Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Then of course the q is, if our time relationship is perfectly reciprocal... Thus the "stationary" or "preferred" frame

I'm wondering however if a new way of looking at time-at-a-distance to more easily explain relativistic changes in the moving object as I propose in the OP, might also resolve our other apparent difficulties

Dale, can you elaborate (or direct me to the source)?

In this connection it's interesting to note that it all falls in place if we assume that somehow we're underestimating the speed of light, that it's not c but many times c.

The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous. This seemed unacceptable on two counts. In the first place, it seemed to be a form of “action at a distance”. The second objection was that we had all been taught that Einstein’s special relativity (SR), an experimentally well-established theory, proved that nothing could propagate in forward time at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum.

...it is widely accepted, even if less widely known, that the speed of gravity in Newton’s Universal Law is unconditionally infinite. (E.g., Misner et al., 1973, p. 177) This is usually not mentioned in proximity to the statement that GR reduces to Newtonian gravity in the low-velocity, weak-field limit...While relativists have always been partial to the curved space-time explanation of gravity, it is not an essential feature of GR. Eddington (1920, p. 109) was already aware of the mostly equivalent “refracting medium” explanation for GR features, which retains Euclidean space and time in the same mathematical formalism....

We conclude that gravitational fields, even “static” ones, continually regenerate through entities that must propagate at some very high speed, . We call this the speed of gravity...we can place the most stringent limit yet from the observed uncertainty in : ³ 2x1010 c. A direct experimental verification in the laboratory that gravity propagates faster than light may now be possible. The protocol and preliminary results were reported in (Walker, 1997).

Near the end of his career, Lorentz is quoted as having graciously conceded the contest: “My theory can obtain all the same results as special relativity, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” (private communication from C.O. Alley) Today, with hindsight, we might make a somewhat different assessment: “Special relativity can explain all the experimental results in Table II that Lorentzian relativity can, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” Even so, SR cannot explain the faster-than-light propagation of gravity, although LR readily can.

I've used several different models but as I recall, the last was one in which I leave you instantaneously at (nearly) c and you see my clock stop, my ship shorten, etc; and looking out my rear window I see the same effects with you. Then (a) when I reach Mars I fire my retros, returning at (nearly) c; or (2) I bypass Marty's home base, returning home only after circumnavigating the Universe

Getting back to the twins, I'm not sure how it's typically orchestrated.

Then of course the q is, if our time relationship is perfectly reciprocal, and if it isn't the acceleration that had caused my clock to stop (to you) why we aren't still the same age. Thus the "stationary" or "preferred" frame

If the traveler was already going fast from the start (i.e. stays in the same frame of reference), that would be reciprocal, as neither party will have accelerated in that case.

1. A and B are moving with respect to each other (and they both agree on this)

2. Both A and B insist that THEY are not the one moving, and that it is only the other who is moving.

3. But A and B cannot possibly both be right. If they were both "at rest," then there would be no motion between them.

Oralloy, would you care to comment on this assertion that I made in an earlier post?

Quote:

1. A and B are moving with respect to each other (and they both agree on this)

2. Both A and B insist that THEY are not the one moving, and that it is only the other who is moving.

3. But A and B cannot possibly both be right. If they were both "at rest," then there would be no motion between them.

Were A and B moving at these speeds all along, or did one or both have to accelerate in order to reach their current situation?

Not sure what "all along" means here, Oralloy. Does it mean since the time they came into existence? Or just all the time we are aware of?

I really don't see how it's relevant to the question. How would that make any difference with respect to the assertion that they can't both be "at rest?"

The term "at rest" only means "at rest with regard to a certain frame of reference".

Since the moment of the Big Bang.

You might find something to stimulate your thinking it this article, Dale

Last I knew, you had two travelers passing by in opposite directions.

So your model involves one traveler and one stationary person?

Does the traveler decelerate (change reference frames) when passing by again after circumnavigating the universe, or just speed on by a second time?

If you have a traveler who accelerates, and one person who is left behind without accelerating, the time relationship is not perfectly reciprocal

If the traveler was already going fast from the start (i.e. stays in the same frame of reference), that would be reciprocal, as neither party will have accelerated in that case

When things change their frame of reference, all sorts of things happen when it comes to relativity

When I took off SR says that the reason my clock had stopped and (apparently) not yours is that I had shifted frames (twice) when having reached Mars I fired my retros. In my scenario where instead I just pass on by Marty's home base, when we meet again I supposedly haven't aged at all but you're an ancient and wrinkled with that long beard. Yet I hadn't shifted frames, had I

Please lookup Dr Dingle!

All what you wrote is sheer nonsense!

In short Lay, I'm not arguing at all; I agree most wholeheartedly that the SR bunch is sloughing off that "preferred ref" and I have no idea how they justify doing so. But if there is one as you maintain , I simply can't see how or why

Let me first ask you this: If there was a motionless frame, but no one could detect just what and where it was, would that mean it wasn't "really" there

Okay thanks Que, can you provide a link

Okay, but pray howso