How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship

How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship
Doesn’t matter if it doesn’t work. Credit: andertoons, CC BY

Forget about anti-ageing creams and hair treatments. If you want to stay young, get a fast spaceship. That is what Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted a century ago, and it is commonly known as "twin paradox".

Imagine two twins. They are identical, except for one thing, one of them has a very advanced and expensive spaceship. The first twin remains on Earth, while the other travels to a distant star and back at velocities close to the speed of light.

When they meet again, the Earth-dwelling twin has aged a lot more than the travelling twin. This is because of what Einstein called . He predicted that clocks experiencing different accelerations measure time differently. Puzzling as it may seem, these time-dilation effects have been tested in the laboratory many times, and are routinely taken into account by the Global Positioning System (GPS).

The GPS is able to provide you with your position by timing very precisely the signals emitted by satellites, and to this end it needs to take into account the time dilation due to the different accelerations of the satellites. While GPS is one of the most precise systems we have, it can locate your smartphone with an error margin of a few metres.

The precision could be improved by using the most precise clocks that we know on Earth, known as quantum clocks because they are ruled by the laws of . There are plans funded by space agencies to launch these clocks into orbit. It is natural to think that a GPS consisting of quantum clocks would also need to take into account . However, we do not fully understand how to combine quantum mechanics and relativity. The inability of unifying both theories remains as one of the biggest challenges of modern science.

Quantum entanglement

Predictions in the 1970s said that there is a physical phenomenon that is both quantum and relativistic called the Dynamical Casimir Effect. But it wasn't until 2011 that an experimental setup could be developed to test the prediction.

Here is what theory predicted: if light is trapped between mirrors that move at velocities close to the speed of light, then they will generate more light than there is in the system. Even if initially there is no light between the mirrors, just vacuum, light shows up because the mirror turns the quantum vacuum into particles.

This is supposed to happen because vacuum at the quantum level is like a sea of pairs of particles that are constantly emitting and absorbing light. They do this at incredible speeds, but if the mirror moves that fast too some of these particles are reflected by the mirror before disappearing and can be observed. But setting up such a system has proved difficult.

In 2011, this difficulty was circumvented in the experiment conducted by Per Delsing at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden. In this case the mirrors were different. They were magnetic fields inside a Superconducting Quantum Interferometric Device (SQUID), but they behaved exactly like mirrors, making light bounce back and forth. Unlike physical mirrors, these magnetic fields could be moved at incredible speeds.

Einstein used to think of clocks as going back and forth between mirrors. Time can be inferred from the distance between the divided by the , which remains constant no matter what. But he never thought about particles being created by motion, a prediction that was made many years after his death.

Relativistic mirrors

In recent work, with colleagues at the University of Nottingham, Chalmers University and University of Warsaw, we have taken inspiration from the 2011 experiment. We propose using a similar setup to test different aspects of the using a physical system, which haven't been tested so far. Although it won't involve human twins, the possibility of achieving enormous speeds and acceleration allows the observation of time dilation in a very short distance.

Also, all previous experiments that have tested the theory have involved , which are "point-clocks" – that is, what measures time in these atomic clocks is confined to a tiny point in space. Our experiment would instead use something that has finite length. This is important because, along with time, Einstein's theory predicts that length of the object changes too. We believe our experiment would test that aspect of the theory for the first time.

We have found that particle creation by motion, which was observed in 2011, has an effect on the difference in time between the clock that is moving and the one that is static. Using this setup, while we can reconfirm that time dilation occurs, the more interesting application would be to help build better quantum clocks, by means of a better understanding of the interplay between quantum and relativistic effects.


Explore further

One clock with two times: When quantum mechanics meets general relativity

Provided by The Conversation

This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).
The Conversation

Citation: How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship (2014, April 16) retrieved 22 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-04-twin-paradox-spaceship.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 16, 2014
A point I keep arguing about time is that it is not so much the present moving from past to future, but the effect of physical change causing future potential to become past circumstantial. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the world turns. This means the faster clock doesn't move into the future more rapidly, but as it processes/ages quicker, it falls into the past faster. The twin in the faster frame simply ages faster.

Apr 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 17, 2014
Ignoring gravity, the laws of physics are exactly the same within the space-ship and on earth. If this is not the case, Einstein's first postulate, on which he based his Special Theory of Relativity, is wrong. Thus, two identical perfect clocks, with each twin, must keep the exact-same time-rate. It is thus impossible for one twin to age faster than the other just because they are moving with a constant speed v relative to one another.

The correction on GPS satellites is required owing to non-simultaneity, which is not time-dilation on the clock on the satellite. A wave-front emitted at the time t (on the clock on the satellite AND on the clock on earth) is only recorded to be emitted at a later time t(L) time on the clock on earth (AND on the clock on the satellite). The clocks keep synchronous time, also during the time-interval after the wave-front has been emitted at time t and the later time t(L) at which this is recorded within the reference frame of the earth.

Apr 19, 2014
What I still don't understand about the twin paradox is, that it only works if you assume a static background to space so you could tell which one is accelerating and which one is not.

But that's counter to the whole idea of Einstein's relativity which says there isn't one.

Without a static background to provide you with such universal coordinates, you can only observe that the distance between the twins is changing at an accelerating pace. They are in fact both accelerating in each other's eyes and so the same time dilation should happen to both.

So from both twin's point of view, the other on should be older.

Apr 19, 2014
What I still don't understand about the twin paradox is, that it only works if you assume a static background to space so you could tell which one is accelerating and which one is not.

But that's counter to the whole idea of Einstein's relativity which says there isn't one.

... They are in fact both accelerating in each other's eyes and so the same time dilation should happen to both.

So from both twin's point of view, the other on should be older.


Almost. What you're saying here is actually valid...

Until one of the twins *turns around* and changes his reference frame with respect to the "static" twin. At that point all of the "static" twin's aging begins to become apparent to the accelerating twin. This only works *because* there's no prefered background. The wikipedia explaination is pretty detailed and should provide what you need: laihttp://en.wikiped...lativity

Apr 20, 2014
Puzzling as it may seem, these time-dilation effects have been tested in the laboratory many times, and are routinely taken into account by the Global Positioning System (GPS).


This actually isn't even true.

Velocity related time dilation apparently never actually happens. The reason I say this is the calculation for gravitational time dilation gives the same result whether or not a rocket ship is moving, for example orbiting a black hole, or just holding position.

If there is any time dilation occurring in orbiting satellites, it is caused by differences in gravity, not by relative velocity. Again, you get the same result whether or not the object is moving, which actually disproves part of Einstein's predictions. This has already been observed, but not properly understood...

Apr 20, 2014
At that point all of the "static" twin's aging begins to become apparent to the accelerating twin.


But it's still not an satisfactory answer. Why is one accelerating then and not the other?

From the point of view of the twin in the spaceship, it's just as well to say that the earth is making the U-turn and coming back to him.

In keeping with Mach's principle, the non-inertial forces that appear should be indistinguishabe between the two situations, whether the ship accelerates or the earth accelerates.

In other words, if the earth was suddenly kicked up in motion and started gaining on the spaceship, the spaceship must feel an acceleration in a universe where only the earth and the ship exist, because you have no other frame of reference to say anything except that the distance between the two changes at some rate.


Apr 20, 2014
The only way I can reason the twin paradox to work asymmetrically like that is if the effect has something to do with the earth being much more massive than the spaceship, which causes it to experience less acceleration at the turnover point.

I don't agree with the way the wikipedia article draws the Minowski diagrams, because you must be able to switch the "stationary" and "travelling" twins and arrive at the same result, because they both must feel the same inertial and non-inertial forces when the distance between them changes.

Otherwise you would have to admit that one of the twins is truly objectively stationary - but relative to what?

Apr 20, 2014
Eikka, your problem is that you're thinking of it incorrectly. You do not need to think of the universe as static. The very premise of relativity is that the twins reference frames (the bit of time/space they occupy) are "relative" to each other by speed. So, if you're twin A on earth, Twin B is accelerating away from you. Their time dilation is caused by their relative speed to one another. A third twin on a different trajectory would have a 3rd reference frame and age at a 3rd rate. It's in fact, impossible for the 3 to be in the same reference frame. We are all, always, slightly out of sync with each other. But at every day speeds the effect is basically null. If twin B looked at twin C he could calculate twin C's relative velocity and predict C's age and all the math would line up and agree with what Twin A was seeing.

Apr 20, 2014
But it's still not an satisfactory answer. Why is one accelerating then and not the other?


Well, it may not be satisfactiory to *you*, but mathematically it is. What you are neglecting here is that the moving twin changes reference frame twice and the second time is where all the really counterintuitive stuff happens. The static twin doesn't change his RF.

BTW, I'm in the camp that doesn't buy into Mach's principle.

In other words, if the earth was suddenly kicked up in motion and started gaining on the spaceship, the spaceship must feel an acceleration in a universe where only the earth and the ship exist.
This is a frequent error when falling back on Mach's: you CAN'T accelerate either one or the other but have only the two exist. In all cases this neglects the reaction mass needed for the acceleration, reaction mass that never disapears (or you would be violating conservation of momentum). That's why in your example here the spaceship doesn't feel an acceleration.

Apr 21, 2014
What you are neglecting here is that the moving twin changes reference frame twice and the second time is where all the really counterintuitive stuff happens.


The laws of physics MUST be the same within all inertial reference frames. Consider two clockmakers born within two inertial reference frames moving with a speed v relative to one another, and who both build the same atomic clocks. Since the laws of physics must be the same within the two inertial reference frames, the two clocks MUST keep the same time rate: Thus when the two clockmakers pass one another and synchronise their clocks, then surely these two clocks must keep the exact same time ad infinitum.

One clockmaker has a twin who accelerates until he moves with the same speed as the second clockmaker; and then stops . This twin has now changed reference frame. Now you are claiming that just because the twin has changed reference frames the clock of the second clockmaker is now out of sync! Absurd!!

Apr 21, 2014
The laws of physics MUST be the same within all inertial reference frames.


things change when you ACCELERATE to a different inertial reference frame. Only the twin that changes reference frame will experience the acceleration.

Apr 21, 2014

BTW, I'm in the camp that doesn't buy into Mach's principle.


Actually, we don't have to go that far:

During the turnaround, the traveling twin is in an accelerated reference frame. According to the equivalence principle, the traveling twin may analyze the turnaround phase as if the stay-at-home twin were freely falling in a gravitational field and as if the traveling twin were stationary.

(...)

The mechanism for the advancing of the stay-at-home twin's clock is gravitational time dilation.

http://en.wikiped...rinciple

So I was kinda right. The reason of the asymmetry is because one of the twins is near a larger mass.

Apr 21, 2014

BTW, I'm in the camp that doesn't buy into Mach's principle.


Actually, we don't have to go that far:

During the turnaround, the traveling twin is in an accelerated reference frame. According to the equivalence principle, the traveling twin may analyze the turnaround phase as if the stay-at-home twin were freely falling in a gravitational field and as if the traveling twin were stationary.

(...)

The mechanism for the advancing of the stay-at-home twin's clock is gravitational time dilation.

http://en.wikiped...rinciple

So I was kinda right. The reason of the asymmetry is because one of the twins is near a larger mass.


Sorry, but no. Even if the "stay at home" twin stays at home in a small station in deep interstellar space the "paradox" will unfold in exactly the same way.

Apr 21, 2014
The laws of physics MUST be the same within all inertial reference frames.


things change when you ACCELERATE to a different inertial reference frame. Only the twin that changes reference frame will experience the acceleration.


There is no experimental proof that acceleration will keep the twin younger than his brother who stays at home or that he will be younger when he arrives within another inertial reference frame in which the time is synchronously the same than in the reference frame from which he came.

Apr 21, 2014
The laws of physics MUST be the same within all inertial reference frames.


things change when you ACCELERATE to a different inertial reference frame. Only the twin that changes reference frame will experience the acceleration.


There is no experimental proof that acceleration will keep the twin younger than his brother who stays at home or that he will be younger when he arrives within another inertial reference frame in which the time is synchronously the same than in the reference frame from which he came.


Wrong: http://math.ucr.e..._paradox

Apr 21, 2014
Okay folks, check your definitions: An inertial reference frame is one in which Newton's laws hold true. When one accelerates, *they are no longer in an inertial frame*. We don't throw the word in there arbitrarily. And it is *entirely* because of that fact we can distinguish between "older" and younger twins.

Supposing one twin takes off and never returns (or two ships pass each other with synchronized clocks at passing), then yes, it's entirely fine for both observers to disagree with each other's measure of time. No paradox exists in such a case. We simply note there are no universal rulers or clocks.

But when there's a non-inertial frame of some kind, either relative to some gravitational effect or due to an acceleration of one or both observers, then by necessity, the observers will find that one measure is different than the other when they return together.

Why does this matter? Because you can *always* tell locally when you're undergoing acceleration.

Apr 21, 2014

Wrong: http://math.ucr.e..._paradox


Please stop quoting Haefele and Keating: They did not test motion in gravity free space and acceleration and deceleration in gravity-free space. Their results are thus worthless when it comes to the interpretation of Special Relativity.

Apr 21, 2014
An inertial reference frame is one in which Newton's laws hold true.
Also Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

When one accelerates, *they are no longer in an inertial frame*.
Einstein extended inertial reference-frames to the case where you have acceleration. The laws of physics are still the same except that the acceleration is now interpreted as a force of gravity.

He then contradicted himself, just as he did when he interpreted the time-formula in Special Theory of Relativity as time-dilation, by arguing that time slows down in a gravitational field. It does not: Only the speed of light slows down as it must when it approaches a body with mass.

The latter has nothing to do with curved space-time (space-time cannot exist since it violates the mathematics of manifolds) whatsoever, but with the wave-nature of light and matter. The electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of an EM wave changes within a gravitational field.


Apr 21, 2014
@johanfprins

First, I thought you were only going to post at ResearchGate in the future. That's what you said here.

http://phys.org/n...ong.html

Second, I would like to know what will happen if these experiments end up confirming relativity (as usual). Will you finally acknowledge that you were incorrect, or at least possibly incorrect?

Apr 21, 2014

Wrong: http://math.ucr.e..._paradox


Please stop quoting Haefele and Keating: They did not test motion in gravity free space and acceleration and deceleration in gravity-free space. Their results are thus worthless when it comes to the interpretation of Special Relativity.

There is no place in the universe that is free of gravity.

Apr 21, 2014
@Eikka

Locality is the key here.

In order to decelerate the non-earthbound twin would have to experience force. The easiest thing to consider is that the twin fires some thrusters and experiences deceleration. However, this would also have the consequence of locally altering the other twin's experience of space and time. The earthbound twin experiences no such decelerating force, and so his local notion of space and time remains unchanged. This local alteration of space and time is what drives the lack of aging in the non-earthbound twin.

Now, you might contend that SR does not address acceleration (which I would disagree with), but it doesn't matter, because it is definitely true that SR addresses impulse, which is just the discrete version of force. Indeed, relativistic momentum, force and energy, can be derived by a thought experiment involving elastic collisions. The impulse is local, so the same argument applies.

Apr 21, 2014
Please stop quoting Haefele and Keating


Please stop promoting pseudoscience.

Apr 21, 2014
@johanfprins

First, I thought you were only going to post at ResearchGate in the future. That's what you said here.
That is what I should do since on ResearcGate the people do not hide like criminals behind false names as is done on this forum. But one can understand this since most of the people who post here are, like you, are jackasses: However, there are also people which are not as dishonest and stupid as you are, who read this forum: I have to sometimes jump in to point out that they should not take a jackass like you seriously.

Second, I would like to know what will happen if these experiments end up confirming relativity (as usual). Will you finally acknowledge that you were incorrect, or at least possibly incorrect?
I always accept experimental results provided the experiment is clean and intelligent. The Haefele and Keating experiment does not fall within this category, Neither do I know of any other experiments that do when it comes to "time-dilation"

Apr 21, 2014
@ Gawad,

You are the one who is promoting Voodoo science. Give me the experimental proof where a clock has been travelling in a straight-line within gravity free space and it was found that it kept slower time than a clock relative to which it is moving. You cannot, but you claim that it is so.

If you cannot get a region that is truly free of gravity, the experiment must be done within constant gravity environment using rectilinear motion. Once you have to make corrections for aeroplane acceleration, change in gravity, the Sagnac effect, etc. any conclusion drawn is suspect.

Apr 21, 2014
Locality is the key here.

Now, you might contend that SR does not address acceleration (which I would disagree with), but it doesn't matter, because it is definitely true that SR addresses impulse, which is just the discrete version of force. Indeed, relativistic momentum, force and energy, can be derived by a thought experiment involving elastic collisions.
Why do this when one can derive the relativistic momentum, force and energy directly from Newton's second law without assuming an impulse?

The impulse is local, so the same argument applies.
So you are arguing that the impulse changes the time, NOT the rectilinear motion. Thus you are stating that a twin that accelerates by an impulse, decelerates by an impulse and return by an impulse will be younger than his twin. And that this age difference is not caused by the length of time that the one twin moved rectilinearly relative to the other before returning. Correct?

Apr 21, 2014
That is what I should do since on ResearcGate the people do not hide like criminals behind false names as is done on this forum."

And yet, you don't do it...
However, there are also people which are not as dishonest and stupid as you are, who read this forum.

An enjoyable activity of mine is to read your comments and imagine that you are the Chamberlain Skesis from Dark Crystal while saying them. Sorry, what were you saying?
I always accept experimental results provided the experiment is clean and intelligent.

Like...the experiment proposed in this article?
The Haefele and Keating experiment does not fall within this category

...Which is not the experiment proposed in this article.
Neither do I know of any other experiments that do when it comes to "time-dilation"

...

You didn't answer my question. Let me be more explicit, if the experiment proposed in this article confirms SR (as usual), will you accept that you are incorrect (even possibly)?

Apr 21, 2014
The Haefele Keating experiment does not confirm time dilation as interpreted by Einstein at all: Just as the observation of the motion of the planets from earth do not confirm epicycles at all.

The Haefele Keating experiment is a stupid experiment which only proves that the speed of light varies with gravity, and since the time measured by an atomic clock is determined by the speed of light. This changes the time on the clocks NOT SR at all. I can construct a clock that will keep faster time when gravity increases. This states nothing about space-time.

Apr 21, 2014
Why do this when one can derive the relativistic momentum, force and energy directly from Newton's second law without assuming an impulse?


You can do that. Indeed, I personally think it is much more instructive (and probably physically relevant) to derive those quantities from continuously applied force. In fact, in the paragraph you omitted in the quote, I first argued that the asymmetry arises because one twin experiences a force while the other doesn't.
So you are arguing that the impulse changes the time, NOT the rectilinear motion.

I cannot answer this because I don't know what you mean.
And that this age difference is not caused by the length of time that the one twin moved rectilinearly relative to the other before returning. Correct?

Whose length of time?

Apr 21, 2014
the mirror turns the quantum vacuum into particles.
Wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?

Apr 21, 2014
the mirror turns the quantum vacuum into particles.
Wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?


The theoretical "Quantum foam" continuously creates Particle/anti-particle pairs. Normally these destroy one another. When something like a blackholes even horizon (hawking radiation), or in this case the magnetic mirror, takes one of the particles out of the system, it's anti-particle doesn't get destroyed. In a blackhole the antiparticle is trapped on the bad side of the event horrizon so the blackhole does lose or gain mass/energy because it's absorbed. In the case of the mirror it most likely reacts with part of the detector and so yes, the mirror would lose energy.

Apr 21, 2014
The Haefele Keating experiment does not confirm time dilation as interpreted by Einstein at all: Just as the observation of the motion of the planets from earth do not confirm epicycles at all.

The Haefele Keating experiment is a stupid experiment which only proves that the speed of light varies with gravity, and since the time measured by an atomic clock is determined by the speed of light. This changes the time on the clocks NOT SR at all. I can construct a clock that will keep faster time when gravity increases. This states nothing about space-time.


Atomic clocks have nothing to do with the speed of light. They measure the resonant frequency of which ever atom they happen to be using to keep time. All elements have a different resonance and it has nothing to do with the speed of light.

Apr 22, 2014
In fact, in the paragraph you omitted in the quote, I first argued that the asymmetry arises because one twin experiences a force while the other doesn't.
I have not denied this asymmetry: It has already been accounted for by Galileo's inertia. But you are arguing that it is this asymmetry which causes the change in age, and NOT the formula t'=(gamma)*t when there is no asymmetry while the twins are moving with a constant speed. Correct?
So you are arguing that the impulse changes the time, NOT the rectilinear motion.

I cannot answer this because I don't know what you mean.
I have just now reframed it. I think the meaning is crystal clear!
And that this age difference is not caused by the length of time that the one twin moved rectilinearly relative to the other before returning. Correct?
Whose length of time? The SAME length of time that expired simultaneously within each reference frame.

Apr 22, 2014
Atomic clocks have nothing to do with the speed of light. They measure the resonant frequency of which ever atom they happen to be using to keep time. All elements have a different resonance and it has nothing to do with the speed of light.
This resonant frequency is given by the light that the atom emits: And for any coherent-light wave (a photon-wave is one) one has that (omega)=c*k. Thus when the speed of light changes, (omega) changes. Have you ever solved Maxwell's equations? Or have you never heard of them?

Apr 22, 2014
I have not denied this asymmetry: It has already been accounted for by Galileo's inertia.

True
But you are arguing that it is this asymmetry which causes the change in age, and NOT the formula t'=(gamma)*t when there is no asymmetry while the twins are moving with a constant speed. Correct?

No, I am not arguing that. First, I was responding to Eikka because he/she was having difficulty understanding where the asymmetry in the situation comes from. Second, I explicitly said that the deceleration that the non-earthbound twin experiences causes his local notion of space-time to change. Not all of the universe is decelerated--just the traveling twin. This is what breaks the asymmetry of the aging in the twins.
If neither twin decelerates, each will physically interact with the other as if the other has aged more slowly.

Apr 22, 2014
Atomic clocks have nothing to do with the speed of light. They measure the resonant frequency of which ever atom they happen to be using to keep time. All elements have a different resonance and it has nothing to do with the speed of light.
This resonant frequency is given by the light that the atom emits: And for any coherent-light wave (a photon-wave is one) one has that (omega)=c*k. Thus when the speed of light changes, (omega) changes. Have you ever solved Maxwell's equations? Or have you never heard of them?


Do you usually win arguments with insult? You're the one trying to upend science in the comments section of a news article, so I believe the burden of proof is on you, with the whole of science against you.

Are you going to link me to some peer reviewed studies on your inane ideas? Or are you just making this garbage up as you go along?

Apr 22, 2014
@ Gawad,

You are the one who is promoting Voodoo science.


There's no problem with Hafele and Keating nor with Vessot or Alley, you're just not equipped to understand them. Case closed. I responded to Eikka's questions with essentially the same answers as Furlong, and it's not my intention to get into an argument with a drug-crazed felon like you. Have a better one.

Apr 22, 2014
But you are arguing that it is this asymmetry which causes the change in age, and NOT the formula t'=(gamma)*t when there is no asymmetry while the twins are moving with a constant speed. Correct?

No, I am not arguing that.

If neither twin decelerates, each will physically interact with the other as if the other has aged more slowly.


The latter means that neither has aged! So why do you state that you are not arguing that it is only the asymmetry which is causing the age difference and not different ageing while they are moving within a constant speed relative to another? According to my understanding this is precisely what you are arguing.

Apr 22, 2014
This resonant frequency is given by the light that the atom emits: And for any coherent-light wave (a photon-wave is one) one has that (omega)=c*k. Thus when the speed of light changes, (omega) changes. Have you ever solved Maxwell's equations? Or have you never heard of them?


Do you usually win arguments with insult?
I was not trying to insult you but was only astonished that you obviously have never heard about k=(omega)/c.

You're the one trying to upend science in the comments section of a news article, so I believe the burden of proof is on you,
I agree! And I have and am supplying the proof.

with the whole of science against you.
Not "the science" but the dogmatic buffoons who think they know science when they just repeat the accepted dogma like a bunch of brainless parrots.

Are you going to link me to some peer reviewed studies on your inane ideas?


Try: Physics Essays 26 (2013) 59, Physics Essays 27 (2014) 38-54

Apr 22, 2014
I responded to Eikka's questions with essentially the same answers as Furlong, and it's not my intention to get into an argument with a drug-crazed felon like you. Have a better one.


Obviously you cannot, since you do not know your physics! No wonder you post anonymously. This is what people always do when they know they are incompetent!

Z99
Apr 22, 2014
For those confused by the path this thread has taken, I advise the following:
1. Ignore johanfprins. Also ignore any wasting time replying to his logic-chopping. SR and GR have been confirmed to high degrees of accuracy and precision, and they remain VERY good approximations to the "way the Universe works".
2. Note that the "twin paradox" is not well defined here. Simple examples use a traveling twin moving at a constant speed near the speed of light (no acceleration). This isn't possible, at some point the traveler MUST accelerate away from her birthplace (Earth) to reach high speed relative to it. The fact that the twins see light from one emitting it (or sound, etc.) at different times, is indisputable, but has nothing to do with the real twin paradox, signal-lag effect is irrelevant. Simple correct twin paradox assumes either 1) acceleration then decceleration (return) OR 2) acceleration, coasting, then decceleration (return) of ONE twin. So assume no communication till return.

Z99
Apr 22, 2014
3. It is NOT true (in the absense of huge gravity fields - meaning SR ) that the two twins are equivalent. You can ALWAYS tell (given the right equipment) that you are either accelerating or not accelerating. Acceleration causes a force you will FEEL.
4. So the twin on Earth, (ignoring the effect of the Earth's gravity, orbital motions, etc.), KNOWS he is in constant motion (inertial motion), and the traveling twin KNOWS she is accelerating (or deccelerating, as the case may be...decceleration is just acceleration in the opposite direction, btw).
5. For the two twins, both at constant velocity (whatever it is), you need to consider the distance between them as important in determining what they will see when they meet. In order for them to meet (again), one MUST accelerate. It is the acceleration in the distance between them that 'slows' one clock so that the one on Earth has lived much longer than the one traveling. It is just as true to say the one traveling has lived less.

Z99
Apr 22, 2014
6. "Slows" the clock is really a bad way of putting it: BOTH twins experience one second for every second their clocks tick off. Its just that when they get together again, after one has accelerated out to far far away and then come back, then that twin will have had less ticks tocked up on her clock. She will be physically younger, with fewer memories, than her now older more experienced, more decrepit, twin.
7. The paradox is usually sneaked into this scenario by assuming no acceleration is needed and so by asserting that the twins ONLY differ by their velocity, each moving with exactly the same speed relative to the other. This is the false premise. One accelerates, one doesn't - thats a huge difference.

Apr 22, 2014
The latter means that neither has aged!

No it doesn't.
Just apply the Lorentz transformation to see how this works. Imagine that after each second, a personal light goes off. For you, my light will go off at point -vt*gamma and time t*gamma. But I will measure your light as happening at vt'*gamma and time t'*gamma. If you have some friend at rest with you, some distance x'=-vt' away (so that he is right next to me when his light goes off), you will see him age at the same time you age, so to you, his light will also go off at t'. Well, I will see his light go off at x=(x'+vt')*gamma = 0, t=(t'+x'v/c^2)*gamma = t'*(1-v^2/c^2)*gamma = t'/gamma. So, when I am at age t'/gamma, I will measure your friend to be at age t'. You and your friend will both agree that I am at age t'/gamma at time t'. Furthermore, I will agree with your friend that I am at that age (since I saw his light go off at t'/gamma, signifying he was at age t'). There is no contradiction.

Apr 22, 2014
Where did this certifiable IDIOT come from? Zephyr? Is it YOU again?

6. "Slows" the clock is really a bad way of putting it: BOTH twins experience one second for every second their clocks tick off.
Bravo!! Thus they do not age relative to one another! Correct?

Its just that when they get together again, after one has accelerated out to far far away and then come back, then that twin will have had less ticks tocked up on her clock. She will be physically younger, with fewer memories, than her now older more experienced, more decrepit, twin.
Why far far away? Prove this by using STR! You cannot,

. The paradox is usually sneaked into this scenario by assuming no acceleration is needed and so by asserting that the twins ONLY differ by their velocity, each moving with exactly the same speed relative to the other. This is the false premise. One accelerates, one doesn't - thats a huge difference.
Why does this make a difference?

Apr 22, 2014
Just apply the Lorentz transformation to see how this works. Imagine that after each second, a personal light goes off.
As usual, you have it all wrong! When the light goes off at t' another person in my reference frame who is coincident with this light will also see it going off at time t'. Since his/her clock is in the same reference frame as my clock, my clock will also show t' at that instant in time: However, relative to me the Lorentz transformation gives that t=(gamma)*t': A LATER TIME.

I do not experience this light at the same coincident time, when it is emitted simultaneously within my reference frame and the moving reference frame (as can be attested to by my friend within my reference frame who coincides with the moving clock/light when the light is emitted); but at a later time t; WHICH IS ALO THE SAME ON BOTH CLOCKS. The simultaneous event is observed by me to be non-simultaneous since I am not coincident with the event. The clocks keep exactly the same time!

Apr 22, 2014
When the light goes off at t' another person in my reference frame who is coincident with this light will also see it going off at time t'

If you mean that you and your friend are at rest with each other, and you both see the same event, both of you will agree that this event happened at the same time, then yes. However, that does not mean that the originator of the event (who might not be at rest with you and your friend) agrees that it happened at the same time. I covered this in my explanation.
However, relative to me the Lorentz transformation gives that t=(gamma)*t': A LATER TIME.

But the light went off at your friend's position (who I assume you also agree was passing me at the moment), not yours, so that is not the correct transformation.
You would have seen the event happen at (x'=-vt', t'), not (x'=0,t'). Using the correct transformation, I would have seen this occur at (-vt' + vt')*gamm = 0 and (t' -(v^2)t'/c^2)*gamma = t'/gamma. So, you are not correct

Apr 23, 2014
If you mean that you and your friend are at rest with each other, and you both see the same event, both of you will agree that this event happened at the same time, then yes.
Good, you are getting there, albeit VERY slowly.

However, that does not mean that the originator of the event (who might not be at rest with you and your friend) agrees that it happened at the same time.
WRONG! The originator of the event must be at the position of the event, and is thus coincident with my friend: Therefore their clocks will show the same time.

This originator is stationary within the RF moving past, and therefore his friend at the origin of this "moving" RF will also see the same time. Only I, at the origin of my "stationary" RF will conclude that the event must have occurred at a later time t=(gamma)*t'. However, after the event I can walk over to my friend who was coincident with the event, and I will find that the event actually did occur at the time t' within my RF.

Apr 23, 2014
Good, you are getting there, albeit VERY slowly.

mmmMMMMMmmmmmmm...
WRONG! The originator of the event must be at the position of the event, and is thus coincident with my friend: Therefore their clocks will show the same time.

That does not follow.
This originator is stationary within the RF moving past...

No...you are mixing up people in this thought experiment. I see you and your friend moving. I am at the origin of my IRF. You are at the origin of yours. Your friend is passing me. I am the one who originates the light.
Even if your friend originates the light, though, I will see it at t'/gamma, and your friend will see it at t'. Conversely, if I see you emit a light at t, you will seen it happen at t/gamma. Indeed, even if I see my light go off at t'/gamma and see a light at your position go off at the same time, you will see yours go off at t'/(gamma^2) and mine go off at t'. Your friend will agree with you (not me) on both lights too.

Apr 23, 2014
@johanfprins
There is no contradiction. You and your friend who are in the same IRF agree on the time and position of all events. I and anyone at rest with me will agree on the time and position of all events. You and your friend will agree that I measure those events differently than you do. I and my friends will agree that you measure those events differently than we do.
There would only be a contradiction if two people in the same IRF disagreed on when or where an event occured.
Think of it another way. If I see you passing 40mph to the left, you will see yourself as not moving at all. We disagree on how quickly you are moving, and yet, there is no contradiction. The same is true for this situation, except the things we disagree on are not velocity, but the time and place of events.

Apr 23, 2014
@johanfprins
There would only be a contradiction if two people in the same IRF disagreed on when or where an event occurred.
Instead of correcting all your wrong derivations, I will concentrate on this sentence.

I am at the origin 0 of my reference frame and my friend is at a position x=X from me. You are at 0' within the moving reference-frame. You pass my friend at a time t' on your clock and cause an event when you coincide with my friend. Clearly the time that my friend experiences the event must be t' since one cannot have two different times simultaneously at the same position in space.

From my perspective at 0, I observe the event at time t=(gamma)*t'. Thus, although I and my friend are stationary within the same inertial reference frame, we differ on the time at which the event occurred.

This means that your statement above is wrong: Unless two different times can manifest simultaneously at the same position in space. The latter is clearly absurd.

Apr 23, 2014
Clearly the time that my friend experiences the event must be t' since one cannot have two different times simultaneously at the same position in space.

No, not "clearly". My experience of time is not necessarily the same as your friend's experience of time. That's the whole point!
Ok, let's place the origin of your IRF at your friend instead of at yourself, and assume that your friend's clock and my clock are synchronized at the moment we pass, at 0 seconds. I see you passing to the right.

From the Lorentz transformation:
Me: t = 0, x = 0
You and Friend: t' = (0 - 0*v/c^2)*gamma = 0, x' = (0 - v*0)*gamma = 0

So, everybody agrees that I and your friend passed each other at the origin, and at the same time.
Now, 1 s afterwards, I emit a light.
From the transformation:
Me: t = 1 s, x = 0
You and Friend: t' = (1 s - 0*v/c^2)*gamma = 1 s*gamma, x'=(0-v*1 s/c^2)*gamma = -v* 1 s*gamma/c^2
You and your friend still agree on when that light was emitted, but I don't.

Apr 23, 2014
Clearly the time that my friend experiences the event must be t' since one cannot have two different times simultaneously at the same position in space.


Oh my J**** f****** H. C***** (pardon my French)! So *THIS* s your problem? You think because 2 people share the same *locality* they must share the same RF? And *YOU* accuse others of not understanding physics? Wow, just wow. That just beats all. And I was wondering how everything that has been painstakingly explained to you over the years could remain so opaque to you. Now it falls into place. No wonder you're so nasty with your betters; you just can't "see the image in the stereogram", can't you, and you hate them for it. Well, at least that one comment of yours was bloody enlightening!

Apr 23, 2014
Oh my J**** f****** H. C***** (pardon my French)!

Haha. This has been my internal monologue for a while.
So *THIS* s your problem? You think because 2 people share the same *locality* they must share the same RF?

I am not sure if it is that he thinks that they must share the same RF, or more that he thinks that when two people occupy the same space-time position that means that they must always agree on the coordinates of that space-time position. What really baffles me is his claim that two people at rest in the same RF will disagree on the simultaneity of events.
I would like to know what he thinks would happen if only he and his friend were present in the scenario, at rest with each other. Would they still disagree if his friend witnessed a flash at this position? Would they only disagree on when it occurred because some third party happened to be passing by at the moment? Either way, the implications are nonsensical!

Apr 23, 2014
From my perspective at 0, I observe the event at time t=(gamma)*t'. Thus, although I and my friend are stationary within the same inertial reference frame, we differ on the time at which the event occurred.

Actually, this raises an interesting point. Suppose you are correct, and you and your friend differ on the time the event occurred. Then, what would happen if only you and your friend were present in the scenario, and you were still at rest with each other?
Would you both still disagree on when the event occurred? Would you only disagree when a moving party was present?
It seem silly that your disagreement should depend on whether there was a 3rd moving party present, so let's assume that you and your friend always just disagree on when things happen when you are far apart. Well, both of your clocks are synchronized and move at the same rate. So, this too is nonsensical. So, there is no way that you could be correct.

Apr 23, 2014
Clearly the time that my friend experiences the event must be t' since one cannot have two different times simultaneously at the same position in space.

No, not "clearly". My experience of time is not necessarily the same as your friend's experience of time. That's the whole point!


Thus when you coincide with my friend and explode a bomb (kamikaze style) only YOU will blow up! My friend will move on to a position z=(gamma)*(vt') and only then blow up at a later time t=(gamma)*t'? Are you all there? Or does this insane ability to argue illogically run in your family? Have one of your forefathers been a Cardinal in the Vatican when Galileo alive?

Gawad has already demonstrated time an again that he is a brainless idiot. Are YOU also one?

Apr 23, 2014
Gawad has already demonstrated time an again that he is a brainless idiot. Are YOU also one?

Yeah, yeah, Jonny. Down boy.

Apr 23, 2014
@ Furlong and Gawad,

You are stating that YOU and my friend blow up simultaneously at two different times t' and t? LOL. Define what simultaneous means.

Both of you are totally demented! It is no use to state it to you since demented people like you think that they are rational. I pity you both! Logic is definitely NOT within your bloodlines!

Apr 23, 2014
@ Furlong and Gawad,

You are stating that YOU and my friend blow up simultaneously at two different times t' and t? LOL. Define what simultaneous means.

Both of you are totally demented! It is no use to state it to you since demented people like you think that they are rational. I pity you both! Logic is definitely NOT within your bloodlines!


Skippy why you don't let the smart peoples try to teach you something? If you want to pretend to be the scientist maybe you should do it on a site where there are no peoples who know the real science stuffs. Now if you don't stop with the name calling and outbursts and disruptions Cher, I might just have to send you to the corner with the silly looking pointy cap on your head, eh?

I'll be watching you johnpringle-Skippy.

Apr 23, 2014
Thus when you coincide with my friend and explode a bomb (kamikaze style) only YOU will blow up!

And so will your friend.
My friend will move on to a position z=(gamma)*(vt') and only then blow up at a later time t=(gamma)*t'?

No, he will blow up at the same space-time point that I blow up (but we disagree on the coordinate). In fact, even if we synchronize our origins, our coordinate spaces will still differ.
Let me be more explicit.
When your friend is killed by the explosion, he thinks he's aged t'. Just before this, he notes that my age is t'/gamma. You agree with him on this. I agree that he has aged t'.
When I am killed by this same explosion, I also agree that he is aged t', and my age is t'/gamma.
After that, I and your friend are both dead. In your IRF, we were killed at t'. In mine, we were killed at t'/gamma. As the last one alive, you saw it happen at t', but you also know that I thought it happened at t'/gamma.
There is no contradiction.

Apr 23, 2014
No, he will blow up at the same space-time point that I blow up (but we disagree on the coordinate).
How the EFFEN HELL can you blow up at the SAME space-time coordinate but disagree about the coordinate?
] In fact, even if we synchronize our origins, our coordinate spaces will still differ.
If they do it is EFFEN impossible to blow up at the same position and time, as you have just conceded that must happen!
When your friend is killed by the explosion, he thinks he's aged t'. Just before this, he notes that my age is t'/gamma. You agree with him on this.
BULLSHIT!!!
There is no contradiction.
LOL!!! Are you really totally insane? Or are you trying to be funny? So if I "think" I am older than another person when the same bomb explodes at the same coordinates at which we are at the same time, we will experience the blast at different times!! Really, Even a brainless person like you can think of a better argument than this!

Apr 23, 2014
How the EFFEN HELL can you blow up at the SAME space-time coordinate but disagree about the coordinate?

If they do it is EFFEN impossible to blow up at the same position and time, as you have just conceded that must happen!

BULLSHIT!!!

LOL!!! Are you really totally insane? Or are you trying to be funny? So if I "think" I am older than another person when the same bomb explodes at the same coordinates at which we are at the same time, we will experience the blast at different times!! Really, Even a brainless person like you can think of a better argument than this!


johnpringle-Skippy I got the bad karma points for you. This physorg is the family friendly place and you are disrupting the peace. Into the corner with the silly looking pointy cap you couyon. Pipe your you down and quit interfering with the smart peoples trying to teach you something. These peoples know the science stuff and you are making it hard on them to explain what they know.

Apr 23, 2014
LOL!!! Are you really totally insane? Or are you trying to be funny? So if I "think" I am older than another person when the same bomb explodes at the same coordinates at which we are at the same time, we will experience the blast at different times!! Really, Even a brainless person like you can think of a better argument than this!

He's not trying to be funny, this is *run of the mill SR*: Anyone who's done even elementary work in SR will understand that that while a bomb could well kill two people together in a given local space (as in your example), depending on their individual routes through spacetime, each of them might not agree on how much time has elapsed since they were born when the bomb goes off, even if they were born at the same time.

All you're doing here is explicitly demonstrating that you don't understand Relativity and Lorentz transformations. Have you ever hear of Minkowski space or solved problems in Minkowski space? Well there you go.

Apr 23, 2014
we will experience the blast at different times!! Really, Even a brainless person like you can think of a better argument than this!


No, that's *exactly* the point he's trying to get through your THICK HEAD: going back to the example of the twins, that's exactly what happens: the bomb goes off and kills them both TOGETHER, but each of them dies after a different elapsed time, one twin could be age 20 (the "travelling" twin) and the other age 40 (the "static" twin). So in effect, yes, they do die at "different times" as far as each one of them is concerned, even when they die together.

Apr 23, 2014
You are stating that YOU and my friend blow up simultaneously at two different times t' and t? LOL. Define what simultaneous means.


HERE try THIS: http://www.pitt.e...dex.html

To quote: "you will see that this is the central adjustment Einstein made to our understanding of space and time in special relativity . Once you grasp it, everything else makes sense. (And until you do, nothing quite makes sense!)"

Oh my, how "à propos"! (Again, excuse my French, ça pourrais être prire, au moins c'est pas du Chiac ;)

The only way out of this, the only way you'd be right is to postulate a variable speed of light. And that, Johnny, that ain't in the cards.

Apr 23, 2014
How the EFFEN HELL can you blow up at the SAME space-time coordinate but disagree about the coordinate?

No, they blow up at the same space-time point, not the same space-time coordinate. Those are two different things. You can imagine two minkowski coordinate systems as being reproductions of the same picture, but with differently sized dimensions. No matter how much you align the reproductions at a single point, overall, the reproductions will not line up. But they are still of the same picture. Furthermore, the contents of the picture depends on this fact.
If they do it is EFFEN impossible to blow up at the same position and time, as you have just conceded that must happen!

But they do blow up at the same space-time point. Two co-moving objects just won't necessarily agree on the coordinate of that point, no matter how hard they try.
LOL!!! Are you really totally insane? Or are you trying to be funny?

No, but I am trying to be patient.

Apr 23, 2014
Oh my, how "à propos"! (Again, excuse my French, ça pourrais être prire, au moins c'est pas du Chiac ;).


@ Gawad-Skippy, ol Ira don't understand the prayer you said. Maybe in du Chiac the prire mean another thing? Or maybe what you mean is the "ça pourrais être pire" as in the "it could be worse", In the Cajun french and the Paris french "prire" means prayer and the "pire" means worse. With them Canadian Skippys is no telling what they means all the the time.

No that the johnpringle-Skippy would be able to understand in anyway because he don't seem to understand much.

Ol Ira, can understand the Paris french and the Cajun french because us coonass is smart like that. But the Paris Skippys can't understand the Cajun french or they pretend like they can't understand, but going by their expression on their face when I cuss them good in the Cajun I think they understand better then they say they do.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Gawad-Skippy. Good karma points for you.

Apr 23, 2014
@johanfprins

Here's another way to think about this.
Let's say that instead of blowing up, I drop dead, when your friend is passing me at what he perceived to be time t', and he, not knowing my age, does some forensics on my body to determine it. He would find that I would have only been t'/gamma seconds old. So, now, suppose that he wants to double-check, so he does some radiological dating on my corpse. He would find that, once again, I was about t'/gamma years old. No matter what experiment my friend does to determine my age, he will always find that I am t'/gamma seconds old. Now, suppose that, soon after, he drops dead. A person doing forensics or any other measurement on him would find that he was t' seconds old. The results of these experiments would not depend on the IRF.

If nature did things your way, if you remotely measured my age, it would vary depending on how quickly you were moving or how far you were apart from the time of death, which is nonsense.

Apr 23, 2014
@ Gawad-Skippy, ol Ira don't understand the prayer you said. Maybe in du Chiac the prire mean another thing? Or maybe what you mean is the "ça pourrais être pire" as in the "it could be worse", In the Cajun french and the Paris french "prire" means prayer and the "pire" means worse. With them Canadian Skippys is no telling what they means all the the time.


Not to offend my Maritime compatriots, but I just ment that "my French could be worse, it could be Chiac." Chiac being the "blend" of French-English often spoken by New Brunswick Acadians. It's jokingly regarded as reflecting an inability to pick one or the other.

Apr 23, 2014
LOL!!! Are you really totally insane? Or are you trying to be funny?

No, but I am trying to be patient.


I don't know how you do it, Furlong; you're like some kind of physics Gandhi. Dirac bless you.

Apr 23, 2014
Not to offend my Maritime compatriots, but I just ment that "my French could be worse, it could be Chiac." Chiac being the "blend" of French-English often spoken by New Brunswick Acadians. It's jokingly regarded as reflecting an inability to pick one or the other.


Ira-Skippy don't know if they the Maritime Skippys is offended or not no. But they should not be too much. The Cajun french is like that with some mixed in words and it's not so easy to offend us. Except for that Really-Skippy couyon, he offended me when he made the remarks that Ira-Skippy me is a criminal just because he is coonass and peoples should not talk to me because of being the Cajun.

The only time that the Really-Skippy comes around is when he gets the boot at his regular place to pretend he is the BIG CHIEF and science man. He must be taking care with his Q's and P's because he hasn't been around here lately.

Apr 23, 2014
Ira-Skippy don't know if they the Maritime Skippys is offended or not no. But they should not be too much. The Cajun french is like that with some mixed in words and it's not so easy to offend us. Except for that Really-Skippy couyon, he offended me when he made the remarks that Ira-Skippy me is a criminal just because he is coonass and peoples should not talk to me because of being the Cajun.

The only time that the Really-Skippy comes around is when he gets the boot at his regular place to pretend he is the BIG CHIEF and science man. He must be taking care with his Q's and P's because he hasn't been around here lately.

You have a fascinating dialect. I got most of it. What does Skippy refer to, though?

Apr 23, 2014
LOL!!! Are you really totally insane? Or are you trying to be funny?

No, but I am trying to be patient.


I don't know how you do it, Furlong; you're like some kind of physics Gandhi. Dirac bless you.


Heh, thanks. Well, I am clearly a fool for trying to instill some sense in the man. He doesn't even seem to be particularly interested in discussing physics, just insulting people.

Apr 23, 2014
You have a fascinating dialect. I got most of it. What does Skippy refer to, though?


Skippy is just how I call peoples. Like "Dude" or "man" or "guy". I don't mean anything by it. But it seems to bother the really stupid Skippys because they always get mad for me when I use it.

Don't ask me to explain it no, but the smarts peoples don't mind or don't ever tell ol Ira they mind. Like the Captain-Skippy, and the Magnus-Skippy and the Whydening-Skippy and the Q-Skippy and the Otto-Skippy and some more what I am forgetting them, they don't get so upset about my Skippys. But the stupid peoples act like ol Ira said something about their momma or worse, even though they see me call me Ira-Skippy. It is a Louisiana thing maybe. I sometimes use the "Cher" and the "Neg" and the "Podna" the same and not mean nothing by that either.

Apr 24, 2014
If EVER I have come across so many deluded people at one time::

Consider YOU at 0' and ME at 0, and we both have twins who are within our reference frames equal distances x=X and x'=X from 0 and 0''. Thus at t=t'=0, we are coincident and our twins are coincident.

Our twins slap each other when passing one another. They both agree that they are slapping the other guy at the same time t=t'=0. Thus, since the time is the same within each inertial reference frame You at 0' and I at 0 also agree that they slap one another at t=t'=0.

Now transform the slap at x'=X at time t'=0 to get what is observed at 0: You get:

x =G*X and t=G*(v/c^2)*X

Now transform the slap at x=X at time t=0 to get what is observed at 0'

x'=G*X and t'= MINUS*G*(v/c^2)*X

Thus according to YOU, my twin slaps your twin BEFORE YOU and I coincide at time t=t'=0, and also before our twins coincide. How do you explain this in terms of the one doing an autopsy on the other to determine his age; You are insane!!

Apr 24, 2014
Simultaneity is relative. This can only be analyzed by comparing intervals, not just a point in space-time. The interval is universal, but the displacement in proper time (age) will be relative.

Apr 24, 2014
Consider YOU at 0' and ME at 0, and we both have twins who are within our reference frames equal distances x=X and x'=X from 0 and 0''. Thus at t=t'=0, we are coincident and our twins are coincident.

Unless you and I are at rest with each other, those initial conditions can never happen. Because of the relativity of simultaneity, when my clock was at 0, I might have measured the twins as being in the same place at t =0, but you, in general, will have not at t' = 0. That does not mean you will never see them touch. Based on our relative motion, you might see them slap each other before, or after I do, but never exactly when I do. Now, here's a very important detail. As you and I pass each other, since the twins are away from us, the physical effects of the slap will not have gotten to either of us yet. They will only get to us after we have passed each other. (to be continued)

Apr 24, 2014
Now, suppose I receive that information when my clock reads t_s and you receive it when yours reads t_s'. SR dictates that when we use that information to extrapolate when that slap occurred, we will not agree on where or when it occurred. In other words, there is no physical measurement either of us could ever do, which would show that they both slapped each other at the same space-time coordinate.
But, this is ok. Both of us agreed that a twin slap occurred. In fact, everyone agrees that it occurred! There is no contradiction.
And here's the thing, no matter how complicated the physical situation is, (maybe I see 6 people slap each other at the same time), you STILL will not get a contradiction, because in general, people who are moving relative to me will not agree that those slaps happened at the same space-time coordinates. We all will, however, agree that each slap occurred.

Apr 24, 2014
You make me think about an elder in our church who believed that everything was predestined. He used contorted logic to explain why I should still attend church even though God has already predestined whether I will go to heaven or to hell.

You argue: "Both of us agreed that a twin slap occurred. In fact, everyone agrees that it occurred! There is no contradiction." The twins KNOW that it occurred simultaneously at the same time. I agree that I can at my origin only record that the time at which the slap occurred by your twin at a later time on my clock, and you can record that the slap by my twin occurred on your clock at an earlier time than it actually occurred. But this does not mean that the times within the two reference frames are simultaneously different at the instant that the slaps are exchanged. "Simultaneous" means that the times must be the same. Only an insane person will argue that the slaps occurred "simultaneously" at two different times.

Apr 24, 2014
You make me think about an elder in our church who believed that everything was predestined...

mmmMMMMmmmm
The twins KNOW that it occurred simultaneously at the same time.

No, the twins were part of an event in which they slapped each other. Their clocks were not synchronized when this occurred. It is not possible to have a physical situation where both you and I have synchronized our clocks, both of us agree that the the twins have synchronized their clocks at the same time, and the pairs of twins are moving relative to each other.
You are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

Furthermore, you never responded to my challenge to your claim that two people at rest with each other would measure the same event as happening at different times.

Apr 24, 2014
@johanfprins
...But this does not mean that the times within the two reference frames are simultaneously different at the instant that the slaps are exchanged. "Simultaneous" means that the times must be the same.

There was one and only one space-time point at which they slapped each other.
There is no physical way to have two people moving relative to each other agree that it happened at the same space-time coordinate by performing physical measurements unless the event happened at each person's space-time origin. Again, it's like two reproductions of the same picture of differently sized length and width. You can always make the pictures match up at one point, but they will never match up at any other point. BUT THEY ARE STILL OF THE SAME PICTURE. Furthermore, the actual contents of that picture depend on the fact that we cannot match up the reproductions.

Apr 24, 2014
@ thefurlong

Now answer the following 2 simple questions:

1. Time existed looooong before clocks were invented. Yes or No?

2. Loooong before clocks were invented, has time been the same at all position points within a SINGLE inertial reference-frame? Yes or No?

These questions are simple: Even a brainless idiot should be able to answer them! So maybe even you can!

Apr 24, 2014
@ thefurlong

Now answer the following 2 simple questions:

1. Time existed looooong before clocks were invented. Yes or No?

2. Loooong before clocks were invented, has time been the same at all position points within a SINGLE inertial reference-frame? Yes or No?

These questions are simple: Even a brainless idiot should be able to answer them! So maybe even you can!


@ johnpringle-Skippy, you the couyon with the silly looking pointy cap on your head. Why you ask them if you are thinking you are so smart? Or if you think you can't have the answer try the google thing that works for me.

Apr 24, 2014
1. Time existed looooong before clocks were invented. Yes or No?

This is irrelevant. Instead of using clocks, people could use radioactively decaying elements to tell time. They could use human fingernail growth. It doesn't matter! All of these things are subject to the assumptions of relativity (and consequential laws thereof). They are all governed by the finite speed of information propagation.
2. Loooong before clocks were invented, has time been the same at all position points within a SINGLE inertial reference-frame? Yes or No?

Well, current evidence seems to indicate that space-time began with a tumultuous explosion, which originated from one point, where all matter and energy was flung every which way, so...I'm going to go with no. But, even if space-time began with everything at rest, spread out over some volume, I don't see what your point is.

Apr 24, 2014
1. Time existed looooong before clocks were invented. Yes or No?

This is irrelevant. Instead of using clocks, people could use radioactively decaying elements to tell time. They could use human fingernail growth. It doesn't matter! All of these things are subject to the assumptions of relativity (and consequential laws thereof). They are all governed by the finite speed of information propagation.


Where have I questioned this? You are getting more and more pathetic!

Your next answer is just pathetic: I did not ask about the creation of our Universe! You are ducking and diving. At least this proves that you are not totally as brainless as you are coming across. You just do not have any honesty or integrity.

Apr 24, 2014
@thefurlong

This takes the cake: "There is no physical way to have two people moving relative to each other agree that it happened at the same space-time coordinate by performing physical measurements unless the event happened at each person's space-time origin."

The fact is that the simultaneous slaps did happen at the coincident positions of the twins, thus defining their positions as a space-time origin for the simultaneous slaps that occurred. So why should we accept that our perceptions (when we are not at this space-time origin) of what happened, are correct? You are obviously spouting BS.

What we see are relativistic transformations, and as Galileo has already explained in detail more than 400 years ago, a relativistic transformation is not the same as what is actually happening within the other reference frame.

Furthermore, physics is an experimental science: This means that both you and I can walk afterwards to our twins and confirm that each one was slapped at t=t'=0.

Apr 24, 2014
Defining one event in space-time is not the issue, there is a difference in the proper time between two events, and the longer path (accelerated) will experience a shorter proper time.

Apr 24, 2014
Where have I questioned this? You are getting more and more pathetic!

So, you agree that the question, "Time existed looooong before clocks were invented. Yes or No?" is irrelevant then? I am so glad. Perhaps we can move on.
Your next answer is just pathetic.

So you must die, Gelfling! mmmMMMMmmmm.
I did not ask about the creation of our Universe!

Fine, I misunderstood that 2nd question.
If you are asking if the physical situation started out with every single person agreeing that their clock was simultaneously 0, then, no. In fact, this is something you would have to prove.
If you start from this assumption, you get a contradiction. Thus, your assumption is wrong.
We can start with you and me passing at the origin of our respective IRF's, and try to prove that the twins's clocks also agreed as they were passing, but we can't just assume that that's true.

Apr 24, 2014
The fact is that the simultaneous slaps did happen at the coincident positions of the twins, thus defining their positions as a space-time origin for the simultaneous slaps that occurred.

Oye.

Let's start from the beginning.
Here are my assumptions.
1) Everybody is carrying some means of telling the passage of time. Let's call it a clock for convenience's sake.
2) Everybody speaks a different language and hates each other, so there is no way for anybody to conspire to synchronize their clocks, or do anything else for that matter. A person can, however, glance in the direction of another person a distance away and see what time the other person's clock reads. This comes at the price of not immediately knowing what the time on someone's clock reads until after the effect has propagated at the speed of light. All I can do is conduct experiments remotely, using these finitely propagated effects.

(to be continued)

Apr 24, 2014
Well, current evidence seems to indicate that space-time began with a tumultuous explosion, which originated from one point, where all matter and energy was flung every which way, so...I'm going to go with no. But, even if space-time began with everything at rest, spread out over some volume, I don't see what your point is.


I don't think he's being very clear, but I think he may mean "does time elapse at the same rate at all points in a single given RF arbitrarily far back into the past". In which case the answer is yes, since all point share the same RF. I'm not sure that "has time been the same" actually means "does time elapse at the same rate". That's typically vague.

Apr 24, 2014
There is no paradox,the twin who leaves the earth would be younger as: Since many centuries ago, we know the maths of conversion of energy in to force & the reverse. Since about a century we know the maths of conversion of energy into mass & vice versa. We also have the maths of decay of photons into units of spacetime which are constituents of quantum vacuum. Therefore
force, energy, mass, matter, space, time and vacuum are different phases of the same entity and all are quantized. From Einstein's relativity maths,we can know that - 'contraction of 'space' converts 'space' in to time (time dilation) while contraction of 'time' converts 'time' into space.' This indicates that the same entity is changing phase. Since space is expanding, it means that the total potential (magnitude) of time possessed by the universe is decreasing by changing in to space. When the time contained by the universe get's converted fully in to 'space', further expansion of space would 'no more' be possible. Contraction of time means increased velocity of events with simultaneous dilation of space (increase in quantum vacuum), so the universal physical constants do not change. But increase in space (vacuum energy) requires energy, this comes from decay of mass to radiant energy which further deacays to quantum vacuum. The reverse of this process i.e, the process of accretion of mass involves the contraction of space with simultaneous dilation of time. The space between heavenly bodies or particles (with or without mass) which contracts tending to create mass or more mass is the force of gravity.
Contraction of space tends to cause motion and motion tends to cause contraction of space (Force).

The entity 'mass', which provides the energy (or force fields for quantum vacuum) for conversion of time in to space is therefore also the entity 'time'. In this way we see that energy, mass, force, space and time is infact the same entity. The oneness of mass and time is also apparent when they show the same property of dilation with increase in motion.
Motion is therefore conversion of space into time (mass).
Matter is a structure made up of space and time (mass). Acceleration creates mass from space. Resisting the motion of a particle having mass should make it loose mass (energy).Constant motion gives a constant converted amount of space into time (mass). Acceleration goes on creating mass from space (from quantum vacuum force fields/ vacuum energy). All mass produced by acceleration is positive mass. While mass produced by deceleration is negative mass.
The cosmic singularity has a negative mass/energy/time and a negative space/force which equals the positive mass/energy/time and positive space/ force of the universe. Zero mass particle.


Apr 24, 2014
(continued)
3) Now, pick a person. I will go with me because I am lovable. I just happen to pass another person, you, and because we hate each other, we slap each other. At the point at which we slap each other, our clocks both read 0 s. Let's say before this point, I was wearing eye patches and ear plugs so that I had no idea where anyone else in the universe was. Just before we passed, I took those ridiculous things off so that I could see and hear properly. In that way, no information about you or the twins got to me before then.
4) Because I hate your and my twins, I also look around for them. In fact, after some time passes, the light from them slapping each other gets to me. Using some physical measurement I determine that that slap, in fact, happened at some point, x, when my clock read 0 s. Not only that, but when I see that when they slapped each other, their clocks read 0 s.
Now, what happens when that same information gets to you?
(to be continued)

Apr 24, 2014
(continued)
Well, the answer is, when the information gets to you, you will find that your clock did not read 0 s!
But I can't just tell you this answer and expect you to believe me, so let me derive it.
Your and my space-time origins coincided the moment we passed and slapped each other. This means that I can use the Lorentz transformation to determine when you would measure the twin slapping event.
For me, it happened at x, t = 0 s
So, using the lorentz transformation, for you the event happened at x' = (x - vt)*gamma = x*gamma, t' = (t - x*v/c^2)*gamma = -x*v*gamma/c^2.

You saw measured that they slapped each other at t' = -x*v*gamma/c^2, which is not 0 s!

So, what conclusion can we draw from this?

Well, assuming that the Lorentz transformation is valid, the only conclusion we can draw is that you measured your clocks not to be synchronized! The two slap events were simultaneous for me, but not for you!

Apr 25, 2014
@ thefurlough,

Thank you for at least making an effort to explain your muddled thinking:

As far as I can ascertain you agree that if YOU are at 0' and I am at 0, then when we pass one another we are sharing the same instant in time, so that if we have clocks we can set them to zero.

It also seems that you agree that within a single inertial reference frame (not looking outside of it as Feynman pointed out), time is the same at every coordinate position. This must surely mean that at the instant that we pass one another, one can assume that all clocks at any position within my reference are at the same time: i.e. t=0; and that all clocks at any position within your inertial reference frame are also at the same instant in time: i.e. t'=0.

It also seems that you agree that my twin can be at a distance x=X from me and your twin can be at a distance x'=X from you, and that this means that when we are passing at time t=t'=0, our twins are also passing one another.

continued

Apr 25, 2014
Now assume that both of our twins have a light source, and when they pass one another my twin switches on your twin's light source, and your twin switches on my twin's light source. You and I are not at their position and can only deduce from the light coming from the two sources what has happened.

Your twin's light source is at x'=X from you, and the light will thus reach you after a time interval that T'=X/c. Thus you can confidently conclude that my twin switched on your twin's light source at a time which required the light to reach you after the time interval T'=X/c.

Similarly, my twin's light source is at x=X from me, and the light will reach me after a time interval T=X/c. Thus, I can confidently conclude that your twin switched on my twin's light source at a time which required the light to reach me after the time interval T=X/c.

We can now radio these times to one another and we find that T'=T. Our clocks showed the SAME time when our respective light signals reached us

Apr 25, 2014
...so that if we have clocks we can set them to zero.

That was not my assumption. I told you that in this thought experiment, we can't conspire to synchronize our clocks. In this scenario, when we pass and our clocks ARBITRARILY match up. Likewise, then the information about the twin slap gets to me, if it wasn't clear, their clocks ARBITRARILY matched up at 0. We should keep it that way to be sure that there is no human interference with the measurement of time.

within a single inertial reference frame..., time is the same at every coordinate position.

No, two people at rest with each other will always experience time at the same rate. That's all we can be sure of.
one can assume that all clocks at any position within my reference are at the same time

Not in general, no. We know that if they are at rest, they tick at the same rate, but there is no guarantee that they clocks are synchronized. (One clock might be offset by a constant amount)

Apr 25, 2014
Thus we can conclude confidently that from t=t'=0 to T=T' our clocks have kept exactly the same time.

However, the light from my twin's light source also reaches you and since this light-source is in another reference frame moving relative to you, you must use the Lorentz transformation to transform the actual coordinates t=0 and x=X within my reference frame when your twin switched on my twin's light-source. You then find that:

X'=G*(X) and t(0)'=G*(-(v/c^2)*X). Thus within your reference frame you conclude that my light switches on at the time t(0)'=MINUS*(v/c^2)*X at the position X'=GX. Thus, the time interval T(0)' it takes the light to reach you is T(0)'=X'/c=(G*X)/c. The time at which the light will reach you is thus T''=T(0)'-t(0)'=G*(1+(v/c))*(X/c). G*(1+v/c) is the Doppler-shift that you must observe since my twin's light source is approaching you. It has NOTHING to do with my clock going slower than your clock, or your clock going slower than my clock..


Apr 25, 2014
@johanfprins
We must make the fewest number of assumptions possible in order to be certain that we do not reach an erroneous conclusion.
My assumptions are:
1) The differential equations governing physics do not depend on inertial reference frame.
2) This follows from 1, but all clocks at rest in an IRF tick at the same rate as light clocks
3) The only way to determine the time on a clock that is not right next to you is to use physical measurements on physical effects that traveled from it at the speed of light.

Notice how I don't assume (unlike you) that all clocks in the same IRF NECESSARILY start out synchronized. I might perform several measurements, and find that each clock started out at 0 s when my clock read 0 s, but there is no guarantee that my measurements will actually reflect that. I am, however guaranteed that I will measure each clock at rest with me to tick at the same rate. That's all.

Apr 25, 2014
...so that if we have clocks we can set them to zero.

That was not my assumption.
This is the assumption made in all textbooks on the Special Theory of Relativity. Without this assumption the Lorentz equations will look different.

I told you that in this thought experiment, we can't conspire to synchronize our clocks.
So you are stating that Einstein was wrong when he stated that we must do this in order to derive the Lorentz equations? So you are arguing that Einstein conspired to do the impossible?

In this scenario, when we pass and our clocks ARBITRARILY match up.
Whether our clocks are out of sync has nothing to do with the fact that when we pass one another we share the same instant in time and can therefore, if we have two clocks, set both equal to zero, Whether we have clocks and do this or not does not change the fact that we are at the same instant in time: i.e. that the time at your position is the same as the time at my position.

Apr 25, 2014
Likewise, then the information about the twin slap gets to me, if it wasn't clear, their clocks ARBITRARILY matched up at 0.
They do not need clocks to arbitrarily match up. Whether they have clocks or not, they are at the same instant in time that we are when we pass one another, since within a single inertial reference frame (not looking outside) time does not vary with position.

We should keep it that way to be sure that there is no human interference with the measurement of time.
Whether there are clocks and humans changing their settings are irrelevant, since time exists and is the exact same at all positions within an inertial reference frame at any instant in time.

No, two people at rest with each other will always experience time at the same rate. That's all we can be sure of.
How is that possible within the same inertial reference frame? Are you claiming that two events cannot happen simultaneously at the positions of these two people? LOL!

Apr 25, 2014
This is the assumption made in all textbooks on the Special Theory of Relativity. Without this assumption the Lorentz equations will look different.

What's your point? From my perspective, you don't actually understand the set up of the thought experiment (not trying to be insulting), so I am setting up a slightly different thought experiment where nobody can conspire to synchronize their clocks.
So you are stating that Einstein was wrong when he stated that we must do this in order to derive the Lorentz equations?

No, I am not. You think that's what I am saying because you don't understand the premise of his thought experiment, which is why I am setting up a variant. As long as you accept the assumptions of my variant, then we can proceed. If you can't accept those assumptions, then I must start over, and find a new set of assumptions that we can both agree on. Otherwise, this conversation will continue to go nowhere.

Apr 25, 2014
Not in general, no. We know that if they are at rest, they tick at the same rate, but there is no guarantee that they clocks are synchronized. (One clock might be offset by a constant amount)


We are talking about time, not about man-made clocks that can be set to read different times simultaneously.

In nature the time at two positions within an inertial reference frame cannot be simultaneously different. Simultaneous means that the time at the two positions MUST be the same or else the concept of simultaneity becomes oxymoronic.

Even Einstein accepted that within the same inertial reference-frame two events can at any instant in time occur simultaneously at any two different positions. This is not possible if the time is not the same at ALL positions within a SINGLE inertial reference frame. So, according to you, Einstein wrote crap?

Apr 25, 2014
@johanfprins
Can you please stop invoking Einstein as if it has any bearing on the correctness of an argument? You think you know what Einstein thought, but you just don't. None of us do. We can only read his words, and come to our own conclusions. By invoking his name, it muddles the conversation. It goes without saying that you and I differ greatly by what we think Einstein meant, so keep him out of it.

If you wish to use his assumptions, go right ahead, but please try to argue without invoking his name as if he were some god and you were his prophet. Claim your assumptions as your own. Nobody else's. Ok?

Apr 25, 2014
My assumptions are:
1) The differential equations governing physics do not depend on inertial reference frame.
The same equations are valid within any inertial reference frame, but an experiment within a SINGLE inertial reference frame, which is modelled by these equations within that reference frame, are not observed to be the same within other reference frames. Therefore one needs a relativistic coordinate transformation, since the equations which are valid within your inertial reference frame cannot model this experiment.
3) The only way to determine the time on a clock that is not right next to you is to use physical measurements on physical effects that traveled from it at the speed of light. Are you saying that if man-made clocks at two positions are out of sync, the actual time at those positions are different. In other words, the USA is in the past of Africa and therefore two events cannot occur simultaneously in New York and Cairo?

Are you all there?

Apr 25, 2014
What's your point? From my perspective, you don't actually understand the set up of the thought experiment (not trying to be insulting),
I agree that I am unable to "understand" a thought experiment which is based on impossible assumptions; as your experiment is.

so I am setting up a slightly different thought experiment where nobody can conspire to synchronize their clocks.
Whether there are people who can synchronise man-made clocks or not is irrelevant to the physics, which has been the same long before mankind appeared on this planet.

As long as you accept the assumptions of my variant, then we can proceed. If you can't accept those assumptions, then I must start over, and find a new set of assumptions that we can both agree on.
Find assumptions that are not in denial of reality. To assume that time can be simultaneously different at two different positions within the same inertial reference frame, by invoking man-made clocks, is insanity.

Apr 25, 2014
The same equations are valid within any inertial reference frame, but an experiment within a SINGLE inertial reference frame, which is modelled by these equations within that reference frame, are not observed to be the same within other reference frames...

I don't understand what you are saying here. Please rephrase.
Are you saying that if man-made clocks at two positions are out of sync, the actual time at those positions are different. In other words, the USA is in the past of Africa and therefore two events cannot occur simultaneously in New York and Cairo?

The key word in all this is RELATIVE. When you say "actual time" it is meaningless in this context. Please speak in terms of physical measurements. I am really assuming the least amount possible.
You are in only one place at any time. You can only perform local measurements on remote quantities. All I am talking about is how these measurements behave.

Apr 25, 2014
Can you please stop invoking Einstein as if it has any bearing on the correctness of an argument? You think you know what Einstein thought, but you just don't.
I do not think that: I only point out when your absurd assumptions are different from the ones that Einstein made. It is up to you to explain why you are using different assumptions.

It goes without saying that you and I differ greatly by what we think Einstein meant, so keep him out of it.
I am not invoking Einstein by claiming that I know what Einstein meant. But am pointing out when your assumptions are violating what he assumed.

If you wish to use his assumptions, go right ahead, but please try to argue without invoking his name as if he were some god and you were his prophet.
Your absurd assumptions clearly contradicts his assumptions. So you need to explain why? I do not think Einstein is a god: A god would not have proposed time dilation and length-contraction; which are both wrong.

Apr 25, 2014
I agree that I am unable to "understand" a thought experiment which is based on impossible assumptions; as your experiment is.

I would like to know which of those initial assumptions are impossible.
Whether there are people who can synchronise man-made clocks or not is irrelevant to the physics, which has been the same long before mankind appeared on this plane

Agreed! And you'll notice that my thought experiment honors this by having nobody conspire to alter their clocks! So, if you accept this, we can move on.
To assume that time can be simultaneously different at two different positions within the same inertial reference frame, by invoking man-made clocks, is insanity.

This is what you think I assume because you are unable to understand what I am saying. Let me rephrase it.

The only thing anybody can be sure of is the result of local measurements of local and remote quantities. Do you agree?

Apr 25, 2014
I am not invoking Einstein by claiming that I know what Einstein meant.

Great!
But am pointing out when your assumptions are violating what he assumed.

...Uhh...but you just said "I am not invoking Einstein by claiming to know what Einstein mea--"
Your absurd assumptions clearly contradicts his assumptions.

So...let me get this straight. You don't claim to know what Einstein meant, but, you...wish to point out that I am wrong because you know what Einstein meant...

How about we avoid this particular can of worms and avoid mentioning him, or Feynman, or arbitrary relativity book writers. Claim your assumptions as your own. That's all I have to say about that. From now on, I will only respond to points you make that don't involve invoking authoritative figures. We'll be better off for it.

Apr 25, 2014
I don't understand what you are saying here.
Not surprisingly since you do not have a clue what relativity is all about. Consider a bomb dropped from an aeroplane. It can be modelled by Newton's laws which are valid within the plane in terms of a single force. Relative to earth the bomb is also launched horizontally even though there is no launch-force as required by Newton's laws within the reference frame of earth. Thus this motion can only be found in terms of a relativistic transformation, not in terms of a launch force as required by Newton's laws.

The key word in all this is RELATIVE. When you say "actual time" it is meaningless in this context.
Within a SINGLE inertial reference frame events can occur simultaneously at many different points. It is in principle possible that events can occur simultaneously at ALL the points within this reference frame. This is only possible if at any instant in time, time is the SAME "actual time" at ALL positions.

Apr 25, 2014
I would like to know which of those initial assumptions are impossible.
Please summarise your assumptions so that I do not miss one of them.
And you'll notice that my thought experiment honors this by having nobody conspire to alter their clocks!
But you still use the concept of clocks! So you are not "honoring" anything. You want to deny that when two persons moving relative to one another coincide, they are at the SAME instant in time; whether they have clocks or no clocks is irrelevant.

The only thing anybody can be sure of is the result of local measurements of local and remote quantities. Do you agree?
No I do not agree. My son is in Denver, and I am sure that at a specific instant in time at my position in South Africa, the time at his position is the same. Technical problems of how we can synchronise our clocks have NOTHING to do with this knowledge of which I am damn sure of.

Apr 25, 2014
Consider a bomb dropped from an aeroplane.

Yes, let's do that. In fact, a person on earth would see the bomb follow a parabolic arc, while a person on the plane would see it follow a straight path. OH MY GOD! HOW CAN THIS BE? It can't follow a straight path and a curved path at once! Oh wait...
But when we talk about people measuring the passage of time differently, suddenly it's all mysterious--and wooOOOooo--because my primitive brain can't handle something so unfamiliar. I know! I will just assume that two people measuring time differently must somehow mean that that event happened at two space time points. Yeah...that's the ticket!
And when people try to respectfully reason with me, and point out that that doesn't necessarily follow, well, I will be such an unpleasant, little prick to them, that our conversation will devolve into childish name-calling.

Apr 25, 2014
[q How about we avoid this particular can of worms and avoid mentioning him, or Feynman, or arbitrary relativity book writers. Claim your assumptions as your own. That's all I have to say about that. From now on, I will only respond to points you make that don't involve invoking authoritative figures. We'll be better off for it.

If your assumptions contradict what can be found in textbooks I will point it out, since you then owe an explanation. This does not mean that I agree with all the assumptions one can find in text books: However, you are defending the accepted mainstream dogma as if it is holy scripture, and when I point out that your defence violates your own holy scripture you want to prevent me from quoting what can be found in textbooks. It is up to you to be consistent; if it is possible for you to be.

Apr 25, 2014
Consider a bomb dropped from an aeroplane.

Yes, let's do that. In fact, a person on earth would see the bomb follow a parabolic arc, while a person on the plane would see it follow a straight path. OH MY GOD! HOW CAN THIS BE? It can't follow a straight path and a curved path at once! Oh wait...
But when we talk about people measuring the passage of time differently, suddenly it's all mysterious--and wooOOOooo--because my primitive brain can't handle something so unfamiliar.
No it is not that my brain cannot handle this but that this is not correct when the Lorentz transformation applies. The different times and positions obtained from the Lorentz transformation do not demand that two clocks anywhere in inertial space must keep different times. I have given you the proof above in terms of the thought experiment where our twins switch on each other's light sources; You just ignore the impeccable logic since you want to believe otherwise; come what may.

contin

Apr 25, 2014
It is astonishing that you know that the laws of physics must be the same within each and every inertial reference frame, and you then claim in the next breath that two identical clocks, operating on the same physics laws, will keep different time rates within different inertial reference frames!!

Are you a physicist?


Apr 25, 2014
@charlimopps

Do you usually win arguments with insult? You're the one trying to upend science in the comments section of a news article, so I believe the burden of proof is on you, with the whole of science against you.

Are you going to link me to some peer reviewed studies on your inane ideas? Or are you just making this garbage up as you go along?


I have supplied what you asked after you insulted me. You did not respond which proves that you have no honesty or integrity. Do you have any shame? Or did your parents not instil it in you? Maybe you do not know who your parents are?

Apr 25, 2014
The different times and positions obtained from the Lorentz transformation do not demand that two clocks anywhere in inertial space must keep different times.

No! They demand sacrifice of filthy Gelfling! mmmMMMMmmm.
I have given you the proof above in terms of the thought experiment where our twins switch on each other's light sources

No...you have given a thought experiment with initial conditions that are not physically possible. As I showed you, in that experiment, if I happen to measure that everybody's clock read 0 s during the two twin slaps, you will measure that your clock read -x*v*gamma/c^2 seconds during the twin slap.
So, the conclusion to draw for this is that you will measure your and your twin's clocks not to have been synchronized during the twin slap. I showed this using the Lorentz transformation. I don't know what you think it's for, if not for that.
In fact, let's take a new approach. What is the Lorentz transformation used for?

Apr 25, 2014
It is astonishing that you know that the laws of physics must be the same within each and every inertial reference frame, and you then claim in the next breath that two identical clocks, operating on the same physics laws, will keep different time rates within different inertial reference frames!!

No, Johan, you are concluding that from what I am saying, but that is not what I am saying. Two clocks will tick at the same rate in an IRF. This does not preclude them from being offset by a constant amount of time.

Maybe if I write it a hundred more times, in different variations, you will understand. Maybe...

Apr 25, 2014
No I do not agree. My son is in Denver, and I am sure that at a specific instant in time at my position in South Africa, the time at his position is the same.

So...you have the magical power to...instantaneously look at your son's clock in Denver and be certain that it reads the same time as yours? That's amazing! Why are you hording FTL communication from the rest of us?
Technical problems of how we can synchronise our clocks have NOTHING to do with this knowledge of which I am damn sure of.

No, Johan, IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Everything that changes with time can be considered a clock. Everything obeys the same laws of physics. If your clock is keeping some rate, and it is behaving properly (otherwise known as performing physical measurements), YOU ALSO KEEP THAT SAME RATE. It follows that if you can't synchronize clocks in some way, then you can't bloody synchronize anything else in that way!

Apr 25, 2014
No...you have given a thought experiment with initial conditions that are not physically possible. As I showed you, in that experiment, if I happen to measure that everybody's clock read 0 s during the two twin slaps, you will measure that your clock read -x*v*gamma/c^2 seconds during the twin slap.
No I will not be able to do that since I am not at the position of the twins to read my clock. All I know is that the twins are passing one another at time t=t'=0 and can thus only slap one another, or switch on each other's light sources at that instant in time. It am not so dimwitted to think that it can happen when they are not at the same position at the same instant in time.

That this is so is conformed by the fact that the light from my twin's light source reaches me when my clock reads X/c and that the light from your twin's light source reaches you when your clock reads X/c. Thus your twin switched on my twin's light source at a time minus X/c before the light reached me

Apr 25, 2014
And vice versa.

Now both lights thus started sending out light at t=t'=0. But if you look at my twin's light source which is moving relative to you the Lorentz transformation will give the relativistically distorted time at which my light emitted as minusG*(v/c^2)*X and at a position X'=G*X.

But all you can check from this data is when the light from my twin's light-source reaches you at 0'. When you calculate this you find that you are observing a Doppler-shifted wave since my twin's light source moves towards you. Similarly I will see a Doppler-shifted wave from your twin's light-source since this light-source is moving away from me. In other words this is what you expect without having to invoke time-dilation.


Apr 25, 2014
No, Johan, you are concluding that from what I am saying, but that is not what I am saying. Two clocks will tick at the same rate in an IRF. This does not preclude them from being offset by a constant amount of time.
Why would one position within an inertial reference frame be in the future while another position will be "simultaneously" in the past. Can you not see that you are using insane reasoning.

Maybe if I write it a hundred more times, in different variations, you will understand. Maybe...


No I will NEVER understand illogical gobblydegook! Simultaneous means THE SAME TIME AND HAS ALWAYS MEANT THE SAME TIME.

Apr 25, 2014
So...you have the magical power to...instantaneously look at your son's clock in Denver and be certain that it reads the same time as yours?
I do not have do this. Unless it is impossible for an event to occur in Denver simultaneously with an event occurring where I am. I know this is not impossible and therefore the time at such an instant MUST be the same in Denver and at my position. If you state it is not so you must prove that simultaneous events cannot occur at different positions within an inertial reference frame.

Everything obeys the same laws of physics.
Correct, but you are the one who violates this by stating that the physics can be different at different positions within an inertial reference frame. This obviously violates time-symmetry. There is no position in an inertial reference frame where the laws of physics can be different from other positions.

Apr 25, 2014
Technical problems of how we can synchronise our clocks have NOTHING to do with this knowledge of which I am damn sure of.

No, Johan, IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Everything that changes with time can be considered a clock. Everything obeys the same laws of physics. If your clock is keeping some rate, and it is behaving properly (otherwise known as performing physical measurements), YOU ALSO KEEP THAT SAME RATE. It follows that if you can't synchronize clocks in some way, then you can't bloody synchronize anything else in that way!
Within an inertial reference frame time has always been synchronised to be the same at all positions within the reference frame. This has NOTHING to do with man-made clocks at all. It is just plain common-sense. I cannot travel to Denver and become younger since the time is there in the past. Stop spouting Vodoo!

Apr 25, 2014
Are you all there?


Yeah Cher, I'm still here. But johnpringle-Skippy, I am still the displeased with your conduction of your you. So for the time being was it is you have to keep the silly looking pointy cap on your head and sit there in the corner. Oh yeah I almost forgot, you still get the bad karma points for all the calling of names.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy-Doo and we'll be keeping the eye on you Neg.


Apr 25, 2014
I do not have do this.

If your son's clock runs out of batteries, and he changes them, but it now disagrees with yours, you have the ability to instantaneously know this?
Unless it is impossible for an event to occur in Denver simultaneously with an event occurring where I am.

This does not follow.
I know this is not impossible and therefore the time at such an instant MUST be the same in Denver and at my position.

Whose time? Your own local clock or your sons?
If you state it is not so you must prove that simultaneous events cannot occur at different positions within an inertial reference frame.

Neither of us believes this. But you are so fixated on your own preconceived notions, you are unable to understand what I am saying. If I am moving relative to you and your son, and I measure your clocks to show the same time, you and your son will insist that your clocks show different times (they will be offset by a constant amount).

Apr 25, 2014
Are you a physicist?


Non, ol Ira is not the physicist but I a lot people make that mistake. Because I use the google a lot before I try to say something smart. I wish more peoples here would do that because it would sure make things easier on the Ira-Skippy.

Not the physicist, I'm the engineer man, I went to the community college in St Martinville for that. That's down no the Teche, eh?

Apr 25, 2014
@ thefurlong-Skippy, I wish they the nice peoples at physorg would let me give more than just the five good karma points for you. How you stay so nice and calm with this couyon calling you all those names and talking about your momma you?

Laissez les bons temps rouler thefurlong-Skippy

I almost forget again. Sorry about the one bad karma point but they won't let ol Ira fix his boo boo. I was working on grading johnpringle-Skippy's conduction grades and got carried away.


Apr 25, 2014
Within an inertial reference frame time has always been synchronised to be the same at all positions within the reference frame.

How? What experiment can you do to show that all time-keeping things that are not tampered with must show that the same time has elapsed in the same inertial reference frame?
Also, I hate to break this to you, but when I measure your clocks when I am moving relative to you, I am not measuring them in your IRF. In the thought experiment, I see them synchronized in my IRF, NOT YOURS.
This has NOTHING to do with man-made clocks at all.

And maybe if I tell you that I agree just one more time, you will understand that.
I cannot travel to Denver and become younger since the time is there in the past.

1) No, the time there is not in the past.
2) Your clock is not the same as your sons.
3) Saying the clocks will not be synchronized for you and your son if I see them synchronized while moving relative to you does not imply time travel.

Apr 25, 2014
@ thefurlong-Skippy, I wish they the nice peoples at physorg would let me give more than just the five good karma points for you. How you stay so nice and calm with this couyon calling you all those names and talking about your momma you?

Heh, thanks. I am starting to lose patience, though.
Laissez les bons temps rouler thefurlong-Skippy

Amen
I almost forget again. Sorry about the one bad karma point but they won't let ol Ira fix his boo boo. I was working on grading johnpringle-Skippy's conduction grades and got carried away.

That's ok. I figured Johan was the one who was vindictively downgrading my posts. Personally, I prefer to stay out of such things. He can downgrade my posts all he wants. It doesn't mean he's correct.



Apr 25, 2014
All I know is that the twins are passing one another at time t=t'=0 and can thus only slap one another, or switch on each other's light sources at that instant in time.

I will go through this once more. When you and I pass each other, neither of us are aware that a twin slap has occurred. We are unable to be affected by the twin slap at that point.
Only after we have traveled past each other will we each receive the physical information about that twin slap. At that point, I will measure that the twin slap occurred at t=0s, and you will measure that it occurred at t'=-x*v*gamma/c^2.

In my IRF, I think the slaps were simultaneous. In your IRF, you AND YOUR TWIN agree that they were not simultaneous. If you and your twin, instead, measured the slaps to be simultaneous, I and my twin will agree that they were not simultaneous.

Apr 25, 2014
But all you can check from this data is when the light from my twin's light-source reaches you at 0'. When you calculate this you find that you are observing a Doppler-shifted wave since my twin's light source moves towards you. Similarly I will see a Doppler-shifted wave from your twin's light-source since this light-source is moving away from me. In other words this is what you expect without having to invoke time-dilation.

With respect to whose IRF? How do you know who's moving so you can make these adjustments? What if there is a third party moving at yet another velocity relative to you?

There is no way for you to make these adjustments because there is no way for you to determine just how light was doppler shifted.

Apr 25, 2014
If your son's clock runs out of batteries, and he changes them, but it now disagrees with yours, you have the ability to instantaneously know this?
What the EFFEN HELL do the batteries in my sons clock have to do with the time in Denver?

Unless it is impossible for an event to occur in Denver simultaneously with an event occurring where I am.
This does not follow.
Obviously not in a demented mind like yours.
I know this is not impossible and therefore the time at such an instant MUST be the same in Denver and at my position.

Whose time? Your own local clock or your sons?
The simultaneous time at my and my son's positions.

If I am moving relative to you and your son, and I measure your clocks to show the same time,
How do you do that? You can only observe events.

that occur you and your son will insist that your clocks show different times (they will be offset by a constant amount
Wrong!! Only in Alice's Wonderland.


Apr 25, 2014
Within an inertial reference frame time has always been synchronised to be the same at all positions within the reference frame.

How? What experiment can you do to show that all time-keeping things that are not tampered with must show that the same time has elapsed in the same inertial reference frame?
How any times must I repeat it to you that it is not a clock that determines the time at a position, but the time at the position that should be set on a clock!! Are you really so daft? Unbelievable!!

Also, I hate to break this to you, but when I measure your clocks when I am moving relative to you,
How do you do this? Please explain! Are you stopping at my clocks and then recording the time on them? You are an IDIOT you know!

Apr 25, 2014
This has NOTHING to do with man-made clocks at all.

And maybe if I tell you that I agree just one more time, you will understand that.
So why are arguments in disagreement with this statement that you supposedly accept?
I cannot travel to Denver and become younger since the time is there in the past.

1) No, the time there is not in the past.
Thank God for acknowledging this. Are you now arguing that it is in the future?
2) Your clock is not the same as your sons.
In which way? Why can we not both have atomic clocks. But even so, we do not have to own clocks to be simultaneously be at all instants at time at the same instant in time.
3) Saying the clocks will not be synchronized for you and your son if I see them synchronized while moving relative to you does not imply time travel.
YOU are the one who are implying that time travel is possible by just moving from one position to another within an inertial reference frame: Not I.

Apr 25, 2014
When you and I pass each other, neither of us are aware that a twin slap has occurred.
correct.

We are unable to be affected by the twin slap etc..
correct

Only after we have traveled past etc.
correct.

At that point, I will measure that the twin slap occurred at t=0s, and you will measure that it occurred at t'=-x*v*gamma/c^2.
WRONG! That is why I changed the slaps to switching on the light sources by the twins. And then BOTH of us will find that the other twin has switched on our twin's light source at the same time t=t'=0. It is only when you look at the light coming from the light source that your twin switched on within the other reference frame that the Lorentz transformation gives a distance X'=G*X and a time t"=G*(v/c*2)*X. But you cannot "observe" this since you are not at position X' at the time t'. All you can observe is the Doppler shifted light wave that arrives at your position. Thus you are blatantly lying that you measure X' & t'.

Apr 25, 2014
What the EFFEN HELL do the batteries in my sons clock have to do with the time in Denver?

Because you don't actually know what his clock says until that information gets to you.
The simultaneous time at my and my son's positions.

Ok, so clearly there is miscommunication here. Let's slightly alter that thought experiment so that you understand what I am saying. You and your twin each have two clocks. One set of those clocks is synchronized from some point that you and your twin agree is in the past. Let's say you synchronized those clocks millions of years ago, and you and they have been in the same rest frame ever since. Both of you have a long distance relationship, and you communicate by signals. You were able to synchronize those clocks by sending signals back and forth to each other, and doing calculations to set them to 0 at the right time.
Now, millions of years pass, and you haven't spoken to each other in a while.
(to be continued)

Apr 25, 2014
With respect to whose IRF?
What are you referring to here?
What with respect to what?

How do you know who's moving so you can make these adjustments?
What "adjustments" require this? I have not made any "adjustments". I only used the Lorentz transformation. Is this an adjustment??

What if there is a third party moving at yet another velocity relative to you?
You are now becoming desperate by introducing an element that has not been a part of the discussion up to now!! You are getting more and more pathetic.

There is no way for you to make these adjustments because there is no way for you to determine just how light was doppler shifted.
I have just now DERIVED the formulas for you from the Lorentz transformation. Are you too stupid to understand high school algebra? It does not surprize me at all.

Apr 25, 2014
Because you don't actually know what his clock says until that information gets to you.
I do not have to know anything about his clock to know that at this instant in time he and I exist simultaneously. Are you really so demented that you cannot understand this?

I better take a break for now. Sorry to state this, but You stupidity is unbelievable?

Apr 25, 2014
(continued)
Since you haven't spoken for a while, you don't know what he or his clock have been doing. Now, at the moment that we pass (my clock reading 0s), let's exactly 10 M years, you also obtain a new clock and set it to 0 s, but don't touch the old clock.
Now, before going on, I want to make some things clear. All the things I have written thus far are THE ONLY initial assumptions I am making. I have said nothing yet about what has been happening with your friend since you stopped talking millions of years ago.
I am about to add one and only one new assumption, and from this assumption, and the rest, I can derive the rest of the information about the scenario.
And that is this. After we pass, I start paying attention to your friend and see that he has two clocks. The first one is the old one covered in a shroud, concealing the time it reads. The second one is a newer clock, and this one reads 0 s.

So far, this narrative should all be acceptable to you.
(To be continued)

Apr 25, 2014
(continued)
Now, just after we pass, you now start paying attention to your friend again. Based off the information I just gave, I will now derive when you happen to see your friend's new clock read 0 s.
Using the Lorentz transformation (I will not repeat the calculation), you will measure that his clock measured 0 s when your clock read 10 M years -x*v*gamma/c^2.
So, now, after you perform this measurement, your friend removes the shroud from his old clock.
Now, assuming your friend did nothing to his old clock, we can assume that they have kept the same rate. This means that his old clock will read 10 M years!
So what we can conclude is that when your friend set his new clock to 0 s, for you (not me), it did not happen at the same time (10 M years).
That's what I mean about you not being able to synchronize clocks in the way you describe. By saying I measure your new clocks both to read 0 s, you are implying that in your own IRF, they will not have been set to 0 s at the same time

Apr 25, 2014
I better take a break for now. Sorry to state this, but You stupidity is unbelievable?

Fine. You are an unpleasant, decrepit, old man with the maturity of a 10 year old.

Now that we got that out of the way, can we stop with the childish insults, please?

Apr 25, 2014
Well when I look at the following quotes:
I do not think Einstein is a god: A god would not have proposed time dilation and length-contraction; which are both wrong.

and
time is the same at every coordinate position.


It's not only clear that you reject Relativity–without having demonstrated that you understand it, mind you–but on the whole it becomes evident that you're hanging on to some kind of notion of universal time.

Why would one position within an inertial reference frame be in the future while another position will be "simultaneously" in the past. Can you not see that you are using insane reasoning.

No, it's just that you don't get it. All that sharing an RF means is that ***for the time that two entities (whether particles or paper airplanes)
are moving together***, they experience ***the same PASSAGE OF TIME*** (and can swap info on spatial dimensions and not disagree). Cont.

Apr 25, 2014
(Cont.) Their clocks *tick* at the same rate and the meters on their tape measures are the same length.

This says ***NOTHING*** about how they were moving BEFORE they met up and therefore how the PASSAGE of time in their OWN personal RF may have been distorted with respect to each other (and the rest of the universe) BEFORE THEY MET.

If one of a set of twins makes a near light speed round trip to Proxima Centauri before meeting back up with his housebound twin on Earth and they slap each other "simultaneously" as a greeting ***when one is 32yrs old and the other 40yrs old** time cannot be said to simply be "the same" for both twins. The 32yr old's calander could well say it was AD 2202 while the 40yr old's calendar reads AD2210. To the traveling twin the round trip took 2 yrs; to the static twin it took 10. Which is why your notion of twins slapping each other "at the same time" is ambiguous at best and meaningless at worst (or just sloppy?).

(Cont.)

Apr 25, 2014
Whether our clocks are out of sync has nothing to do with the fact that when we pass one another we share the same instant in time and can therefore, if we have two clocks, set both equal to zero, Whether we have clocks and do this or not does not change the fact that we are at the same instant in time: i.e. that the time at your position is the same as the time at my position.


Of course you could slap each other as you *pass* each other and at the same time SET or RESET each of your clocks to 0, yes, but if either one of you had to accelerate differently from the other to get to the meeting point, your clocks will fall out of synch as they are not *ticking at the same RATE*. Even in a case where one twin *joins* the other to tell tales of Proxima Centauri, and he resyncs his *clock and calendar* (even if he can't advance his *own physical age* to match that of his house-bound twin, as soon as he's off again their clock's will fall out of sych (cont.)

Apr 25, 2014
(Cont.) as he will have accelerated to an RF different from his brother's.

Simultaneous means THE SAME TIME.


Yes it does, but in Relativity, two events (and a mutual slap is ONE event, btw) that are
simultaneous to one person may not be to another (in a different RF).

You didn't even bother to look at the link on simultaneity in SR I posted, did you? See that's the whole point: in Relativity, "simultaneous" is purely circumstantial. The only restriction is that different observers cannot see events *out of order* as that would require one or more of them to move faster than light.

In fact, an interesting consequence of SR is that if one of the twins in the paradox were to
manage to accelerate to the speed of light (setting aside the impossibility of actually achieving c for the moment) to him, all events that occur around him during the time he is at c would be simultaneous as he no longer experiences the passage of time, *and* he gets to his destination instantaneously.

Apr 25, 2014
The only restriction is that different observers cannot see events *out of order* as that would require one or more of them to move faster than light.

I would like to make a slight addendum because johanfprin's brain is like murphy's law in grey matter form. Causal sequences must be seen in order by all (though not necessarily taking up the same amount of time). Non-causal sequences might be seen as happening "out of order". But then again, order in terms of non-causal sets of things has no meaning anyway.

Apr 25, 2014
I better take a break for now. Sorry to state this, but You stupidity is unbelievable?


Well don't forget to put the silly looking point cap on the hookum by the door. The next couyon might need to wear it some him. You can put it back on if you come back with the same bad conduction and misbehaviouring, okayeeei?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy and watch your you in the tall grasses there maybe might be the big ol momma gator in there.


Apr 25, 2014
The only restriction is that different observers cannot see events *out of order* as that would require one or more of them to move faster than light.

I would like to make a slight addendum because johanfprin's brain is like murphy's law in grey matter form. Causal sequences must be seen in order by all (though not necessarily taking up the same amount of time). Non-causal sequences might be seen as happening "out of order". But then again, order in terms of non-causal sets of things has no meaning anyway.


Absolutely! I was *assuming* causal sequences were understood in my statement (as you say, *unrelated events* not being subject to this restriction), though I probably shouldn't have, given the circumstances *at this point in time* ;^)

Apr 25, 2014
What the EFFEN HELL do the batteries in my sons clock have to do with the time in Denver?
@johanfprins
you are one acerbic contemptible repugnant pilgarlic old man at times... are you INTENTIONALLY trying to be obtuse?
I am following along just fine (until you get all pissy), perhaps your issue is more one of age and inability to step out of the paradigm which your brain has congealed into? This would explain your fear of QWT
Sorry to state this, but You stupidity is unbelievable?
a LOT of people are thinking the same about you and wondering... what is the deal? WHY are you being so intentionally stupid?
Since you haven't spoken for a while
@thefurlong
KEEP IT UP... a lot of other people are enjoying this and it is useful. you make a good teacher... and with Gawad, yall make a good team. maybe yall should co-author a book for simpletons like me?

Apr 25, 2014
I am following along just fine (until you get all pissy)


Yes well that can only mean you're one of the demented...right Johan?

Apr 25, 2014
@thefurlong
KEEP IT UP... a lot of other people are enjoying this and it is useful. you make a good teacher... and with Gawad, yall make a good team. maybe yall should co-author a book for simpletons like me?


Yeah that thefurlong-Skippy is the good explainer him. I can follow, most of the time, what he says. I wonder how thefurlong-Skippy is able keep the nice dispositional on him while that couyon calling him all those names, eh? That johnpringle-Skippy is one ornery ol coot though. What make that man so mad at everybody anyway?.

Apr 25, 2014
your notion of twins slapping each other "at the same time" is ambiguous at best and meaningless at worst (or just sloppy?)


Johanfprins should not use the phrase "at the same time" without defining that Operationally,.... in terms of physical clocks,... then, "who's clock" would be implied.

It appears he imagines himself as a separate observer of the thought experiment with a universal and purely intuitive notion of time, rather than regarding "time" as another physical system.


Apr 26, 2014
The furlong stated that he is not using clocks and humans synchronising clocks in his arguments and then his arguments, and those of his minnows like Gawad, and Noumenon are totally based on what he claims he is not doing.

It is really pathetic to read your comments. And oh Yes Gawad, I have looked at the reference you gave: It is totally wrong as you yourself can ascertain (if you have the brains to understand physics) by going to my references that I have given above; which have been published in a peer reviewed journal after the referees tried to block it with the same insane arguments that the furlong is posting here.

After more than a year, under the guidance of the editor to keep the altercation civil, these referees had to agree that they are wrong, and had to allow publication. But of course, you, who cackle your empty brains will not read this since you think you know better than the antagonistic referees that had been appointed by a peer-reviewed journal.

Apr 26, 2014
Now let us get away totally from clocks when talking about time and what is physically possible and not possible when it comes to this enigmatic concept. Nobody can really define what time is, even though every living being who has self-awareness knows that it exists. We can only measure it in terms change. But even if we are locked up in a cupboard where we can observe no change, we are aware that time is passing by.

The only definition that can be given for time is that it is the NOW that sits at the interface of the past and the future. Everything in our Universe exists SIMULTANEOUSLY at the NOW. If something does not, it does not exist within our Universe, since it exists either in our past Universe or our future Universe which we can only visit if we have time-machines.

This means that at the NOW-instant, time MUST simultaneously be the exact same at every position, and any possible reference frame, in our Universe. A single Universe cannot span a space-time manifold

continu

Apr 26, 2014
If time is different within two different reference frames, these reference frames cannot co-exist within the same Universe ever. That is why I can state confidently that my NOW must be simultaneously exactly the same as the NOW of my son in Denver. If it is not, I will not be able to ever visit my son since he does then not then co-exist with me in the same Universe.

The Lorentz transformation simply means that if you are not coincident with an event occurring within another inertial reference frame, you will have to conclude that this event has occurred at a different time within your reference frame than the actual time at which you would have observed it if you had been coincident with the event. It does not mean that this different time is simultaneous on your clock with the time at which the event actually occurred. The latter is in either case impossible.

continue

Apr 26, 2014
Simultaneity of the NOW demands that time within our Universe must be everywhere the same. If it is not, then it is futile to even talk of the age of our Universe, or that our Universe started at a SINGLE time when the Big Bang occurred.

Actual time does NOT slow down within a gravity-field. The speed of light slows down, and since within the equations that model electromagnetic waves one has a time relationship given by ct, it is then foolishly concluded that time is slowing down. It is NOT.

A clock that measures its rate by using the frequency of emitted light will automatically slow down since w=kc: If c slows down, w slows down, and the clock-rate slows down. This does not mean that time slows down: If it does, that part of space must exist in our past, and it will then not be accessible to us unless we have time machines.

If you use another clock, for example a pendulum clock, the clock rate will speed up when gravity increases. This does not mean that time is faster.

Apr 26, 2014
Simultaneity of the NOW demands that time within our Universe must be everywhere the same. If it is not, then it is futile to even talk of the age of our Universe, or that our Universe started at a SINGLE time when the Big Bang occurred.

In other words, "I will completely ignore those salient points that thefurlong (that doodyhead with--uhh--minnows) was making about the old clocks and new clocks, because--
HEY! LOOK OVER THERE! PHILOSOPHY! Also, everyone else around me is wrong, and I am the correct one. I could never consider the possibility that people reject my ideas because, one, people covered that crap years ago and moved on, and two, I am an insufferable man-baby who goes on a science internet news site and yells at commenters about my earth shattering theories. I think relativity happens a certain way, even though that way leads to contradiction, and is the reason I have these incredible ideas to begin with."

Apr 26, 2014
the mirror turns the quantum vacuum into particles.
Wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?


The theoretical "Quantum foam" continuously creates Particle/anti-particle pairs. Normally these destroy one another. When something like a blackholes even horizon (hawking radiation), or in this case the magnetic mirror, takes one of the particles out of the system, it's anti-particle doesn't get destroyed. In a blackhole the antiparticle is trapped on the bad side of the event horrizon so the blackhole does lose or gain mass/energy because it's absorbed. In the case of the mirror it most likely reacts with part of the detector and so yes, the mirror would lose energy.
Didn't you read the article? It's about light (photons). Photons are neutral (no antiparticle). What's to destroy?

So again, wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?


Apr 26, 2014
@thefurlong
KEEP IT UP... a lot of other people are enjoying this and it is useful. you make a good teacher... and with Gawad, yall make a good team. maybe yall should co-author a book for simpletons like me?


You ain't no simpleton Cap. The very fact that you are relearning this stuff instead of spending your time, say not learning anything new and ranting at people about your incredible ideas backed by impeccable logic, makes you intellectually curious.

I don't know. I like writing about this stuff, and explaining it to people, strangely even to people who respond by hurling verbal feces in my direction, but not to people who are not interested in thinking for themselves. I was a tutor before, and I just wanted to impart all I knew to my students, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Instead of instilling a sense of wonder in our students and teaching them underlying principles, the system seems more concerned with hammering SOHCAHTOA into their heads.

Apr 26, 2014
In other words, "I will completely ignore those salient points that thefurlong (that doodyhead with--uhh--minnows) was making about the old clocks and new clocks, because--
HEY! LOOK OVER THERE! PHILOSOPHY! Also, everyone else around me is wrong, and I am the correct one. I could never consider the possibility that people reject my ideas because, one, people covered that crap years ago and moved on, and two, I am an insufferable man-baby who goes on a science internet news site and yells at commenters about my earth shattering theories. I think relativity happens a certain way, even though that way leads to contradiction, and is the reason I have these incredible ideas to begin with."


Well thefurlong-Skippy just wrote down the the theory of "johnpringle-Skippy's-meanness" in the one paragraph. Hooweeei,. it would have taken ol Ira-Skippy a book whole to say so much.

Apr 26, 2014
In other words, "I will completely ignore those salient points that thefurlong (that doodyhead with--uhh--minnows) was making about the old clocks and new clocks, because--
HEY! LOOK OVER THERE! PHILOSOPHY!
You probably do not know this but physics is experimental philosophy where logic and experiment together play a role.

Also, everyone else around me is wrong, and I am the correct one.
Not always but in this case I am since not one of you could give an argument how the past, NOW, and the future can exist simultaneously within our Universe.

I could never consider the possibility that people reject my ideas because, one, people covered that crap years ago and moved on,
Here you are proving that you do not understand what physics is all about. It is incumbent on any physicist to continually question what we think is correct, and NOT to think that since others have "covered that crap years ago and moved on" that it is correct.

Apr 26, 2014
and two, I am an insufferable man-baby who goes on a science internet news site and yells at commenters about my earth shattering theories.
No I do not start the yelling. I just state what my research has led to , and then the yelling and insults are directed at me. You should then not cry when I retaliate. I can give it as good as any other person.

I think relativity happens a certain way, even though that way leads to contradiction, and is the reason I have these incredible ideas to begin with."
Nope. It is not what I just "think" but what I derive in terms of the rules of mathematics and logic which are NOT contradictory that shape my thoughts. I am always open to change my mind and logic when somebody else comes up with a better logic. The reviewers and you have not been able to do so: And I think that you realise this, and is now like a petulant baby throwing your toys out of your cot.

Your reaction is typically what I expected from a person with your mentality.

Apr 26, 2014
I was a tutor before, and I just wanted to impart all I knew to my students, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
When it comes to relativity you are not a tutor's asshole. I think that you are lying that you have been a tutor. Where and for how long? For three years in Kindergarten?

Instead of instilling a sense of wonder in our students and teaching them underlying principles, the system seems more concerned with hammering SOHCAHTOA into their heads.
No wonder if it appoints people like you as tutors. God help our planet!

Apr 26, 2014
You probably do not know this but physics is experimental philosophy where logic and experiment together play a role.

You still did not address my point about old and new clocks. Also, physics is science and math first and philosophy second. If physics does not conform to your philosophy, get a new one.
Not always but in this case I am since not one of you could give an argument how the past, NOW, and the future can exist simultaneously within our Universe.

Yes, not one professional physicist either. Only personal friends and relatives with no physics background who nod nervously in your presence when you start talking about "those relativity ideas again", and who, for some reason, have somewhere to go 1 minute into your expository.
It is incumbent on any physicist to continually question what we think is correct

Correct, but that doesn't mean to keep rehashing the same old, tired, protestations to a hundred year old theory as if they were new.

Apr 26, 2014
No I do not start the yelling

This thing we have ample evidence of, because information on the internet does not go away? No! It doesn't happen!
Nope. It is not what I just "think" but what I derive in terms of the rules of mathematics and logic which are NOT contradictory that shape my thoughts.

Honey, you think that SR (the accepted version, not yours) allows a person moving relative to two other observers to agree with them that two events are simultaneous, which is wrong. This is relativity 101. People in two different reference frames do not agree on the simultaneity of events. And because of this erroneous assumption, you have derived your topsy-turvy-bizarro ideas that fly in the face of all accepted SR. And then you reason that because they fly in the face SR, it isn't because your initial assumptions are incorrect, but that there is some giant conspiracy in the physics community to reject your ideas because they are too powerful.

Apr 26, 2014
You still did not address my point about old and new clocks.
Why should I address this after you have stated that your arguments do not rely on clocks. You have been lying and wasting my time by being dishonest., Why do you not explain to me how the past, NOW and future can co-exist in a SINGLE universe?

Also, physics is science and math first and philosophy second.
Another proof of how STUPID you are! According to you mathematics is NOT philosophy!! LOL!! And if you read my papers you will see that all my conclusions have been derived in terms of impeccable mathematics. But this you do not want to see, since you do not want to think for yourself (well, in fact you probably are not able to do so) but only wants to parrot the "crap" from which other people have already moved on from!

If physics does not conform to your philosophy, get a new one.
It is not physics that conforms to my philosophy, but my philosophy that conforms to known physics.

Apr 26, 2014
Not always but in this case I am since not one of you could give an argument how the past, NOW, and the future can exist simultaneously within our Universe.
Yes, not one professional physicist either. So you admit that it is impossible to justify such an impossible situation? Thanks!

Only personal friends and relatives with no physics background who nod nervously in your presence when you start talking about "those relativity ideas again", and who, for some reason, have somewhere to go 1 minute into your expository.
So you know what I am doing without knowing me? You are getting more and more pathetic. Yes people with common sense, amongst which you do not find yourself, realises easily that this is not possible.
It is incumbent on any physicist to continually question what we think is correct

Correct, but that doesn't mean to keep rehashing the same old, tired, protestations
I have not done this at all! Why do you have to lie??

Apr 26, 2014
No I do not start the yelling

This thing we have ample evidence of, because information on the internet does not go away? No! It doesn't happen!
I agree, and you and your friends are not looking good: just read above. I agree that I retaliate to insults.

Honey, you think that SR (the accepted version, not yours) allows a person moving relative to two other observers to agree with them that two events are simultaneous, which is wrong.
You see how you deliberately LIE to try and win arguments! I have NOWHERE stated this at all. If you are too stupid to read please do not put words in my mouth. I agree that the Lorentz transformation gives non-simultaneity; and if you read my papers you will see that I agree, but I do not agree with the oxymoron concept that this requires that the time within two inertial reference frames, moving relative to one another, must be simultaneously different. Only an idiot will reason the latter.

Apr 26, 2014
Why should I address this after you have stated that your arguments do not rely on clocks.

Uh...what? When did I state this?
Why do you not explain to me how the past, NOW and future can co-exist in a SINGLE universe?

If you actually understood SR, you would know of the concepts of absolute past and absolute future. These are causally related regions of the universe that happen "in order", just as you expect. They cannot exist within a single universe. In SR, a cause can never precede an effect. Non-causally related things can be measured to happen in different orders depending on who is measuring them. Two clocks that are synchronized some distance away are not causally related. Hence, depending on who is measuring them, their ticks can be simultaneous, or happen in any order. If you would address my comments about old and new clocks, you might understand.

Apr 26, 2014
Only an idiot will reason the latter.


Which is why you are the one wearing the silly looking point cap on your head while you sit into the corner with everyone making the fun of you Cher. The thefurlong-Skippy is trying to teach some stuffs but all you want is to act like the couyon with the foolishment you.

Apr 26, 2014
And then you reason that because they fly in the face SR, it isn't because your initial assumptions are incorrect, but that there is some giant conspiracy in the physics community to reject your ideas because they are too powerful.


Where have I ever stated this? Idiots do not have to "conspire" in order to think alike. They do it naturally because they are brainless. Especially if they are so stupid to believe that when scientists have moved on from the "crap" in the past, this crap should NEVER be questioned again. This is the trademark of an inquisitor, not a person with a normally functioning brain.

The fact that physics has since 1927 fallen more and more under the control of idiots is just a sad reflection of our times, not a conspiracy. Even these idiots are writing books in which they raise concern about modern physics. Something has gone wrong since Voodoo concepts like wave-particle duality and time-dilation came into vogue.


Apr 26, 2014
Another proof of how STUPID you are! According to you mathematics is NOT philosophy!!

Uh...math..isn't philosophy. Math consists of rigorous proofs and systematic algorithms that are either correct or incorrect based on the underlying axioms. Philosophy consists whose correctness will never be established, just accepted by schools of thought.
And if you read my papers you will see that all my conclusions have been derived in terms of impeccable mathematics.

Describe for all of us how Einstein divided by 0 again.
since you do not want to think for yourself

This is a frequent error crackpots make. Because somebody subscribes to an accepted system that the crackpot disagrees with, it must mean they can't think for themselves, and not because they spent a long time thinking about the subject. You have not offered any argument against SR that I have not heard before. Hence, I have no reason to change my mind.

Apr 26, 2014
It is not physics that conforms to my philosophy, but my philosophy that conforms to known physics.

Uhhh...no. This is demonstrably false, seeing as how all elementary SR textbooks teach that two observers moving relative to each other will not agree on the simultaneity of events. Also, there are all those experiments that have been accepted by peer review, which demonstrate time dilation and length contraction (AKA KNOWN PHYSICS). Oh--by known physics, you mean the physics you know. Ok.

Apr 26, 2014
If you actually understood SR, you would know of the concepts of absolute past and absolute future. These are causally related regions of the universe that happen "in order", just as you expect. They cannot exist within a single universe. In SR, a cause can never precede an effect.
But YOU argue that this is possible.
Non-causally related things can be measured to happen in different orders depending on who is measuring them. Two clocks that are synchronized some distance away are not causally related.
Bullshit that can only come from a deranged mind
Hence, depending on who is measuring them, their ticks can be simultaneous, or happen in any order.
Who is simultaneously present at the two clocks to measure them? You are insane!
If you would address my comments about old and new clocks, you might understand.
I cannot address this since your arguments are so illogical that nobody with a sane mind can follow them.

Apr 26, 2014
This is demonstrably false, seeing as how all elementary SR textbooks teach that two observers moving relative to each other will not agree on the simultaneity of events.
I HAVE NEVER DISPUTED THAT THE LORENTZ TRANFORMATION CAUSES NON-SIMULTANEITY: STOP LYING LIKE A BASTARD!

Also, there are all those experiments that have been accepted by peer review, which demonstrate time dilation
I do not know of a SINGLE experiment where two clocks moving rectilinearly relative to one another within a constant gravity field has been compared to prove time-dilation: YOU ARE LYING AGAIN.
and length contraction (AKA KNOWN PHYSICS). Oh--by known physics, you mean the physics you know. Ok.
I also do not know of any experiment where length contraction of a rod was measured when the rod passes by on a linear path.

Nether do YOU know of such experiments: Why do you have to resort to lies all the time?

Apr 26, 2014
I cannot address this since your arguments are so illogical that nobody with a sane mind can follow them.


He is the only one making the sense here johnpringle-Skippy. You should do like the Otto-Skippy told me once, use the google before you post on the hard stuffs so you don't write things that are easy to find you are wrong on the google.

That's why everybody always mistake the Ira-Skippy for being the scientist, I use the google find out what means what. Now I will admit sometimes the stuffs on the google stump me for awhile, but usually some of the smart peoples here can get me straightened out on it, like the thefurlong-Skippy is trying to help with you Cher.

According to the google you are very too much confused and you need to remediate on some of the stuffs that you don't have down pat yet, eh?

Apr 26, 2014
Honey, you think that SR (the accepted version, not yours) allows a person moving relative to two other observers to agree with them that two events are simultaneous, which is wrong.
You see how you deliberately LIE to try and win arguments!

So...you agree that there is no way to take physical clocks, man-made, or otherwise, and synchronize them so that everybody agrees that they are synchronized. So, beating hearts or rhythmically firing synapses can also be considered clocks too. And you agree that that those, too, cannot be synchronized so that everyone agrees that they give the same time, which means that your experience of time is affected by SR. But, still there is this elf--I mean--Time, that nobody can actually measure because everybody is subject to SR, and this is the thing that is not altered by SR. Got it.

Apr 26, 2014
Math consists of rigorous proofs and systematic algorithms that are either correct or incorrect based on the underlying axioms. Philosophy consists whose correctness will never be established, just accepted by schools of thought.
There exists mathematical systems for which the latter is true. Garbage in garbage out: Like your skull!
And if you read my papers you will see that all my conclusions have been derived in terms of impeccable mathematics.

Describe for all of us how Einstein divided by 0 again. x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=0 and x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-(ct')*2=0. He then divided the first expression by the second to "derive" the Lorentz transformation equations. Which of course is not allowed by any mathematics.

You have not offered any argument against SR that I have not heard before. Hence, I have no reason to change my mind.
If you have heard it before and cannot yet give logical arguments why it is wrong, then it proves that you are a fool.

Apr 26, 2014
But YOU argue that this is possible.

Nope. Try again. Or maybe I should use your strategy. STOP LYING! YOU ARE STUPID!
Bullshit that can only come from a deranged mind

Or every single professional physicist. They must all be deranged.
Who is simultaneously present at the two clocks to measure them? You are insane!

...
What? Nobody. We can only conduct local measurements of local and remote quantities. This makes us disagree on the simultaneity of events.
I cannot address this since your arguments are so illogical that nobody with a sane mind can follow them.

What part about them is illogical? The fact that the old clocks would agree on time to you and your twin, since they were keeping the same rate, which is something that you accept?
But keep vaguely insisting that they are illogical without addressing and specific parts. That will convince us.

Apr 26, 2014
So...you agree that there is no way to take physical clocks, man-made, or otherwise, and synchronize them so that everybody agrees that they are synchronized.
There are technical problems, but this does mean that since it is difficult to synchronise clocks at different positions that the time at those positions are not simultaneously the same as they MUST be not to have any contradictions and stupidities in physics. Clocks do not GENERATE time, they only measure it!

But, still there is this elf--I mean--Time, that nobody can actually measure because everybody is subject to SR, and this is the thing that is not altered by SR. Got it.
You think that time does not exist unless you have a clock that generates time. Time has always existed.

Signing off to recover from the endless bullshit you are posting!

Apr 26, 2014
Or every single professional physicist.
I am a professional physicist and a damn good one at that, And I know many professional physicists who will disagree with you. The reviewers of my latest papers disagree with you or else my papers will not have been published.

What the hell are YOU?? Obviously not a professional physicist. If you are, let us compare our CV's so that we can decide who is more competent when it comes to physics. But, of course you will not do this since you are a scoundrel with no integrity who hides behind anonymity. So put your money where your mouth is. If you do not do so, it will be proof that you agree that you are incompetent when it comes to physics!

Now I am off to try and wash you and your stupidities out of my hair!

Apr 26, 2014
x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=0 and x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-(ct')*2=0. He then divided the first expression by the second to "derive" the Lorentz transformation equations. Which of course is not allowed by any mathematics.

Please refer me to the original source.

Apr 26, 2014
x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=0 and x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-(ct')*2=0. He then divided the first expression by the second to "derive" the Lorentz transformation equations. Which of course is not allowed by any mathematics.

Please refer me to the original source.


You speaking to the original couyon. That Skippy make the stuff up and don't use the google to check to see if it's a real thing no.

The johnpringle-Skippy says he is the "professional physicist" but ol Ira would be thinking that he means the "pretend physicist" because a professional physicist would already know how to check on the google if his new theorizing can work with what already out there. Plus to that, most of the real professional physicists aren't so mad and grumpy all the time.

Apr 26, 2014
Simultaneity of the NOW demands that time within our Universe must be everywhere the same.


What a drug-crazed felon you are, Johnny; there is no "Simultaneity of the NOW", that just proves how mired you are in a world that was considered true 400 yrs ago you senile old fool.

If it is not, then it is futile to even talk of the age of our Universe, or that our Universe started at a SINGLE time when the Big Bang occurred.


No it's not you demented narcissistic maniac: it still makes PERFECT SENSE to talk of the age of our Universe in OUR reference frame. It would make little sense to talk of the age of the universe in terms of a CMB photon's RF (even though you could) as then, indeed, you'd get an age of 380k yrs.

And, yup, guess what? If you *were* to take a snapshot of the whole universe it would include 380k yr old photons (in *THEIR* RF) as well as us at 13.8G yrs old (in *OUR* RF) all coexisting together in your mystical "now". No contradiction.

Apr 26, 2014
Describe for all of us how Einstein divided by 0 again. x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=0 and x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-(ct')*2=0. He then divided the first expression by the second to "derive" the Lorentz transformation equations. Which of course is not allowed by any mathematics.


Wow, you are so full of shit, leaving no place for any physics or math, that it beggars the imagination. Uncle Ira asked how someone could turn as mean as you and I was thinking of pegging it on the usual problem of the narcissist being exposed as irrelevant and, of course being unable to deal with that reality (or in your case, just reality), turing hostile and purulent.

But that's all to complicated in your case.

Uncle Ira, the simple reason Johan Prins is the way he is is that he came out of him mother's asshole instead of the usual place. Shit happens.

Apr 26, 2014
You probably do not know this but physics is experimental philosophy where logic and experiment together play a role.
@johan
I can agree with the logic and experiment part but the philosophy part is way, WAY off base. there is NO ROOM for philosophy in physics, much like religion

physics is the SCIENCE of matter and its motion... NO PHILOSOPHY in there at all. none. SCEINCE! any philosophy in physics is malleable and changes with the empirical data (see GR/SR)

Philosophy is the study of existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. in many cases this is open ended and subjective to the individual.
IOW - philosophy does NOT require empirical data (in fact, it can be the bane of philosophy)

PHYSICS IS
philosophy MIGHT BE...
big difference
According to you mathematics is NOT philosophy
its not. Mathematics is the body of knowledge justified by deductive reasoning about abstract structures, starting from axioms and definitions

Apr 26, 2014
the mirror turns the quantum vacuum into particles.
Wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?


In a blackhole the antiparticle is trapped on the bad side of the event horrizon so the blackhole does lose or gain mass/energy because it's absorbed. In the case of the mirror it most likely reacts with part of the detector and so yes, the mirror would lose energy.
Didn't you read the article? It's about light (photons). Photons are neutral (no antiparticle). What's to destroy?

So again, wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?
Yes, the mirror system whould have to lose energy equivalent to the momentum of what ever particle was made "real". BTW, BHs do not just absorb antiparticles from a pair, that's completely wrong. They can absorb either one as BOTH particles are created from the energy in the S-T at the EH. The BH only gets one back.

Apr 26, 2014
Uncle Ira, the simple reason Johan Prins is the way he is is that he came out of him mother's asshole instead of the usual place. Shit happens.


Well he walked out so angry he forgot to leave the silly looking pointy cap at the door. But that is not the grande problem no. Ira-Skippy keeps the extra two or one around in case some couyon shows up needing one.

But if the Returnering-Skippy and the Really-Skippy and the Reg-Skippy and the johnpringle-Skippy comes back without his all at the same time then there may be a problem deciding which one should get left out of wearing one.

Apr 26, 2014
You probably do not know this but physics is experimental philosophy where logic and experiment together play a role.


physics is science and math first and philosophy second. If physics does not conform to your philosophy, get a new one.


The one area where johanfprins is correct here is the above quoted statement. Those who are naive of physics and its historical developement tend to think philosophy is a separate pursuit from physics. Actually, physics and logic is a branch of philosophy, and ones philosophical outlook guides hypothesis and theories. Then to compare philosophy to religion, is deliberate ignorance.

There is a entire field called 'philosophy of physics',... important questions wrt what physics is saying.

Even reading Roger Penrose's book 'Road to Reality' one will see him use the phrase 'philosophy' many many times,... why?,... because is a mature mathematical physicist, not a naive neophyte (not directed at anyone in particular).

Apr 26, 2014
,... one important areas of philosophy that helps guide physicists is epistemology where one questions what intuitive philosophical outlooks physicists make,....like Einstein's "god does not play dice", or the philosophical outlook of absolute "now", or the recent phys.org article about space-time Being a flowing liquid substance in and of itself complete with a viscosity,... and on and on.

Bernard D'Espagnat, a physicist and former student of De'Broglie, has written extensivily on "philosophy of physics", Heisenberg, and on and on. Don't let naivete cause you to be artificially mentally compartmentalized.

Apr 26, 2014
@ Nounemon-Skippy, you supposed to wait until oI Ira give you the bad karma points before you vote for your you Cher. When you go first it makes peoples make fun with you, eh?

Apr 26, 2014
Then to compare philosophy to religion, is deliberate ignorance.
@Noumenon
sorry, I disagree.
I have read a bit on the history of physics and I know/understand WHERE it came from but things diverged when the scientific method was adopted for scientific pursuits. For those wishing to study the "philosophy" of physics, more power to them, HOWEVER, there is no room in the scientific method for "knowledge by faith alone", which is both religious or philosophical knowledge.
now, I grant you there is MUCH more logic in philosophy than in religion. I WILL give you that, however, when an idea is so malleable that each person can have a completely different answer to the exact same "proof" of something, then you are talking about a faith, not empirical data.

Empirical data IS
philosophy MIGHT BE... and that is pretty much how it works with religion too

Apr 26, 2014
Bernard D'Espagnat... has written extensivily on "philosophy of physics", ... Don't let naivete cause you to be artificially mentally compartmentalized.
@Nou
to continue...
This may seem like a mark of naiveté for some, but I approach from the perspective of the investigator. In order for me to "prove" something or to find evidence I must make speculations, true. And some of those conjectures are based upon certain philosophical idea's, but they are only primers to lead into a certain search or direction.

Philosophy might give a way to deal with the facts as they arise (justification), but that is a shortcoming of the human mind, not of the data.
When it comes to empirical data and proof, philosophy falls short, because each individual ultimately believes an individual way that may or may not coincide with another. this is the bane of the scientific method, therefore it's NOT empirical, and as such CANNOT be conjoined with physics as physics is underpinned by empirical data

Apr 27, 2014
the philosophical outlook of absolute "now"
@Nou
in conclusion, whereas I agree that philosophy can help point science and physics into realms in which there needs to be a decision or definition (such as absolute now), it is, at its basic form, molded and underpinned by faith with a logical argument. There is no definitive single philosophy with fringe off-shoots of working hypothesis like in physics (QM/QWT/QED/GR/SR).
Johan hates QM/QWT when it is probably the single most successful theory in existence... which means, IT WORKS, whether he likes it or not.
Philosophy doesn't work that way, and only gains support thru acolytes and followers (another religious method).

There is no absolute truth in philosophy, whereas in the scientific method, there is empirical data.

This is just my perspective though. But I know that most scientists I've ever chatted with pretty much agree with it.

Apr 27, 2014
x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=0 and x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-(ct')*2=0. He then divided the first expression by the second to "derive" the Lorentz transformation equations. Which of course is not allowed by any mathematics.

Please refer me to the original source.


This is done in all textbooks. You can pick up any of them; for example Goldstein's Classical Mechanics. Unfortunately I am not at home at the moment or else I will pick a list of books from my shelves to refer you to.

I have written a paper in which I derive the Lorentz equations correctly by not dividing by zero. This derivation proves that Minkowski's space-time cannot exist. A space-time only exists within the volume of an electromagnetic wave, where this time is the phase-time of the wave, not actual time outside the wave. This is why Maxwell's equations can be written in a covariant format. This need not be the case for other physics equations; and is not the case.

Apr 27, 2014
There has been an interesting discussion on philosophy in physics and I must commend Noumenon for posting sense. Captain Stumpy lives in a naive, non-real dream-world by thinking that in physics there is no philosophy, and then classifying statements as being not physics since they involve philosophy. There are many assumptions in physics which cannot be proved experimentally, for example, it is impossible to prove experimentally that there is electric field energy around a solitary electron. It is assumed that there is, and this assumption leads to exploding integrals in QFT, which are then fudged away by "renormalisation".

Even worse is the
the philosophical outlook of absolute "now"
This is not a philosophical outlook, it is a necessity to avoid absurdity in physics. It is a very powerful tool in physics to make a postulate and then prove it wrong by showing that it leads to an absurdity.

continued

Apr 27, 2014
The interpretation in Relativity, which thefurlong advocates, namely that time within two different inertial reference frames can simultaneously be different, is an obvious absurdity. It is similar to stating that two twins are identical especially the one. Time cannot simultaneously be different and therefore the NOW can only imply that time must at the instant of NOW be the same within all reference frames of our Universe. This has nothing to do with philosophy but with avoiding absurdity in physics.

I take exception to the following deliberate lie:
Johan hates QM/QWT when it is probably the single most successful theory in existence... which means, IT WORKS, whether he likes it or not.
I do not hate QM/QWT since I use it every day to model physics. Yes it works and it works successfully: But what I am pointing out is that these successes do not require the concept of wave-particle duality, since any freely moving EM-wave has a centre-of-mass that moves like a "particle".

Apr 27, 2014
Thus Captain Stumpy, please do me a favour and first check before you throw around unfounded accusations. It only proves that you are not competent in your thinking.

And this inability of yours to understand physics is further illustrated by the following statement:

There is no absolute truth in philosophy, whereas in the scientific method, there is empirical data.
If you think there is absolute truth in physics, then you are just as naïve as a monkey. Physics is sometimes based on philosophical assumptions which cannot be measured experimentally. But are used since it leads to self-consistency.

I think you should not venture into this field since you obviously are not competent to understand the interplay of philosophy with physics. There is a good reason why the founding fathers of the Royal Society of London defined physics as "experimental philosophy". I think you need to do a lot more reading on this subject before proceeding to make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Apr 27, 2014
I think you need to do a lot more reading on this subject before proceeding to make an even bigger fool of yourself.


@ The johnpringles-Skippy, some friendly advice for you from ol Ira. Have you seen that man's picture on the Captain-Skippy profile you? He looks like one tuff customer Cher. He also don't like he real nice like me. I would not be calling the man the couyon that looks like he could take on the momma gator watching her eggys with his bare hands. We me knows that you aren't very smart like the other peoples so I thought I'd warn you about stepping around in the tall grass without looking where you stepping.