Relativity revisited once more still again

1: Deceleration is just a form of acceleration. So the person who decelerates is the one who has time slow down for them.

2: What causes your clock to slow down is your state of not being in your original inertial frame of reference. The acceleration is just you leaving that inertial frame of reference.

If, having accelerated, you then remain at high speed for a period of time, you are also remaining away from your original inertial frame of reference for that same period of time, and are therefore subject to the time slowdown for the duration of that time.

Thank you Ora for that response, it will take me a while to digest

Does your explanation reinforce the view that the reference frame representing the rest of the visible Universe (or at least those parts of it apparently not moving very fast) isn't special or unique

Dale, none of us will have aged any more than the other.

In trying to understand "relativity theories" Remember that they generally are from the point of view of the obnserver. Any observations that are made have to take into consideration that what the observer "observes" is subject to the rules that govern light. That is that light to an observer always is percieved as a fixed speed. However the wave length changes.

I have done the best for my own personal understanding to wit. Syncronized watchs are understood.

Imagine a flowing river. Put wind and waves on it. Put a boat in the water. Put marks on the shore, and put some bobbers in the water with some drags attached. The mouth of the river narrows as it runs into the sea.

Now put yourself at different vantage points.
You go upriver and upwind in the boat (Blue shift) waves appear closer together. You drift down stream. You power downstream. You power downstream against the wind and waves. Check with other observers.

So now I ask what time is it to the guy on shore. We do not agree but we disagree due to the speed of sound. At 1100 ft. we disagree by one second. You will just have to imagine this at the speed of light. My boat won't go that fast!!

Just for grins look up "red shift"," Wave theory",and "Doppler effects".

Forgive me Mark if I take issue but the fella who takes off at high speed then returns home will find his buddies to have aged more than he

How?
Have you experienced this?
Einstein was WELL short of the mark, Dale.

Motion slows one's clock

It has been demonstrated repeatedly

Howso

Motion is exact.
Yet relative.

Demonstration is theoretical.

Einstein was an idiot - He neglected to add size and capacity into his TOR, think about it.

Not sure Mark what that means, forgive an old man

That's pretty sure, yes

I'd be more inclined to say "practical"

I would if I could. Maybe Mark you could supply a Google link

You must specify what kind of clock you will use.

The atomic clock is very sensitive to acceleration because internally works with a receptor of the signals originated by the vibration frequency of the atom of Cesium. This receptor counts a certain number of vibrations and make click to set a second. Acceleration will cause an intercepting problem and by such the atomic clock will show malfunction.

When the atomic clock is exposed to almost zero gravity, the entire spaceship or satellite -including the clock- will suffer of changes. It has been proved hundreds of times that traveling from ground zero to outer space causes changes in matter and energy behavior.

Example, astronauts standing 6 months in the Space Station return "older" this is to say, with illnesses found in people older than the current age of the astronauts (this fact destroys completely the fallacies obtained from Relativity) and another example, liquid metals that can't be mixed by any means on ground zero, these can be mixed in outer space.

The atomic clock was calibrated on ground zero and will suffer of a continued malfunction as long as it stays traveling surrounding earth. The rate of erroneous data will be regular.

If you use a mechanical or digital (battery/electric) clock, you might need of years in order to detect the difference in nanoseconds because these clocks can't be calibrated to such a level.

If you use a sand clock or a water clock, well, will be obvious that their malfunction will give you disparate results.

So, not all the clocks malfunction the same when exposed to outer space.

Which one is the clock you will select in your thought experiment?

Perhaps Baron you misunderstand. The relative slowing of time isn't a malfunction

It doesn't matter since relative motion should affect all clocks equally

But Carl if you review my OP you will see that my periods of acceleration are assumed to be infinitesimal, thus should affect all clocks the same

Ora this is very troubling. After circumnavigating the Universe when I encounter you once more you've aged eons while I've hardly aged at all even if I don't stop to chat. Thus wasn't it my acceleration that had caused my time to stop (relative to you and the rest of the Universe)

…though the remainder of your posting does make sense in terms of classical relativity so I am wondering if I might have misread your first statement

The atomic clocks are not accurate enough to measure the whole thing!!!!

This whole relativity thing is from an extreme stupidity!

Space doesn't curve and time doesn't slow down or accelarate!

Just think about it!

What good would a 'google-link" do?
Particle-physics and QM break down beyond the 'mathematical process and become 'copenhagen or many world's' PHILOSOPHY.
As with ANY philosophical....'entanglement - Reality predisposes subjectivity.
Ultimately - One's own perspective denounces anothers'.
E=MCsq just means 'something' equates to itself. That's not hard to determine............... is it?

Explanatory function

According to the general rule that nieaweipse I see phys and philo in eternal embrace

Certainly at a2k but my theory doesn't denounce Einstein, only enhances


Sorry Mark but you'd have to elaborate for the Average Clod who might suffer calls of yard work while suffering incipient Alz's (me)

I would if I could. Maybe Mark you could supply a Google link


Aha Mark, now understand. Such a link might explain how he neglected...

I don't have the ability to break-down quotes, Dale. No PC. Visit here via ps3 (key-screen) only.
Ask a straightforward question - I'll give a straightforward answer.
You needn't add 'average clod' each time. I recognize your directive.

I don't know if it reinforces it, but it is certainly compatible with it.