Ooh, but is it the same target of your gaze, or another target of your gaze that seems identical? Maybe the first target of your gaze was destroyed and a completely different one created at the destination point!
Read my post again. No symmetry here.
The twins clearly experience different accelerations at takeoff, turnaround, and landing of the rocket.
I’d like to know why you believe otherwise. Sincerely I do, because this asymmetry has been known for decades and is described in nearly all explanations of the twin paradox.
You are welcome to say these are negligible effects, but I’d like to see the math to support it. As others have said, it’s put up or shut up time.
It does if relativity explains real world observations, as it clearly does.
Just as an explanation needed to be present to explain failures of Newtonian mechanics. Simply saying “Newtonian mechanics is wrong” is worth little, since it explains a wide variety of observations.
Googling I get complete contradiction.
Looking it up I get contradiction. (it goes both ways)
I can find arguments about it that go both ways.
I can cherry pick answers, but I admit it is not as one sided as I would have expected.
Really it depends on your definition of relative, obviously the effects of acceleration and seeing something accelerate are very very different and distinct.
Unlike relative motion which is hard to argue isn’t relative without an aether, and can be relative even with an aether if it is entrained.
Since the concern here has to do with acceleration in regards of it creating an identical experience of being in a gravity field, well we expect 2 things to occur!
1: We effect to feel the force of gravity pulling us to the floor.
2: We expect to observe that our clock is running slow relative to clocks not in the gravity field.
So if we look outside of our elevator and see clocks outside running faster than ours, if we drop our clock it should occur as the same time rate as the rest of the universe since acceleration isn’t a field effect like gravity covering everything in space as gravity does.
If you lack either the cognitive skills to follow simple logic.
Or the integrity to follow truth…
Then I honestly don’t see any point.
Yup, you beat me, I can lead a horse to water, but I can’t make him drink. (or think)
Thank’ee for answers! I had a fairly standard three years of undergrad physics, but we never got beyond SR and IFRs. I can do the “plank flying at a barn with two doors” thing, but never got taught about acceleration, gravity fields, etc. (It was covered descriptively, but no equations, and apparently, they skipped over some bits!)
All of this is reminiscent of people who disprove evolution using only junior high school science. “The laws of thermodynamics prove evolution can’t have happened.” It’s insulting, in that it implies that the scientific world is either dead stupid (“Oh, gosh, we never thought of that!”) or dishonest.
Our OP seems to imagine that a century of scientists, including thousands of doctors and tens of thousands of masters, and thousands of full professors, and including thousands of experimental technicians such as the staff at CERN, have all been so incredibly stupid, they’ve never ever looked at the situation clearly and have been overlooking these obvious flaws all this time.
(And, okay, yeah, that undergraduate spotted an arithmetic error in Newton’s Principia that had been overlooked for 300 years.)
So - you can’t back up your assertions with cites - you can only throw insults.
You are coming off as genuine, so I will give it a go.
If all acceleration is relative, then we must assume the force of gravity we feel from acceleration is not actually important!
If the force is (at least generally) indicative of absolutely who is accelerating is not of any importance and we insist that is it misleading us into think one is accelerating, when really both are…
note: We could still tell from red/blue shift changes who seems to be shifting relative to the rest of the universe.
Then however the space ship twin accelerates is unimportant, since the G-forces do not make her accelerating any more real, it could just as well be said the other twin is accelerating away, or that each are mutually accelerating from each other if we took the middle ground.
However if the G-force felt is at least a MOSTLY reliable indicator of who is accelerating, then acceleration is absolute.
Also the turn around changes are nothing, if you want turn around changes consider the earth twin, accelerating at 1G (while standing still) and constantly changing direction.
Logic is better than citing a source.
You don’t know logic, ah screw it, you aren’t genuinely interested in the truth.
If you were you would have noted that I said I could happily pick citations in either direction, I chose not to and use logic. And the logic is sound.
Mythoughts, there was no way I could catch up with the older threads, but since you posted a new conversational starting point – now merged into this thread as post #136 – I’ve replied to that entry with some questions for you. With the merging of the threads, my reply to #136 is now post #144 in this thread.
your logic is not sound - as for your assertions:
[QUOTE=mythoughts]
No one will back you up on this, well no one who knows the theory anyway.
Constant motion is relative (at least according to SR) since there is no obvious way of answering who is moving from any possible clues based on your experience, or theirs.
But with acceleration it is very different, if I an observing 1G of acceleration relative to other bodies, all I have to do is check to see if I am showing the symptoms of experiencing 1G of G-force or weightlessness, or see if they are experiencing 1G of G-force or weightlessness.
Acceleration is absolute, not relative. And if Einstein were here to chip in even he would agree.
[/QUOTE]
- can you back them up or not? or is the best you can do when challenged is throw insults?
Don’t call other people names here, use the BBQ Pit.
I imagine this is what being a foreigner feels like.
Regards,
Shodan
I already said in the previous email:
Googling I get complete contradiction.
Looking it up I get contradiction. (it goes both ways)
I can find arguments about it that go both ways.
I can cherry pick answers, but I admit it is not as one sided as I would have expected.
I have not found an authoritative source say either way, and have just found people like us arguing about if it is.
So I said that, and that it was not as I expected.
What else do you want me to do? I have done something no one else has done in any of these threads I started, admit it wasn’t as I expected.
That doesn’t make me wrong about the absoluteness of acceleration (except where gravity comes into play) it only makes me wrong about how unified or fractured understanding of Relativity is.
And I am finding it is fractured all over, this whole argument is apparently redundant since time dilation has been experimentally proven not to occur with acceleration.
note: Well, experiments more indicate than prove often, but this one had extraordinarily huge acceleration.
And I shared the same thought experiment on an email list, the conclusion there by one guy (the only one really responding) is that he didn’t think acceleration was meant to create time dilation effects.
So it seems that General Relativity is poorly defined when it comes to authoritatively answering what it does and does not say.
The fact that it is harder to get it’s subscribers to all agree on what it does predict about all these different things makes it a harder target to hit.
But it doesn’t make me wrong. (except about it being in order)
So again, I’d ask you to fault my logic, but no one has faulted I don’t think a single point of logic I have made except by misconstruing what I said.
Often there have been side issues of 2 Relativity supporters have side disagreements about what Relativity does say.
Please Clarify?
It means you’re using morphemes that we, as native English speakers, should understand; however, the way you combine them is more meaningless than meaningful.
Put another way, you are incredibly poor at conveying your ideas via the use of written English.
I’m sure it all makes sense within your own reference point (your brain) but, much like synesthetes would find it impossible to communicate their perception of “smelling colors,” there seems to be no way for you to concisely make a coherent claim.
IOW, we all end up at this deliciously coincidental place where everything boils down to our frame of reference.
<bolding mine> to the first bolded statement - this is only because you disagree with SR and its conclusions- therefore you are ignoring the authoritative source on the subject and are failing to understand it - as has been pointed out countless times by others in this very thread.
To the second bolded comment - The errors in your logic have been pointed out countless times - since your assumptions are erroneous - so are your conclusions - therefore your logic is faulty.
Of course, given erroneous assumptions, his logic could be completely valid and still produce erroneous conclusions.
All men are Socrates.
I am a man:
ergo, I am Socrates.
The logic is perfectly valid…
no - the logic is faulty.
Logic based on a faulty premise is still faulty logic - even if the sylogism is “valid” in form.
I should probably say faulty ‘reasoning’ instead of faulty ‘logic’ - and I think we would be in agreement on this. I consider this logic “unsound or faulty” because it proceeds from a faulty premise - I have not reviewed all of his ‘logic’ to decide if it is internally consistent (regardless of truth) - but on a quick read - it is not.
Yes, I am saying that IF Lorenz is correct and the object in relative motion can be seen to shrink in length, then it will make it easy to see how if it shrinks and time dilates by the right amount the ruler will be shorter and the clock faster to speed light up that is measured too slow.
But that if we assume that, then applying the same logic to light we are heading into that is now moving too fast is now seen as moving even faster as it has less distance to go and our clock is too slow register enough time.
Now I could be entirely wrong about HOW Lorenz tries to make light measure the same speed.
HONESTLY I MIGHT BE TALKING OUT OF MY ARSE! (I’ll pay for saying that I know)
Especially about this point since I do not have a detailed understanding, or even a rough understanding of Lorentz, I have a good understanding of SR and the parts Einstein used of his work.
But not Lorentz’s theory directly.
BUT THERE IS 1 THINK I AM CERTAIN OF:
If an object is moving and it’s length contracts and it’s time slows, that will make light it is having a head on with measure faster than the speed of light, even IF it gained no actual velocity to light.
Secondly…
I consider that length contraction and time dilation to be very distinct possibilities if and object moves through the aether that I assert exists.
DAMN THIS IS GETTING CONFUSING!
I guess your post is from the Superior Relativity thread?
I didn’t realize that when you said merge, that this thread has dad 2 different threads merged into it.
This makes it very very confusing to keep track of, and worse when I am having trouble getting even the most obvious things go over peoples heads.
If you are talking about my superior special relativity theory, then I am saying that if we assert that the illusive effects of Doppler were somehow real…
Then we would get the right answer for the speed of light.
But that would be like taking Lorentz rules and making an opposite one for each.
So I guess you could say that if we choose to assert this (an axiom, a postulate) then yes, the constance of the speed of light pretty make sense.
Except for orthogonal observations when it is a tie between the 2 effects of lengthening and shortening, faster and slower clocks.
The problem is this.
I can postulate or have an an axiom that there is an invisible substance to space, and then make sense of things from there.
However if my axiom is impossible, contradictory, unexplainable…
Then however beautiful the theory, it is built on something that can’t be.
It is no different than saying no matter how you move you can’t measure the speed of a galloping horse to be any different relative to you.
It makes no sense, the horse has an agreed upon location in space at any moment.
Anything you do like changing the length of your ruler or speeding or slowing your clock will only work in one direction unless you do both simultaneously, which if it is the same ruler and clock you can’t.
There is actually an entirely sensible answer that could make the speed of light constant.
Electromagnetic phenomena may transmit differently in different frames.
This in intriguing and I have considered it, basically though, while everyone measures the correct speed of light no matter how they move, now a single photon is in different locations at the same moment, such that if you were being approached by a photon you could quickly change frame to one where it was not quite so close, or possibly (I’m not sure) you could avoid it all together, but if after it hit you you could change your frame so you detected it twice.
This means that if you tried the experiment that is the first post in this thread, you will get the result where the photon hits sensor B after it hits sensor B2 despite B being in front.
Also there would still be a condition which you would not measure the speed of light to be constant, acceleration. Since the first sensor and the second sensor would occupy different frames of reference when they interact with the light. I am not even four if both sensor would even see the light, you’d have to really think about it.
I do however consider this to be at least vaguely possible way light could be C for all frames.
But I presented the other idea for kicks, it is impossible to have something be longer and shorter at the same time, just as it is impossible to have 2 clocks mutually slower than the other. It could SEEM that way to each, but it couldn’t BE that way.
Observation isn’t reality, and for anyone who has looked at a fun house mirror, thank God!
Yes.
But the fact that I can do that, doesn’t make the impossible magically possible.
Ah No, because it isn’t explained.
If it isn’t explained it is baseless.
Let me put it this way, by now you have probably read my arguments about how I can prove the speed of sound is also a constant and there is no air.
Now do you know of some measurement of the speed of light being constant that ISN’T just like my analogies?
To put is simply there is only one way to find the speed of sound is not constant, to move relative to the air.
So are you aware of any experiment where light was measured at ground level, or under ground where the measuring equipment moved?
And it could not be enclosed either because as with the air as soon as you enclose something it will drag the medium with it.
So you would need something like a rather insubstantial set of light sensors preferably offset from one another (so that if you imagine wake from the first one, the second would be outside of that wake).
Because something like that should work, you would also want the sensors to stick out to get as far away from the possible ‘aura’ of entrainment of the moving equipment so that they skim their heads quite close to a stationary tube wall.
That experiment SHOULD work to detect a difference especially if stationary sensors are uses also to ensure that the moving objects are actually entraining the aether in the tube which is plausible.
And if you want to measure how long sound take to move between 2 sensors without having turbulence disturb the air screwing with the results.
So you can either believe one of a few things:
Light is unexplainably constant
Light is a constant explained by one of my 2 theories kinda mostly.
Light is not constant and no experiments like the above have been done to separate the entrainment (via aether) the observer has on the speed of light.
If Einstein could explain the speed of light being constant, he would have.
He didn’t try.
Under the physical law that something has a definitive location in space
The only non-contradictory theory would be that light at any moment is in different locations for different frames.
It might be moving very fast, but just imagine light moved slowly and try and explain it.
No one ever has, the hope in SR is that you won;t even really try.
But IF you think it IS possibly, then consider the first post in THIS thread, and the slightly cleaner versions of the augment that have come since involving 2 light sensors and rotation, even if the rotating frame sees the same time rate it they can’t possibly measure the speed to be the same.
I know it SEEMS counter-intuitive if that mantra is repeated often enough, but it is actually impossible unless there is something that can change this from the normal experience of relative motion.
And since all the distortions of space and time and length and simultaneity don’t even help, then they are just distractions.
And since photons are normally viewed to be in one location according to all frames…
And even Einstein didn’t say they could explain it.
Then it is either impossible, or a HUGE unexplained hole.
And no one is even looking to fill it.
No.
There may be other possibilities, but consider A…
A1: The observed speed of light in a vacuum is independent of the relative seed of the observer and source, it assumes a velocity relative to the aetheric medium, if the observer has an envelope of aether around it as does earth so that the observer sees the speed of light as C as the observer is motionless in the medium.
A2: The observed speed of light in a vacuum is independent of the relative seed of the observer and source and is constant just because. Which is SR’s argument.
No it doesn’t.
None of these things come from the speed of light being constant.
Since they can’t explain how light can be constant. (at least, not in all directions without making others further from C.
They were just failed attempts that have now been treated as successful.
If I am wrong please show me how they are results of light being constant.
Perhaps, and they are reasonably possible absolute effects of movement through an aether.
Agreed!
My concern is that people aren’t concerned that it makes no sense.
We must start from a position of reality, I am fine with counter-intuitive, but not fine with accepting an impossibility.
I can accept that there can be arguments where the speed of light could be kinda relative as in my argument about in being in different frames at different motions.
But even that isn’t truly constant since if you had a light censor that could access observe other frames you would see you had changed you velocity relative to where the photon is in another frame.
It must be explained, if not immediately after 1905 then soon after.
Not 109 years later with an unexplained impossibility.
If you think it is a possibility then explain what would happen in the thought experiment in the first post.
This is unrelated to logic.
I wrongly assumed that acceleration being absolute was easy to cite, I was wrong.
But that is not logic, that was an assumption about people, google etc…
My logic deals with a funny thing called physics which you are ignoring.
If my logic regarding gravity and acceleration and time dilation and watches flawed it would be pointed out, but it is not wrong, these are facts:
1: A gravity fields is found to make a time run slower inside the field than out in a manner agreed by all
2: An object dropped in a gravity field is not assumed to run instantly at the rate of clocks outside the gravity field
3: An accelerated object feels a force like gravity and everyone here agrees and Wikipedia agrees General Relativity predicts that the object should experience immediate time dilation from the acceleration since it is equivalent to gravity.
4: And IF this time dilation is equivalent to gravity, then it should make the dilated accelerating clock tick slower than clocks not undergoing acceleration
5: And IF a clock is dropped in an accelerator it is immediately free from acceleration, it is like the clocks outside the and must tick in accordance with those clocks, faster than it was a instant before.
6: Either the clock dropped in the gravity field speeds up also and hence 2 is wrong, or accelerating clocks don’t experience time dilation due to acceleration (as experiments indicates disproving General Relativity, or if all these 5 assumptions are true, then you CAN easily know if you are experiencing gravity or acceleration.
What is the error in my logic, or flaw or whatever you want to call it.