was talking about. You are better off choosing a different frame of reference. While part of the idea of both SR and GR was to avoid the Newtonian concept of special frames of reference you can still make a choice of frames of reference that make things easier and usually more clear.

In other words I disagree with that guys thinking on this. He is doing things the hard way.


So again you are wrong when you claim SR does not cover acceleration.


No. That one I am right on. Handle and cover are different things. SR can handle acceleration. It does not cover time effects due to acceleration, only the speed that the acceleration creates. In GR the acceleration itself causes time dilation. The math apparently gets quite hairy.


LOL! That has to be the silliest counterargument I've seen you make.


If you didn't have such a problem with me you wouldn't think it silly. You might even try thinking about what was said if it was someone else. Since it was me you shut your brain. Then again you are shutting your brain with others that don't agree with you.

There are infinitely many reference frames in every physical problem!


Only if you choose to do it that way. I don't. I will let you continue to do things the hard way.

Your error on which I commented is that you compare local times of both twins without specifying a reference frame you are using


Since I didn't do that you are wrong again. I specified a reference frame. The origin point.

The RIGHT reference frame is the starting and ending point.


Which is the point where the twins originated. In Heinlein's Double Star for instance that would be the Earth.


The frames I was talking about DO NOT lead to a paradox, you don't understand relativity it seems.


I understand relativity, as much as a person can without a lot of math. You simply can't tolerate thinking I might say something rational. If you can do the math that way and not get a paradox then you only have a silly rather than a wrong choice of reference frame. The idea is to get the right answer.

And you try to teach others about relativity!


I see you did see that I made a choice of reference points. Why did you claim I didn't.


And you try to teach others about relativity! The most important conclusion from both special and general relativity is that there is no such thing as a "RIGHT" reference frame, every frame is just as good as any other this is the whole reason it is called RELATIVITY.


The most important thing about physics is getting the right answer. Choosing reference points that makes getting the answer harder is silly.

And before you try to claim inertial frames are right, inertial frames are just as good as non-inertial ones the only advantage is that you don't have to take fictitious forces in them into account.


I see you do understand my point. So then this is purely personal?

And finally both reference frames I was talking about ARE inertial so in either case you are wrong.


You chose the twins. They were accelerated. So I am not wrong. Unless of course I am mistaken about you choosing the twins. Then I apoligise for misunderstanding you on that. Only if.

You really have no idea about relativity if you think you can get a wrong answer by choosing an accelerating reference frame.


Sure you can. You can make things so hard you can't see the errors. I am not the one calling the Twin thought experiment a paradox. I am the one saying it shouldn't be called that.

So as you can see above you've just managed to expose your ignorance of the subject,


So again you have shown that you simply can't read what I write without getting upset.

next time at least google the topic before arguing.


I did. As usual.

I really hope you can accept that you are wrong here since I'd hate to have to repeat this all over again.


You don't have to repeat it since again I am not wrong. You rage has affected your thinking. Again.

But go ahead and repeat your reading errors if you want. It doesn't raise MY blood pressure.

Again anything personal here is your doing. Don't make it personal and you might not get in so many fruitless arguments.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2009
It seems Ethelread, you will keep distorting the facts way past the point of absurdity.
S:I was not talking about Smithy example here,

E: Too bad you were unclear. I was aware that you were ambiguous so I covered BOTH. You failed to notice. Most likely because you were upset that I would have the temerity to disagree with your Superhumaness again.

It seems you attribute to me your own failures. In the passage you quoted I only pointed out I wasn't talking about Smithy example and clarified what I was referring to by quoting your statements in full and specifically addressing them.

In those statements you have accused the authors of not understanding the original Twin paradox, when it was you who did not get it, here are your claims:
Ethelred: Its possible that the writer simply didn't notice that the scientists were trying to say. They seemed to have made up new versions of the original Twin Paradox and compared their new one the their version of the original. Catch is it wasn't the original it was a Straw Man. Acceleration was not significant in the original.

and
E: Basically, the idea of acceleration being involved in the original Twin Paradox is something they made up.

On both counts you are blatantly wrong, acceleration is critical as it is the only thing that breaks the symmetry and allows one twin to age relative to the other.

Your only defense to the above is this:
E: And as usual I was right and you were mistaken. Partly. Doing things the hard way is silly. Just pick the right point of view and things get much easier. That is what makes it the right point view as opposed to the stubborn point of view.

What's silly is your defense that your errors where ok because it was the easy way!

There is no point of view which allows explanation of the paradox without invoking acceleration, try proving me wrong instead of producing nonsense about your "point of view".

Here is the paradox again:
"In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity, in which a twin who makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket will return home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on Earth. This result appears puzzling on this basis: the laws of physics should exhibit symmetry. Each twin sees the other twin as traveling; so each should see the other aging more slowly. How can an absolute effect (one twin really does age less) result from a relative motion?"

And the challenge: explain how they can be different age without invoking acceleration, since you claimed it is possible.

Wait! You did actually address this point in next paragraph, you did in fact provide your solution, and what does it say? Here I quote it in *full*:
S: How can an absolute effect (one twin really does age less) result from a relative motion?

E: Because is not relative to each other but to a non-accelerating reference frame. Unless you insist on making things hard.

Surprise, surprise! You invoke acceleration, correctly pointing out that one frame is accelerated and the other is not and this breaks the symmetry, exactly!

So tell me little hypocrite how come you still claim you were right when you accused the authors of the article, wikipedia and me, of being wrong that acceleration matters in the original paradox when you yourself invoke it to explain it?

S: The only thing that breaks symmetry here is the acceleration - one twin experiences inertial forces the other doesn't, so the acceleration is critical here.

E: You should have looked at the article you linked to. The one the article that spawned this discussion was based on. I read it. You linked to it. Thanks again for that.
Those thought experiments by Abramowicz and Bajtlik had the person experiencing acceleration being the OLDER. They did a number of variants and each case the person that traveled faster was the younger. Whether they were accelerated or not.

Oh! The article you yourself admitted above you cannot follow because of math? Here is your quote:
E:Thanks for the link. Not that I can follow the math.

Well you certainly did not understand the rest either, as the article talks about completely different cases and what's more the acceleration in the form of space curvature is crucial to their results.

S: You have totally misunderstood the concept. SR covers acceleration.

E: No. I haven't. SR can HANDLE acceleration by using more difficult equations but acceleration is not the cause of the time dilation. You made this same mistake in replies to several others as well. You misunderstood what all us of meant when we said that acceleration is covered by GR.

You really keep making a bigger fool of yourself with each post!
First you make a claim that SR handles velocity while GR handles acceleration:
E: Acceleration and velocity are covered by General and Special Relativity, respectively.

I corrected your error and provided evidence, (just google "acceleration in special relativity" and you will be swamped with pages pointing this out) but you stubbornly try to defend your lost cause, first by claiming that somehow the fact that SR does not cover gravitation implies it does not cover acceleration which is absurd:
S: Both cover acceleration and velocity, SR does not cover gravitation.

E: Therefor it does not cover acceleration. According to GR acceleration and gravity are equivalent and cannot be distinguished from each other by any test within the frame.

I pointed out this is also nonsense and of course now you try to spin it another way:
SR can HANDLE acceleration by using more difficult equations but acceleration is not the cause of the time dilation.

Well, wrong again, the acceleration is precisely the cause of time dilation as it changes simultaneity planes of observers.

But even more ridiculous is your claim that "SR can HANDLE acceleration by using more difficult equations!" You couldn't have been more wrong here! Equations of SR with acceleration are simpler BY FAR then equations of GR because SR uses *flat spacetime*, while GR has to use *curved-spacetime*. Because of this critical difference equations in GR are incredibly complex and hardly any exact solutions are known. You should have read the article I quoted it would have spared you this embarrassment:
http://math.ucr.e...ion.html

S: "It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames.

E: Didn't say it couldn't. I said it doesn't DEAL with acceleration. GR does that.

Guess what, wrong and wrong again. You did say it couldn't and you said it does not COVER acceleration. Here let me quote the exchange one more time:
S: Both cover acceleration and velocity, SR does not cover gravitation.

E: Therefor it does not cover acceleration.

So once again, SR does cover acceleration and it is much preferred to GR because it is far simpler then GR. You are blatantly wrong on all counts yet you keep digging your hole.

And another take in the next paragraph:
S: So again you are wrong when you claim SR does not cover acceleration.

E: No. That one I am right on. Handle and cover are different things.

Lol! That's a brilliant defense, are you by any chance a lawyer?
E: SR can handle acceleration. It does not cover time effects due to acceleration, only the speed that the acceleration creates.

Wrong again, SR DOES COVER (=HANDLE) ACCELERATION and it DOES COVER (=HANDLE) time effects of acceleration, the claim that it somehow covers only speed is *completely* absurd. Again read the link I provided above.

S: No, to compare their clocks you have to choose a reference frame, in the frame of each twin the other twin's clock will tick slower.

E: That is not A frame of reference. It's two.
S:LOL! That has to be the silliest counterargument I've seen you make.

E: If you didn't have such a problem with me you wouldn't think it silly.
You might even try thinking about what was said if it was someone else. Since it was me you shut your brain. Then again you are shutting your brain with others that don't agree with you.

Oh, so you are wrong because I shut my brain, right.

But seriously, I have a problem with you because I despise people who distort truth and the lies and distortions you make are of epic proportions. You are a hypocrite and a liar, so don't expect me to treat you any better.
S: There are infinitely many reference frames in every physical problem!

E: Only if you choose to do it that way. I don't. I will let you continue to do things the hard way.

Another attempt at distorting the point. It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of their existence.

S: Your error on which I commented is that you compare local times of both twins without specifying a reference frame you are using

E: Since I didn't do that you are wrong again. I specified a reference frame. The origin point.
E: The RIGHT reference frame is the starting and ending point.

Nice try. You did NOT specify the frame until after my criticism and now you claim it was before!

Here is the evidence, first the *complete* paragraph of yours to which I referred and which does NOT specify the reference frame and yet compares the time:
E: Why not? You stipulated that the journeys should be the same except for the direction. Direction is irrelevant only the speed matters, therefor the time would be the same. That is their clocks would have the same time.

See? No reference frame, the time their clocks would show depends on a reference frame, your statement is meaningless so I replied:
S: to compare their clocks you have to choose a reference frame, ...

Then in subsequent post you defend your lost cause by coming up with an absurd idea that there can be such thing as "the RIGHT" reference frame in relativity, an idea which proves a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals of the theory!
E: The RIGHT reference frame is the starting and ending point.

And now you changed your tactics again and claim that you did in fact specify the reference frame in the first place! No matter that it is a blatant lie and that anyone who bothers to check the posts above can see otherwise.

S: The frames I was talking about DO NOT lead to a paradox, you don't understand relativity it seems.

E: I understand relativity, as much as a person can without a lot of math. You simply can't tolerate thinking I might say something rational.

Yes, that's got to be it! My pointing out of your errors is because I can't tolerate thinking that you might say something rational! But where is this something rational? It seems to have drowned in the flood of nonsense you keep spewing to defend your ego.

S: And finally both reference frames I was talking about ARE inertial so in either case you are wrong.

E: You chose the twins. They were accelerated. So I am not wrong. Unless of course I am mistaken about you choosing the twins. Then I apoligise for misunderstanding you on that. Only if.

Oh, so now you want to come across as courteous? Try to stop lying it will have a better effect.
As for the frames they go with the twins at constant speed so they are of course inertial, this was the smithy example and the turning back was not discussed until later.

E: Don't choose an acclerating frame of reference unless you are trying to get the wrong answer.

S: You really have no idea about relativity if you think you can get a wrong answer by choosing an accelerating reference frame.

E: Sure you can. You can make things so hard you can't see the errors.

Ha, another cute attempt at distortion. Your first post claims that you can get wrong answer by choosing wrong reference frame which is absurd, so once corrected now you claim it's because it may lead to errors...

S: So as you can see above you've just managed to expose your ignorance of the subject,

E: So again you have shown that you simply can't read what I write without getting upset.

Maybe if what you wrote weren't so choke full of lies, distortions, and absurd claims reading your posts would not be so upsetting.

Let's face it, you are one despicable character, you will go to any length to avoid admitting to your own errors, in the process of defending your ego you've managed to produce a flood of nonsense, fantastic excuses and what's most disgusting you were even willing to blatantly lie about what you said when the very discussion is preserved a few posts above for everyone to see.
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 15, 2009
Proof that the twin having fun stays younger than the one doing boring work!

( Naked mole rats that just eat, sleep and have sex live up to 20 years while the ones that dig the tunnels live only 2-3):

http://www.scienc...5336.htm



And acceleration obviously doesn't make you age less because obviously you are accelerated at the extreme in a crash and you have a longer chunk of time than the stationary frame outside. Your higher dark matter consciousness is less bounded in time than your fleshbag as many experiments proving brain responses a second or two before stimulation show, so that maybe is why the time dilation begins before the event. (actually I'm teasing, acceleration isn't even relavant)

Grasshoppers! If you want your dark matter symbiot to communicate with you openly and show you what working together can achieve... Sounds daft I know but losing your ego, will to beat each other up, judgements on others and acceptance of theirs on yourself is how you earn the honour. ;-)

Coming from the church of science myself, I said hogwash! to that until I did it by accident.



HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 16, 2009
What If the twin goes half the universes diameter away? . then one accelerates faster a little.

by T2=T1(1 gh/c^2) he'll age lots because h is so big, so his clock will run much faster.



Then if the universe is closed they will meet up again. face to face he can slow down to meet with little h and not much time difference at all. Guess that would be the accelerated twin being older.



What about that daft fibre optic gyroscope. rotating light source going both ways in rotating fiber loop. Different speed of light in opposite directions. rotation relative to universe.
http://en.wikiped...yroscope


then theres speed of light in a moving medium with refractive index n:



V2= c/n Vmedium(1 1/(n^2))

If you have a material with refractive index 2, moving at almost c, you get velocity of light in it at 1.25c.

Faster than in a vacuum.

can you nest them? 20 layers would give you 86x lightspeed.

this guy reckons that adding the mass of moving objects together gives you much more total mass than the sum of their individual masses.

Silly us! we thought it was dark matter!

Its just Alberts ghost making 2 2=96 !!!!

The "Relativistic Invariant Mass Paradox" creates mass from nowhere. The more in the party the more pops in from nowhere to join the fun!





http://www.doaj.o...abstract&id=279132&recNo=5&toc=1
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 16, 2009
Twins A and B have two Identical spaceships and start docked together in an close orbit around a nonrotating neutron star at 0.8c.
Twin A undocks his space ship and breaks out of orbit and travels away in a trajectory that maintains his speed at 0.8c. After a long time (he's an alien that lives for billions of years.) he notices directly to his left an identical neutron star to the one he left a billion lightyears ago. He fires his retros and screeches to a halt and back up to 0.8 C in the opposite direction, slotting into an identical orbit to the initial one at the first star.
At the same instant that twin A sees the 2nd star on his left, Twin B leaves orbit on an identical course to the one twin A previously did. When a billion lightyears later he sees the 2nd star on his left he does the same stop and return to the same orbit as twin A did and due to serendipity he finds himself matching orbit and docking with twin A's ship. Also due to serendipity, at the instant twin B saw the 2nd star on his left, twin As ship was on the other side of the star travelling parallel at the same 0.8c velocity (which is lucky because if they passed head on they might have both looked like they had infinite mass to each other, giggles). While B was reversing direction, so was A in his half orbit.

Both have had the same time in identical orbits and voyages. Speed was constant at 0.8c at all times but for the same direction reversal manouver on arrival at star no2.
Only difference is that B spent the same extra time in an identical orbit around identical star no1 that A spent extra time orbiting around star no2.
The acceleration of A relative to B in the reversal manouver was while B was in the half orbit around star no1 taking him from parallel same direction to A's trajectory to parallel in the opposite direction and again same direction as A at the point and instant he entered orbit.

So only the distance between them while the reversal manoeuver was being carried out is asymetric.
Does GR say with that acceleration time dilation function that A has experienced less time passing than B or am I and Wikipedia on this confused?

Also would the twins if they were in identical but opposite direction orbits at 0.8c on approach have the appearance of black holes to each other as they met head on?
And would the mass of the 3 body system star-A-B be different when they are on opposite sides going parallel to when they are meeting head on?
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 16, 2009
and what if the acceleration into orbit around star no2 is while the twin at that time in orbit are in the head on to opposite velocity orbit sectors? Or Much slower, say 1000 whole number orbits during the manuover?
Do these change local tim for the accelerated twin.

Relativity feels to me like a schism in the rational order of coherent concepts in the model of the multiverse I am building. If you internalise such things you can accept any fantasy in the name of protecting them. This is the stuff of religion and cloistered primate troops.
Alizee
Jun 17, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2009
---- DO NOT REPLY WITHOUT WAITING AT LEAST ONE

DAY.----

Just like I did. And you didn't even after I suggested it.

Someone has to be a good example. I have waited long enough to deal with this toxic bilge.

And keep this in mind:

I will not flame while angry!
I will not flame while angry!
I will not flame while angry!

Otherwise you crap on people that don't deserve it. Just for not agreeing with your SuperEgo.

[Q]It seems Ethelread, you will keep distorting the facts way past the point of absurdity.[/Q]

Well you will see it that way no matter how clear I make things anyway. I did suggest that you wait a day to reply to get over your likely rage. You, in your rage fueled misunderstanding ignored that request. And now you look like you simply are unwilling to think clearly.

You really aren't going to like this reply. Its suggests that you might have temper problems that are causing you fail to see my point. So either don't read it or keep reminding yourself to calm down. An enraged mind is an unreasoning mind.

You called me a lot things there so you have no reason to expect me to be polite at all to you in any way whatsoever. You made this personal. Not me. You live with the consequences. Assuming you don't die of apoplexy.

Again and a again you quote me and then claim I said something other than what you actually quoted. This a clear indication that you have blinded yourself with unreasoned hate. I can't help someone that won't even take one day to think.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone with colossal arrogance to call themselves Superhuman would be unable to take a bit of time to cool down. SuperEgo is more fitting.

So tell me little hypocrite


So tell me SuperEgo. Where do you get off calling people hypocrites?

Arrogance.

Oh! The article you yourself admitted above you cannot follow because of math?


Arrogance. You read things that aren't there. I did NOT say I couldn't follow the article. I said I couldn't do the math. I don't see you claiming the ability to do it either.

Well you certainly did not understand the rest either, as the article talks about completely different cases


Which I pointed out. Of course the acceleration and curvature is crucial. However in ALL cases it was younger twin was the one that traveled at the higher velocity. You seem to have been to filled with hate to see that.

You really keep making a bigger fool of yourself with each post!


Well if that was true you would be laughing instead of raging. In my case I simply amazed at the lengths your arrogance and rage has driven you to.

I corrected your error and provided evidence,


No. You failed to understand my point. Because you are too
arrogant and rage filled to think I might actually have one.

first by claiming that somehow the fact that SR does not cover gravitation implies it does not cover aceleration which is absurd:


Its not absurd. In GR acceleration is equivalent to gravity.

Do you know more than Einstein? Are you even more arrogant
than even I can imagine you to be? I keep pointing this out and you keep insisting on ignoring it or pretending that it means something else.

In General Relativity the IS NO DIFFERENCE between acceleration due to thrust and acceleration due to gravity. None whatsoever.

I pointed out this is also nonsense and of course now you try to spin it another way:


I suppose you did do something that ridiculous. I am not going to agree with you over Einstein, except on QM and that isn't involved here. That would be stupid.

Well, wrong again, the acceleration is precisely the cause of time dilation as it changes simultaneity planes of observers.


Wrong again. The time dilation in SR comes from the speed. Of course the speed comes from acceleration BUT it can be a LONG time spent at a high velocity and its the accumulated time at the high velocity that has the time dilation.

You are like the guy that says its the fall that kills people. Its the sudden stop at the end. And yes I am aware that is acceleration in both. Its an analogy but based on this ludicrously rage filled post of yours I won't be surprised if you call it a distortion.

But even more ridiculous is your claim that "SR can HANDLE acceleration by using more difficult equations!" You couldn't have been more wrong here!


No. This is another of your rage induced mis-interpretations. Its exactly correct.

If you use an accelerating frame of reference you will need to use an equation with more variables than if you use an inertial reference frame. You made this raging error because hate has driven to PRETEND that I claimed GR has to be used in the Twins experiment. I said it was better to use a non-accelerating reference frame. I NEVER claimed it would be easier in GR. In fact I pointed out that GR has very difficult math. At one time long ago I could have managed the SR calculations. Never could I have managed GR as I know nothing of Tensor Calculus.

I wonder what bizarre interpretation you will put on that. It will be interesting I am sure. Unless of course you take my advice FOR ONCE and actually wait and think and cool down. Write all you want but read it again a day later before posting. Read what I wrote in my previous post as well as this one. This without ignoring what I actually wrote. Don't bother quoting me as you invariably have followed the quote with an interpretation that is quite different from what you quote.

You should have read the article I quoted it would have spared you this embarrassment:


I do find your behavior embarrassing. It is embarrassing to be a member of the same species as someone with so little control of their emotions.

No wait, you claim to be SUPERHUMAN so then we aren't the same species. That's a load off my mind.

Guess what, wrong and wrong again. You did say it couldn't and you said it does not COVER acceleration. Here let me quote the exchange one more time:


I am not going to go over the quotes. You have managed to confuse YourSuperSelf with them. I will simply go over what I was trying to get across.

Yet again.

Special Relativity is the relationship between light, speed, mass and energy. It was created because Einstein felt, at least in part, that Maxwell's equations should hold for all observers, at least those in non-accelerating reference frames. It never had anything to do with acceleration accept for the speed that would result from
acceleration. The time dilation in SR is entirely due to speed.

Some quotes from Einstein:

Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K.


Note the word UNIFORM.

The insight fundamental for the special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions relativity and light speed invariance are compatible if relations of a new type ("Lorentz transformation") are postulated for the conversion of coordinates and times of events... The universal principle of the special theory of relativity is contained in the postulate: The laws of physics are invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations (for the transition from one inertial system to any other arbitrarily chosen inertial system). This is a restricting principle for natural laws


Note the word INERTIAL. As in not accelerating.

What I am trying to get across here is that acceleration is only incidental, as in a cause of speed, to SR. However in GR acceleration and gravity is what it is all about.

We arrive at a very satisfactory interpretation of this law of experience, if we assume that the systems K and K' are physically exactly equivalent, that is, if we assume that we may just as well regard the system K as being in a space free from gravitational fields, if we then regard K as uniformly accelerated. This assumption of exact physical equivalence makes it impossible for us to speak of the absolute acceleration of the system of reference,
just as the usual theory of relativity forbids us to talk of the absolute velocity of a system; and it makes the equal falling of all bodies in a gravitational field seem a matter of course.
(Einstein 1911)


I am sorry that the concept of covering versus handling is difficult to write about clearly. However the main difficulty is your rage induced insistence on never thinking I might have said something that was intended to clear things up. Instead you see all that I write as a distortion. This is YOU and not me. I cannot make you be reasonable. Only you can do that.


Lol! That's a brilliant defense, are you by any chance a lawyer?


I can't help if it is too subtle for an adrenaline fueled brain. No, I am not a lawyer and you aren't a physicist. Or any good at thinking clearly when you only see red.

Wrong again, SR DOES COVER (=HANDLE) ACCELERATION
and it DOES COVER (=HANDLE) time effects of acceleration,


No. It covers the SPEED that the acceleration induces. If this is too subtle for you then I do apoligise but there is simply nothing I can do to help with this EXCEPT to again suggest that you cool down.

A calm mind is a supple mind.

From your link that you set such store in.

It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames.


Something I agreed with. Still do.

t is claimed that general relativity is required because special relativity only applies to inertial frames.


Something I didn't. At least I don't think I did.

Special relativity treats accelerating frames differently from inertial frames but can still deal with them.


Which I definitely said and you quoted me on it. You just failed to see through that red haze. I said HANDLE rather than treat but the meaning and intent was the same.

Accelerating objects can be dealt with without even calling upon accelerating frames.


I agree. You are the one that wants to use an accelerating frame.

This error often comes up in the context of the twin paradox when people claim that it can only be resolved in general relativity because of acceleration.


Which is fine by me. I notice that nowhere does he claim that SR has time dilation by acceleration. How about YOU read your link.

It would make things ever so much easier for both of us. I
wouldn't have to point out your rage as you might not be raging in the first place.

Guess what, wrong and wrong again. You did say it couldn't and you said it does not COVER acceleration.


Interestingly in your red rage you think cover and deal are the same thing. They are not. Please see what I wrote above. Please think before you accuse. Its getting tiresome.

So once again, SR does cover acceleration


So once again you have a hate caused conclusion. SR does
NOT cover acceleration. It DOES deal with it. I can not help it if the difference is too subtle for you. I am sure others, if anyone else is still reading this, may be having a bit of difficulty as well.

Especially if they only look your versions.

Yet again:

In SR time dilation is based on speed. Not acceleration.

This what I mean by COVER. In SR you can, if you inisist, DEAL with acceleration. This is really not that difficult to comprehend.

Its not lawyerese either.

You are blatantly wrong on all counts yet you keep digging your hole.


Careful when you reach the other side of the Earth. I hear the Indian Ocean is wet. That is of course assuming that you were in North America when you started digging.

Wrong again, SR DOES COVER (=HANDLE) ACCELERATION


Cover does NOT equal handle. It is too subtle for you. I guess you only have a hammer or perhaps just adrenal glands.

Oh, so you are wrong because I shut my brain, right.


Since I am not wrong then I can't be wrong because of your rage problems. So no I never made such a silly claim.

But seriously, I have a problem with you because I despise

people who distort truth and the lies and distortions you make are of epic proportions.


You don't shave do you? This is beginning to look like a case of displaced self-hatred.

Lying is for life and death.

You are neither.

No matter how much you think you are superhuman.

You are a hypocrite and a liar, so don't expect me to treat you any better.


Self hatred is a terrible thing. I am sorry for you. I hope you learn to calm down. I hear Transcendental Meditation can help. Its like counting to ten only keep doing it for about twenty minutes. In your case you maybe should keep on for an hour.

Another attempt at distorting the point. It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of their existence.


Another refusal to accept that another person can actually have a point. Simply because you can do things the hard way it doesn't mean you have to. Unless you have some sort of obsessive compulsive problem but then that is not exactly a science problem.

Here is the evidence, first the *complete* paragraph of yours to which I referred and which does NOT specify the reference frame and yet compares the time:


This is nothing but rage. There was no need to give the reference frame since in this case I was talking:

A. To someone besides SuperEgo. Smiffy is reasonable so I don't have to specify everything that an outraged ego might look for as a source for further rage.

One would think the YOU were the privileged reference point.

Did you learn manners from Newton? He is not generally
considered a good role model for human interaction.

B. About Smiffy's thought experiment where I was pointing that the he would get the same results if the twins, due to the full non-broken symmetry of his thought experiment, were in the same ship since the direction was irrelevant. If they are in the same ship I think that pretty much covers the reference point.

Then in subsequent post you defend your lost cause by coming up with an absurd idea that there can be such thing as "the RIGHT" reference frame in relativity, an idea which proves a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals of the theory!


I explained what RIGHT meant. Your attempts to construe that to mean something else is a clear indication that you have a problem with English. I don't think you have Alexa's excuse.

However since you are continuing to have difficulty with the concepts of problem solving strategies:

The idea is to get the answer.
Richard Feynmen in the BBC Horizons show.


I admit that is from memory but it has stuck with me for nearly thirty years now. I now have a copy of the show.

And now you changed your tactics again and claim that you did in fact specify the reference frame in the first place!


Not a change. I had one all along. You are conflating two different discusions. The one with Smiffy and the one with you that started later. Only you needed it stated explicitly. Sorry that you can't figure these things out yourself. I bet you could have if it was someone besides me. Which is your fault and not mine.

! No matter that it is a blatant lie and that anyone who bothers to check the posts above can see otherwise.


Yes they can see that you have gone off the handle. But they won't see me lying.

Let me make this clear.

Lying is for life and death. You are neither.

Oh and a good joke. You aren't that either. You are becoming a sick joke not a good one.

My pointing out of your errors is because I can't tolerate thinking that you might say something rational!


Well since I didn't have errors I guess that could be the cause of your behavior. I suppose you could just hate everybody. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

But where is this something rational? It seems to have drowned in the flood of nonsense you keep spewing to defend your ego.


Yeah I have some much ego I call myself Ethelred. Go look it up. I can wait. Then look up Superhuman and try to find humility in relation to that. That I can't wait for since you won't find any.

Oh, so now you want to come across as courteous? Try to stop lying it will have a better effect.


I would say pot meet kettle but you are the only that is blackening anyone here. And it's yourself that you are blackening.

As for the frames they go with the twins at constant speed so they are of course inertial,


Then how is acceleration involved? Smiffy by the way had a
turnaround in his original example. You did comment on it.

. Your first post claims that you can get wrong answer by choosing wrong reference frame which is absurd, so once corrected now you claim it's because it may lead to errors...


Oh my shock and dismay. I might have made a teensy mistake. Or maybe not.

Remember the name of the thought experiment. Twin PARADOX.

Since there is no paradox any claim that there is one is an error.

The error seems to arise when people try to use the accelerating reference frame of the twin in the ship. It is not my fault that they said it was a paradox. Its not my fault that you can't see this.

Maybe if what you wrote weren't so choke full of lies, distortions, and absurd claims reading your posts would not be so upsetting.


Or maybe its that you find me making sense disturbing to your SuperEgo. So you distort it your mind to mean something different. Something you can pretend is a lie.

Its your mind that is distorted.

Lying is for life and death. You are neither.

Let's face it, you are one despicable character,


Lets face it you have a temper problem. A serious problem.

ou will go to any length to avoid admitting to your own errors, in the process of defending your ego


I am not the one calling themselves Superhuman.

what's most disgusting you were even willing to blatantly lie about what you said


Well you sure showed me.

No. Wait you made that up. You actually showed that you reinterpret whatever I said to mean something entirely different.

Even when you quoted it.

when the very discussion is preserved a few posts above for everyone to see.


Which is good for me. Not so good for you. But you can't see that because you are filled with hate.

I have seen you go off the handle with others as well. However you seem to go into orbit or perhaps all the way to the Heliopause with me.

Since I do apologise when I screw up I don't think I can agree with you on this. You really and truly need to work on your rage problems.

Again I am asking you to take a breather before your reply. I won't even ask for an apology. I deserve one but it will take you years to work this out so I will give you a pass.

---- DO NOT REPLY WITHOUT WAITING AT LEAST ONE

DAY.----

I really mean that. You have serious issues. I am not the cause.

To get this worked up over an online discusion with some one you do not know is a bad sign. You really and truly need to get a grip.

You might try discussing this with a friend. One that is a calming influence.

Perhaps then you will be able to read write instead of some bizarre version of it that exists only in your head.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2009
Also, how is an object in orbit, but not accelerating? Unless I missed something, acceleration is a vector, so any change in speed or direction is an acceleration; if they're in orbit, they're accelerating.


An object in gravitational orbit in four dimensional space-time is actually traveling in a straight line. A pendulum could not operate while in a Keplarian orbit because there is no accelleration.

There is no absolute frame of reference required here. It's just a local frame of reference in relation to the local curvature of spacetime. The article just doesn't explain it very well. Think of the twin in free orbit as traveling in a straight line around a locally curved portion of spacetime. That twin will then have a local velocity but no local accelleration. The other twin, who is standing still in relation to the local curvature of spacetime will have acceleration due to gravity but zero local velocity. So, although the orbiting twin is experiencing no accelleration, time is moving more slowly for him due to his velocity.

Think of it in terms of a black hole. Imagine the stationary twin sitting on a platform at the event horizon. Then the other twin is orbiting the black hole at the event horizon. Orbital velocity is the speed of light at the event horizon. From the point of view of the stationary twin, the orbiting twin is moving at the speed of light so time stops for the orbiting twin relative to the stationary twin. Since an orbit around a gravitational field is the same as moving in a straight line in 4 dimensional spacetime, the orbiting twin isn't accelerating relative to the black hole. The stationary twin is under the same gravitational field as the orbiter, but his local speed is zero. So, it's the velocity in this case that has stopped time for the orbiter relative to the stationary twin. In this special situation, an outside observer would say that time had stopped for both twins and they no longer exist in this universe because they crossed the event horizon. But, since there is no universal frame of reference, the stationary twin can still say from his point of view that his time is working fine and it's only the orbiting twin who has ceased to exist in this universe because of reaching the speed of light.
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2009
---- DO NOT REPLY WITHOUT WAITING AT LEAST ONE

Ha, I won't bother replying in detail at all as you failed to answer meaningfully even a single point I raised. You are wrong and since your position is indefensible your post has been reduced to nothing but personal attacks.

But at least you got one thing right:
S:You really keep making a bigger fool of yourself with each post!

E: Well if that was true you would be laughing instead of raging.

Correct, I were in fact laughing, although I know with all the rage you are imagining you won't believe it.
Weir
not rated yet Jun 20, 2009
The website article Gravity, Quantum Relativity & System 3 at http://www.cosmic...each.com may help to clarify the effects of relativity. In a discontinuous universe the Lorentz Transformations derive directly from a method of Historic Coordinates but there are related aspects. A discontinuous universe requires a preponderance of synchronicity in the universe as a whole where patterns of inertial velocity are distinct from gravitational acceleration. This is indicated by Foucaults pendulum where the arc of its swings remains fixed with respect to the stars thousands of light years distant while the earth rotates under it, even though the earths gravity fuels the swings. Current relativity theory can not explain this. However the version of the twin paradox reported here seems especially confused.
Ethelred
not rated yet Jun 22, 2009
Ha, I won't bother replying in detail at all as you failed to answer meaningfully even a single point I raised


I see the delusional thinking continues. I answered them all. You simply can't see beyond your unreasoning hatred.

You are wrong and since your position is indefensible your post has been reduced to nothing but personal attacks.


Lets see, who started with personal attacks. Could it be SuperEgo?

But seriously, I have a problem with you because I despise people who distort truth and the lies and distortions you make are of epic proportions. You are a hypocrite and a liar, so don't expect me to treat you any better.


Indeed it was. And that isn't counting the last thread where you called me a troll.


But at least you got one thing right:


I got it all right. But at least you learned one thing.


Correct, I were in fact laughing, although I know with all the rage you are imagining you won't believe it.


You learned to lie deliberately. A change from all the rage induced delusional thinking.

Perhaps someday you will learn even more. Like decency or perhaps the ability to discuss things without engaging in personal attack against others simply because they don't agree with you. I don't think you can manage it but I would be happy to be mistaken on it.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


QubitTroll will be released from my sig at the end of June.
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 22, 2009
Hot tempers and emotionally charged debates are the usual diet in discussions about SR/GR. Seems like no physics genius in the last century has not been involved in heated discussions about paradoxes that can be easily seen by most, but only claimed as resolved by complex layers of math that few claim to understand, and maybe far fewer really do.
There is a reference frame that looking out of makes it all look astonishingly clear and simple. Though not a firm foundation for construction of towering models of the universe.

Seems Lorenz, Faraday and several more had the components of SR. While Albie was a patent clark.
During the Arms tech race of the 1915-1918, then to 1950's things really got publicised.
Could their formulae have been intended for the understanding of observations carried at the speed of light from high speed sources? Not suggesting that when you see the light from something that it should be considered to be an event happening at the instant that light arrives at all?

So eg/ the ladder paradox. Where the garage a smidgen shorter than the ladder can fit it inside for an instant because its shorter due to being shoved inside at near c velocity. If equal distance paths carry the close up image of the ends of the garage the ladder is traversing to a point of comparison then no suggestion of the ladder being spacially shortened by its velocity arises. Or the observation from a point on the ladder that the garage is shorter, not the ladder.

Simular the two spaceships, in tandem, with equal accelerations to near c, with a string between them.
We are told that the result is that the spaceships and string get shorter and the string snaps.
Surely this is just an illusion from information dilation if we view the craft from the point of origin.
If they are accelerating towards us then they would look longer and the string would go slack if we didn't see that this is an illusion.

I'd rather keep the coherance of my neural net than swallow the cognitive dissonance of nodding in unison when the other monkeys say "look at that unicorn!", when what I am seeing is waddling. And Quacking.
And on reading what superstars of science have had fun pointing out the same observation, perhaps no-one should feel any shame, or get redfaced and stroppy, when the urge comes to say:

Look chaps! that thing that Quacks! and Waddles!
It verily appears, from the frame of reference I am leaning on, to have the apperance of a duck! Could it be that it is one? Its limping under a pile of coats to be sure, but it waddles and quacks! Maybe its just a duck!
Ethelred
not rated yet Jun 22, 2009
This is indicated by Foucaults pendulum where the arc of its swings remains fixed with respect to the stars thousands of light years distant while the earth rotates under it, even though the earths gravity fuels the swings. Current relativity theory can not explain this.


General Relativity does explain it. From:

http://einstein.s...779.html

If you spin a bucket of water, the surface of the water deforms because as Mach said it is rotating with respect to the frame of the distant fixed stars, then by relativity, we should be able to keep the bucked fixed and rotate the universe with the same angular velocity, and the water should still deform even though the bucket is not 'actually' rotating. Evidently, in the 1960's, theorists were able to give a partial answer to whether these two experiments gave the same outcome, and showed that the two 'experiments' in general relativity would give equal outcomes.


So you might want to quit claiming that it doesn't.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.



QubitTroll will be released from my sig at the end of June.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2009
Hot tempers and emotionally charged debates are the usual diet in discussions about SR/GR.


It is possible to to avoid that.

We are told that the result is that the spaceships and string get shorter and the string snaps.


Never heard that one before. The string would not snap so that could be why I hadn't heard it. The whole system would get shorter. Thus the ships would be closer together. Thus the string would not break.

If they are accelerating towards us then they would look longer and the string would go slack if we didn't see that this is an illusion.


They would still look shorter. The direction is irrelevant. Away or toward or diagonal the ships would still shorten. Its the speed that counts and not the velocity.


Look chaps! that thing that Quacks! and Waddles!


I find the urge to say that it might Crank when someone insists that theories that are backed by experiment are wrong in every way. Though I don't think the shortening has been experimentally observed. It would be darn hard to test. Time dilation has been tested and both GR effects and SR effects are used in the GPS highly successful GPS system. So that is pretty well founded.

The above link is for the Gravity Probe test for frame of reference dragging in GR. So far it looks good for GR on this. The experiment needs more time to be certain.

So maybe its neither fair nor fowl but simply a good theory that works at the macroscopic level.

I just don't get all these attempt to overturn a theory that fits the observations with ideas that either don't fit or don't say anything that can be tested. The latter is the better of the two and may even be correct. The String Hypothesis is in the latter class so far. The Plasma Universe is in the first class.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


QubitTroll will be released from my sig at the end of June.
smiffy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2009
I just don't get all these attempt to overturn a theory that fits the observations with ideas that either don't fit or don't say anything that can be tested.
With this attitude we might never have got past Ptolemy's geocentric astronomy.
http://en.wikiped...centrism
"Inspiration came to Copernicus not from observation of the planets, but from reading two authors. In Cicero he found an account of the theory of Hicetas. Plutarch provided an account of the Pythagoreans Heraclides Ponticus, Philolaus, and Ecphantes."

"Copernicus' system was not experimentally better than Ptolemy's model. Copernicus was aware of this and could not present any observational "proof" in his manuscript, relying instead on arguments about what would be a more complete and elegant system. From publication until about 1700, few astronomers were convinced by the Copernican system...Galileo's observation of the phases of Venus produced the first observational evidence for Copernicus' theory...."
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2009
Ethelred: Lets see, who started with personal attacks. Could it be SuperEgo?
S: But seriously, I have a problem with you because I despise people who distort truth and the lies and distortions you make are of epic proportions. You are a hypocrite and a liar, so don't expect me to treat you any better.

Those were not personal attacks those were facts backed by extensive evidence, all cited in the post in which I stated them. You are a liar - you lie concerning your earlier statements when proven wrong, and you are a hypocrite - you claim acceleration does not matter, and your own explanation invokes acceleration.
S: Correct, I were in fact laughing, although I know with all the rage you are imagining you won't believe it.

E: You learned to lie deliberately.

See, I was right. I was laughing and I still am when I remember the nonsensical claims you made. It's always funny when someone get's lured into defending completely absurd claims just to protect his ego.

Just so that we can all get some more laugh out of it I'll cite this lovely exchange once again:
Ethelred: Acceleration and velocity are covered by General and Special Relativity, respectively.

S: Both [GR and SR] cover acceleration and velocity, SR does not cover gravitation.

E: Therefor it does not cover acceleration. According to GR acceleration and gravity are equivalent and cannot be distinguished from each other by any test within the frame. Well unless I have totally misunderstood the concept.

S: You have totally misunderstood the concept. SR covers acceleration. If you don't believe me just google it, there's plenty of info on the subject, here is a quote from physics FAQ for example, it even mentions Twin Paradox as the usual context in which this misconception surfaces!

"It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames. It is claimed that general relativity is required because special relativity only applies to inertial frames. This is not true. Special relativity treats accelerating frames differently from inertial frames but can still deal with them. Accelerating objects can be dealt with without even calling upon accelerating frames.

This error often comes up in the context of the twin paradox when people claim that it can only be resolved in general relativity because of acceleration. This is not the case."
Source: http://math.ucr.e...ion.html

Here, Ethelred notices he is obviously wrong on this and instead of just letting it go he desperately tries to save his end:
S: "It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle accelerating..."

E: Didn't say it couldn't. I said it doesn't DEAL with acceleration. GR does that.

Blatant lie, as his first two quotes above clearly use the word "cover" not "deal," once proven wrong he tries to distort the whole exchange so as not to admit to his error, this is typical of Ethelred, you will certainly come across it if you happen to debate with him.

S: You have totally misunderstood the concept. SR covers acceleration.

E: No. I haven't. SR can HANDLE acceleration by using more difficult equations...

So now Ethelred admits his own error but keeps calling it handle to pretend he was right! But he's only managed to dig a bigger hole here since SR equations (including acceleration) are much easier then GR ones since in GR local geometry of spacetime has to be calculated making almost every problem impossible to solve precisely.

And another attempt:
S: So again you are wrong when you claim SR does not cover acceleration.

E: No. That one I am right on. Handle and cover are different things.

Yes, because "SR covers acceleration" and "SR handles acceleration" mean completely different things, and of course according to Ethelred one can disagree with the first and agree with the second!

And finally E. tries to put yet another spin on it and once again gets it wrong:
SR can handle acceleration. It does not cover time effects due to acceleration, only the speed that the acceleration creates.

Of course SR does cover time effects due to acceleration.

And this is only a tiny sample of the absurd claims made by E. in the posts above, more are cited in my earlier posts.

So what do you think Ethelred? Maybe I should turn the above exchange into a silly signature to boast how I pwned an ignorant troll? But I would have to be really desperate to boost my ego to bother copying it to every damn post I make, wouldn't I?
Ethelred
not rated yet Jun 23, 2009
With this attitude we might never have got past Ptolemy's geocentric astronomy.


Its just science. You have to match reality. Theories that don't work aren't going to replace theories that do work.

"Copernicus' system was not experimentally better than Ptolemy's model


It was simpler and just as good and it did not replace Ptolemy until Tycho Brahe's evidence showed Kepler that he had to change things to match the evidence. As far as I can tell Copernicus NEVER replaced Ptolemy. Kepler did or maybe Newton as he certainly finished it off.

.Galileo's observation of the phases of Venus produced the first observational evidence for Copernicus' theory.


I think Tycho Brahe was first. It was his observation of a comet in 1577 moving in past the planetary orbits. Maybe that only dealt with the crystal spheres idea.

I see that Brahe thought Copernicus was wrong.

http://csep10.phy...ahe.html

He made the best measurements that had yet been made in the search for stellar parallax. Upon finding no parallax for the stars, he (correctly) concluded that either

* the earth was motionless at the center of the Universe, or

* the stars were so far away that their parallax was too small to measure.

Not for the only time in human thought, a great thinker formulated a pivotal question correctly, but then made the wrong choice of possible answers: Brahe did not believe that the stars could possibly be so far away and so concluded that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that Copernicus was wrong.


Well this is interesting. Hadn't run across it before:

http://en.wikiped.../Galileo

Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides.[66] Galileo also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets,[67] considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.


And a link for Kepler:
http://en.wikiped...s_Kepler

I had never tried looking at both in parallel before. They seem equally significant in Copernicus' model getting the lead over Ptolemy.

In any case the main thing I was going on about was Weir's post. A hypothesis that purports to explain something the standard theory doesn't is worth much when the standard theory DOES explain it.

We do have a number of people here that are posting the same or similar things on many of the astro-physics threads. Most of them are crap if you look at them closely. Believe it or not I have followed those links to check them out.

I can't make heads or tales of Alexi/Alazi's stuff as I can't read the original language and they don't make sense in English. The Plasma Universe is just plain wrong. So far all the sites have claimed there is experimental evidence for an inter-galactic plasma current and site a particular paper. I read the paper. There is no experimental evidence in it. There is a claim of calculations of what would happen IF there was a plasma current as the author thought.

I am all for a new theory to replace the combination of the Standard Model and General Relativity but it has to at least fit the present observations. I would be partial to a theory that was based on a cellular system that doesn't assume a pre-existing space-time grid for the cells. Sure would be a bear to run calculations in though if the cell size is a small it looks like it would have to be. Plank length and Plank time, horrors.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


QubitTroll will be released from my sig at the end of June.
Ethelred
not rated yet Jun 23, 2009
Those were not personal attacks those were facts backed by extensive evidence, all cited in the post in which I stated them.


They were personal attacks even if they had been true. You need to learn English. They sure weren't impersonal and they sure were attacks. They were also false. There were personal attacks and nothing but.

ou are a liar - you lie concerning your earlier statements when proven wrong,


That is a lie. Or at least another of your rage fueled delusions. Clarification is not lying. Its not my fault you can't get the idea the first time.

and you are a hypocrite - you claim acceleration does not matter,


That is not hypocrisy. It could be an error but it isn't partly because I didn't say that.

What you first responded to was this and I am posting a clarifying explanation of what I was trying to get across at that time.(dashed lines to delimit this from further misadventures)

-----------------------------------------

Acceleration was not significant in the original.


Which was true. You just didn't understand my point. Time dilation due to acceleration is trivial in this case. At least assuming a one gravity rate of acceleration. The main cause of the time dilation was due to the speed of twin that left. Why you are having trouble understanding this is beyond me. It looks like you simply can't stand my correcting you when you misinterpret what I say.


Acceleration is crucial if you want to explain how the twins can be the same age when they meet again.


This was the one where Smiffy had both twins leaving the Earth there was simply no need to even think about acceleration OR speed as they could just as easily be in the same ship. The whole thing was totally symmetrical. Again why is this so hard for you to accept? Why do you feel the need to insult me for trying to make it clear?

I can only see this as a SuperEgo problem.


Both cover acceleration and velocity, SR does not cover gravitation.


You still don't seem to have understood this. In GR acceleration and gravity are equivalent. SR does NOT cover time dilation due to either gravity or acceleration. Only due to speed. Again what is so bloody difficult to understand seeing as how you claim to understand both? Seeing as how I posted links that supported my statements?

No, to compare their clocks you have to choose a reference frame, in the frame of each twin the other twin's clock will tick slower.


No . You only have to notice that they are totally symmetrical. Therefor they could be in the same ship. Therefor you don't have to make a difficult calculation since the answer can be seen in the symmetry.

------------------------------------------------------------

Return to present silliness.

See, I was right. I was laughing and I still am when I remember the nonsensical claims you made.


I find that hard to believe. Your behavior has reeked of rage. That nonsensical part looks rage induced. Sure is some kind of delusion.

It's always funny when someone get's lured into defending completely absurd claims just to protect his ego.


Its sure is weird when someone claiming rational well thought out posts are absurd. Must come from the SuperEgo.

Just so that we can all get some more laugh out of it I'll cite this lovely exchange once again:


Oh goody. More delusions.

S: Both [GR and SR] cover acceleration and velocity, SR does not cover gravitation.


See above. See pretty much anything covering GR.

Me:

Therefor it does not cover acceleration. According to GR acceleration and gravity are equivalent and cannot be distinguished from each other by any test within the frame. Well unless I have totally misunderstood the concept.


Go ahead oh great all Ego one. Show the error. I dare you. You haven't managed yet.

S: You have totally misunderstood the concept. SR covers acceleration. If you don't believe me just google it, there's plenty of info on the subject, here is a quote from physics FAQ for example, it even mentions Twin Paradox as the usual context in which this misconception surfaces!


You still don't get it.


Here, Ethelred notices he is obviously wrong on this and instead of just letting it go he desperately tries to save his end:


Me:

E: Didn't say it couldn't. I said it doesn't DEAL with acceleration. GR does that.


Yep. I stand by that. So does Einstein. Follow the links I posted.

Blatant lie, as his first two quotes above clearly use the word "cover" not "deal," once proven wrong he tries to distort the whole exchange so as not to admit to his error, this is typical of Ethelred, you will certainly come across it if you happen to debate with him.


You really need to learn English. I am not obligated to use the same exact word every time. The meaning was the same. The intent was to get it through to you by using more than one way to say the same thing. This is a standard method of getting ideas across. Come at the same end point from different directions.

SR does not deal with, or cover or whatever set of words you want to use, acceleration. It can handle acceleration through the use of more calculations to cover the changing speed, but there IS NO TIME DILATION due to acceleration itself. For pointing this out to you, you have raged, distorted and attacked. Your Ego is getting in the way.

So now Ethelred admits his own error but keeps calling it handle to pretend he was right!


So now SuperEgo pretends I admitted to an error when I was trying to get something through the Ego that was blocking SuperComprehension.

But he's only managed to dig a bigger hole here since SR equations (including acceleration) are much easier then GR ones since in GR local geometry of spacetime has to be calculated making almost every problem impossible to solve precisely.


Which I pointed out. I notice you are evading that. So here is the part you are leaving out in your selective quotes.

Me:
In GR the acceleration itself causes time dilation. The math apparently gets quite hairy.


Yes, because "SR covers acceleration" and "SR handles acceleration" mean completely different things, and of course according to Ethelred one can disagree with the first and agree with the second!


They do mean different things. At least in this instance. SR has no time dilation due to acceleration. I suppose you will again try to pretend that clarification is tantamount to lies and distortion. It isn't. Its trying to get a point across to someone whose Ego won't allow him to understand.

I feel like I am talking to a Creationist. The lies, the hate, the rage, the distortion, the avoidance of clear and repeated attempts to communicate. They are so much like you.

Of course SR does cover time effects due to acceleration.


Of course it doesn't. I did post a few quotes of Einstein that agreed with me and not with you. I notice you don't mention them at all. Well here they are again. This time read them.

Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K.


This time note the bloody damned word you are avoiding UNIFORM. As in not accelerating.

The insight fundamental for the special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions relativity and light speed invariance are compatible if relations of a new type ("Lorentz transformation") are postulated for the conversion of coordinates and times of events... The universal principle of the special theory of relativity is contained in the postulate: The laws of physics are invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations (for the transition from one inertial system to any other arbitrarily chosen inertial system). This is a restricting principle for natural laws


The key word is INERTIAL. Again as in not accelerating.

So if your so bloody sure that I am lying snake how about you actually prove something. Prove there is time dilation due to acceleration in SR. Show that Einstein didn't know what he was writing about. After all he only derived the equations. You surely know better than him.

Creationists have a new model. SuperEgo the alleged master of Special Relativity will explain that Einstein was a fool.

And this is only a tiny sample of the absurd claims made by E. in the posts above, more are cited in my earlier posts.


Well does show that you can't comprehend English anyway. Not a personal attack indeed. I would never think of trying to get away with such rubbish. I HAVE attacked you as a person. In retaliation only. Just because I am right doesn't stop it from being an attack. Might as well claim the US didn't attack Germany because, after all, they deserved it. An attack is an attack even when justified and unless you can show were there is time dilation due to acceleration, rather than the speed the acceleration induces, it was unjustified. Heck even if you can it wouldn't only justify saying I was wrong and not all that toxic crap you spread.


So what do you think Ethelred?


I think you have a comprehension problem compounded by rage.

Maybe I should turn the above exchange into a silly signature to boast how I pwned an ignorant troll?


He thought it was funny to put that in his profile. He hasn't posted since. He has been here but he hasn't posted. So it was effective rather than silly. By the way he isn't ignorant. He is foolish. He knows there is global warming. He thinks we shouldn't try to stop it. He thinks it will cost more than the damage. That is foolish.

But I would have to be really desperate to boost my ego to bother copying it to every damn post I make, wouldn't I?


No. Signatures are standard on most forums and all I have done is add it to a template. I rarely type in the entry box, I type in a template. I got the idea for that signature from others. Apolyton.com for one.

It worked and that is justification enough for me. Kind of like science. It has to work. I really didn't expect it to work so well. I suppose he will return eventually. Hopefully he will stop spamming the non-meteorology threads with his trolls.

Its not ego. It is a way to make a point. That his insults are more injurious to him than to me. I don't think he ever imagined that I would quote him.

It won't work for you. You don't understand English well enough to get away with it. Your claim that calling me names isn't a personal attack is ripe for a signature though. I will restrain myself for the foreseeable future.

If you manage to show that Einstein agrees with you I might even put the proof in my signature for a while. Might not post it much though since I am not a glutton for punishment, say as many times as I have replied to you on this thread. But not till July in any case.

See, you have an incentive to actually show you are right. I don't think you can do it since Einstein is on my side. Fortunately this isn't QM. I am not on his side there. Please note that you previous posts have not shown you are right. The actual equation will do or a relevant quote from Einstein. I reserve the right to check your interpretation as I don't think you can be trusted to comprehend what you read. Perhaps you can find a third party to adjudicate.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


QubitTroll will be released from my sig at the end of June.
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2009
Ha, Ethelred still desperately fighting the truth?

But I already see signs that deep in the heart you know I am right :). First you admitted SR does handle acceleration, now you begin to admit acceleration does matter in the original paradox:
E: Time dilation due to acceleration is trivial in this case. At least assuming a one gravity rate of acceleration.

You make progress, nevertheless you still cling to some of your foolish misunderstandings:
S: Of course SR does cover time effects due to acceleration.

E: Of course it doesn't. I did post a few quotes of Einstein that agreed with me and not with you. I notice you don't mention them at all. Well here they are again. This time read them.
E: Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K.

Haha, do you realize this same quote was first posted here by Alexa who also misunderstood it to mean that only inertial frames can be considered in SR?

Here is what I answered to him in this very thread long before you even started your absurd defense, at least Alexa was able to understand his error:

"I think you misunderstand SR and the Einstein statement you yourself quoted. You can describe acceleration in Special Relativity and you can also use accelerated reference frames.

What Einstein means here in that the laws and equations of motion stay the same in all inertial reference frames (=stationary or moving at a constant speed), this is important because in non-inertial reference frames (=accelerated ones) you have to add terms which depend on the movement of those frames and so equations can differ from frame to frame."
SR does NOT cover time dilation due to either gravity or acceleration.

You keep repeating this nonsense as if hoping it might become true once repeated often enough.
It won't.

Below is an example of calculation of time dilation due to acceleration using only SR.
The quote is from wiki entry on time dilation which is taken from a publication in Foundations of Physics Letters:
Time dilation at constant acceleration
In special relativity, time dilation is most simply described in circumstances where relative velocity is unchanging. Nevertheless, the Lorentz equations allow one to calculate proper time and movement in space for the simple case of a spaceship whose acceleration, relative to some referent object in uniform (i.e. constant velocity) motion, equals g throughout the period of measurement...

To see the rest follow the quote as equations won't show here of course:
http://en.wikiped...leration
Source: http://www.citeul...e/117043

So once again you are proven wrong Ethelred, I'am dying to see what new twist will you come up with to get around this one.

Hey, Ethelred which signature do you prefer?
No, to compare their clocks you have to choose a reference frame, in the frame of each twin the other twin's clock will tick slower.

Ethelred: That is not A frame of reference. It's two.


So again you are wrong when you claim SR does not cover acceleration.
Ethelred: No. That one I am right on. Handle and cover are different things.
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 24, 2009
Happy happy! Joy joy!
We don't have to sound like some kind of luddite retro-grouch amish freaks by calling it the "luminiferous aether" any more. New words such refreshing new beginnings are!
The quintessence is what it really is! not a cosmological contant throughout the universe, but a model for dark energy that allows variable density and velocity of the spacetime fabric that everything seems to be made of fixed or travelling wobbles of!

That spaceships and strings one. No. the space between the ships is not contracted. As the string is not considered to have any influence by pulling the spaceships together (its an imaginary string equivalent to empty space in mechanical properties) it is just measuring their seperation. which does shrink if the space between them does not. When they are coming from far away and accelerating towards you the light brings the image from the back ship simultaneously to you with the light bringing the image of the front ship.... But while the light has crossed the distance between the ships the back one has moved forward. So they do look further apart and longer when moving towards you.

This shows what a beautiful example of inflicting schisms on your mental model of reality the "relativity of simultaneity" premise is. Once you have that one planted and faith invested in it, then its so much easier to swallow any doctrine you are fed. Soon you will have the capacity to throw faith at any giraffe costume or gorilla suit presented to maintain your cherished belief that the duck is a goose that lays golden eggs.
For example: When it looks very likely that more dimensions than we can easily see or interact with, because electromagnetic forces, and a whiff of gravity are the only ones that the matter we can see with em waves affects the same sort of matter with?
Everyone is determined to believe and devise math showing these dimensions as curled up little things no bigger than subquantum scale. Not so cooperative with the magic maximum speed of anything, this c, if those dimensions got about more universe and were scaled differently. Had different max speeds of info transfer. You couldn't go around saying there was no absolute simultanaity and that from any place things actually happen at the same time as you see distant events happening via images riding on photons.

http://en.wikiped...ltaneity

"The relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneity is not absolute, but dependent on the observer. That is, according to the special theory of relativity formulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.
Einstein's special theory demonstrates that there are occasions when there is no "correct" answer, where no observer has a privileged status, and all the observers can legitimately claim to be "correct" even if their ordering of events disagree with each other.

If we imagine one observer who calculates that two events%u2014at different points in space%u2014occur at precisely the same time, an observer who is moving relative to the first will generally disagree, having calculated the two events as occurring at different times. This notion is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed through a garage.

A form of the relativity of simultaneity was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1895 (Lorentz's "local time"), but the idea was not widely understood in its modern form until Einstein's introduction of special relativity. In particular, Einstein deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions:

* the principle of relativity%u2014the equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;
* the constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, independent of the relative motion of its source."
phyti
not rated yet Jun 25, 2009
The parts quoted seem confusing and lacking specific details, i.e. not moving...(relative to what?), not accelerating...(but still in an orbit?).
The light clock demonstrates that speed of an object relative to light is the cause for time dilation for that object. Acceleration, if speed, merely changes length of time interval, and if direction, nothing. An object accelerating in an orbit (direction) with constant speed can be treated as an inertial frame, i.e. gps systems. Acceleration in the simple twin scenario, is only used to contrast the two path trip vs. the one path trip. Twin A leaves twin B and later rejoins B. The two part trip for A must be longer, therefore he traveled faster (by either time interval), and his clock ran slower.

The amount of time dilation depends on total path distance, and speed for each path.
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 26, 2009
Great example of time dilation seems to be in the worldwide media in the last few days. Perhaps a great demonstration, by AWT ;-). Maybe another has been provided by Superhuman.
Muhammet Dirlik, Turkish 4yr old. Example perhaps of (A)nthropogenically (W)rought (T)imedilation:
http://www.telegr...00650001&bctid=27380577001

On the TV series SuperHuman there was the guy who managed to dodge paintballs by reacting and moving out of the way in ~0.1sec from them being fired. After some training by a martial arts guru. Before the training he was a sitting duck ;-)

That Muhammet Dirlik incident is simular velocities, distances, and accelerations to one of my own puzzling experiences. I was going superman-style, at about 10m/s over my handlebars, when time appeared to freeze. I knew without doubt at that moment that I was going to come down with the sharp edge of a stump ~10m away right between my eyes. As I crept through the last 0.3 m of the trajectory I did a handstand pushup landing and stopped, feet still in the air with the sharp-stump-edge about an inch from my eyes.
Not able to anywhere near do a handstand pressup normally, me. Lots of equally implausible, when accelerations are analysed, experiences have I had. And seen others have, and them explain their perceived experience of as it happened to me. Exciting what mysteries we still have to untangle.
Razy
not rated yet Jul 02, 2009
Once the world was flat, observation made it round.
How to you theories the universe with only the reflections of the true observation?

Nothing cannot exist in reality, yet it must exist to make the difference, to force the acceleration of the first instant. Nothing is the only aspect of creation that does not change. It's the only aspect of creation that is eternal to the existence of reality. Yet, where is it to be observed as such?
Razy
not rated yet Jul 02, 2009
Nothing always leads to further questions about something....