Twin paradox chancy

@sluggo,

Quote:

What if both change course to reunite?

Yea Slug that's the critical q isn't it. Each instaneously departs at c; then instantaneously supposedly reunite, both at the same age as when they left two years ago

My theory explains this simply in a short paragraph of 1-syllable words with no recourse whatever to math. It's hard to entertain, however, as I had said, owing to our difficulty with time-at-a-distance where we make the unconscious assumption through it all that it's the same time everywhere no relative motion is involved

Simply, and now I can't detail the reasoning since The Toilet as well as Yardwork calls...; you travelers come back 2 years later because the instant you applie4d your retros to return, here 2 years elapses

That sounds nuts but no moreso that than present theory as I'm sure you'll immediately agree...

...tho I'd be happy to review it for those unfamiliar with Al...

Oh and incidentally my apolos to all for all the typos above, owing to software that turns you off if it thinks you're a...

...but I'm not, I'm not I tell ya.....

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

That sounds nuts but no moreso that than present theory

You aren't suggesting, are you, that "sounding nuts" is an argument in favour of a theory? The present theory only sounds "nuts" to ignorant people, and has the advantage of being confirmed by experiment, and is proved right every day by people using GPS etc. Your theory just sounds nuts but without the advantage.

2 Replies

@centrox,

Quote:

that "sounding nuts" is an argument in favour of a theory?

Not every time, anyway. If it seemed pretty reasonable at first glance then of course it wouldn't 'sound nuts,' meaning 'seem crazy.' On the other hand, at least at first, Al's must have sounded nuts to many

Quote:

The present theory...is proved right every day

...and yet the paradox seems to persist. whereas nobody (here anyhow) has yet argued against or refuted mine

Hope I have made myself clear and thanks again for your interest in my postings

0 Replies

@sluggo,

sluggo wrote:

Clocks are frequencies, so mutual passive observations only detects doppler shifts.
Here is an example of reciprocal time dilation using light measurement.
https://app.box.com/s/ayna7twve1y4yvo3aw5htkxac5gewvcx

OK, that site just makes my point, indirectly. What "appears" to be the case, if you fail to take the doppler effect into account, is not what IS the case. But that has no bearing whatsover on time dilation.

The author at that site quotes Al as follows:

Quote:

"That light requires the same time to traverse the same path A to M as for the path B to M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity."

This quote also says absolutely nothing about time dilation (the doppler effect even less so). It does, however, specifically acknowledge what everyone should know (although many don't), to wit: The claim that the speed of light is isotropic (the same in all directions) has never been proven. Nor can it be, as far as we know. It is merely an arbitrary stipulation.

Interesting that Al himself claims that the "constancy of light speed" is NOT a scientific hypothesis or a claim about the PHYSICAL nature of light, eh?

1 Reply

@centrox,

centrox wrote:

The present theory only sounds "nuts" to ignorant people, and has the advantage of being confirmed by experiment, and is proved right every day by people using GPS etc. Your theory just sounds nuts but without the advantage.

Not sure what you're calling the "present theory," but if you mean special relativity, then you're mistaken:

1. SR has never been proven right.
2. The GPS completely abandons SR and instead uses a neo-lorentzian theory of relative motion to achieve it's results.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

This shows acceleration/deceleration isn't the cause, but inertial motion.
https://app.box.com/s/c8yshj90l3c2eixu13cpkge8w53304cm

0 Replies

@layman,

The apparent time dilation results from the clock synch convention.
Knowing there is no method of determining absolute speed, Einstein's definition at least maintained a consistent light speed.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

GPS completely abandons SR and instead uses a neo-lorentzian theory

Lay, the NL only introduces another mystery, 'stationary ether,' which mine doesn't require at all

Mine is also NL although it provides a bridge 'tween the two, denying neither Al nor Newt; is explicable in a short para with common words and no math at all

Yes it sounds really nuts, but no moreso than Al's at some junctures. Been accused of idiocy but still nobody anywhere has taken the trouble to refute it

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

another mystery, 'stationary ether,'

Sounds good on paper (legal?)

1 Reply

@centrox,

Hi Cen !
They all sound good on paper but the fact they don't agree bolsters my own, which incorporates all'f'em

I had writ a book entitled, 'The World, as Explained to the Young Man,' entirely in 7700 words of one syllable (which not a single of 50 pubs was the slightest bit interested), but that was 'way b4; and now I'm wondering if Relative Relativity might also be so explained

By the way ain't our new sys great
Thof it catches on I'm sure they'll banish us both
...but then later let us back in I'm sure
...being probly the most liberal Chat Room in the Web

Still let's keep it a secret 'long as we can....

0 Replies

@sluggo,

sluggo wrote:

The apparent time dilation results from the clock synch convention.
Knowing there is no method of determining absolute speed, Einstein's definition at least maintained a consistent light speed.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Time dilation is REAL, not apparent, and that does NOT result from any definitions or stipulations--it's a empirical fact of nature, not a theoretical/definitional abstraction.

It has been shown, however, that "each" clock (between 2) does NOT slow down relative to the other (as SR would have it). Only 1 of the 2 slows, not both. That would be the case whatever clock synchronization method is used.

I actually feel kinda stupid saying that the reciprocal slowing of clocks has been "shown" to be false (even though it has), because it's logically impossible to begin with, and is in no need of empirical demonstration.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
GPS completely abandons SR and instead uses a neo-lorentzian theory
Lay, the NL only introduces another mystery, 'stationary ether,' which mine doesn't require at all

No, contrary to somewhat widespread popular belief, lorentzian relativity does NOT require an ether. Lorentz posited an ether, but that was for purposes of other aspects of his theory.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

No, contrary to somewhat widespread popular belief, lorentzian relativity does NOT require an ether. Lorentz posited an ether, but that was for purposes of other aspects of his theory.

Einstein himself found that an ether was necessary for other physical reasons, saying that general relativity would be "unthinkable" without an ether. Contrary to what many seem to think, he never claimed there was no ether, he just said the concept wasn't needed (was "superfluous") for his particular theory of relative motion (SR, as opposed to GR).

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

layman wrote:

No, contrary to somewhat widespread popular belief, lorentzian relativity does NOT require an ether. Lorentz posited an ether, but that was for purposes of other aspects of his theory.

Einstein himself found that an ether was necessary for other physical reasons, saying that general relativity would be "unthinkable" without an ether. Contrary to what many seem to think, he never claimed there was no ether, he just said the concept wasn't needed for his particular theory of relative motion (SR, as opposed to GR).

Technically there is an ether if you want to consider the higs field one or not. As the current hypothesis goes it's this field that gives all matter mass. Without this field, no mass, no stars, no galaxies, no earth, no people.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Technically there is an ether if you want to consider the higs field one or not. As the current hypothesis goes it's this field that gives all matter mass. Without this field, no mass, no stars, no galaxies, no earth, no people.

Given that, under the formulation that F=MA, "mass" is simply "resistance to acceleration" when you boil it down, I have great difficulty understanding what meaning claims like that have.

1 Reply

@layman,

RR doesn't need one either, is really easy to explain, without any math at all, joins Al with Newt without contradicting either one, and introduces no paradox nor contradiction

Just sorta kiddin', fellas, it is just a bit difficult to explain and also raises a few q's
..but then so did Al's

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

RR doesn't need one either, is really easy to explain, without any math at all, joins Al with Newt without contradicting either one, and introduces no paradox nor contradiction

Just sorta kiddin', fellas, it is just a bit difficult to explain and also raises a few q's
..but then so did Al's

Dale let me save you some more heart ache.

Physicists don't care about hypothesis. Its the math that is important. Without the math the theory is useless. It can't DO anything productive to say relative relativity is how things are.

I don't even know what your hypothesis includes nor its consequences.

Is the velocity of light arbitrary? (relative)

If you set up an experiment with two observer's and motion are the results of the same parameters arbitrary? (relative)

What does relative relativity even mean? That sometimes it behaves according to observation and sometimes it doesn't?

Without the math you have nothing. You could call it special zingle fluff puffiness and it would be equally as valid as relative relativity.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Its the math that is important

Thanks Krump but if you'd read it you'd agree w/me, it ain't anymore...

Quote:

...what your hypothesis includes nor...

'Cause you ain't read (pron. red) it. I usta provide links but it got so hard I quit. Try like 'dale relative,' 'dalehileman relative relativity,' 'hileman alternative relativity,' etc etc etc

Quote:

Is the velocity of light arbitrary?

Yes yes K, you're catching on

In RR it's not necessarily c but it too is relative just like all the other motion

Be happy to elucidate...

Quote:

... with two observer's and motion are the results of the same parameters arbitrary?

Two observer's what ?? Which parameters??

??

Quote:

What does relative relativity even mean?

Not only is regular motion relative but so is the velocity of light 'c'

Now c itself isn't relative but 'c' is; so please note use of " '...' "

Thus
What does relative relativity even mean?
What does 'relative' relativity even mean?
What does 'relative relativity' even mean?
What does 'relative relativity even' mean?
etc etc

Just sorta kiddin', Trump, hope you're not TAT

Oops... that's w/ 'K', ain't it... ???

See how I now use " '??' 's " ? Either way, makes 'em so mad

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Its the math that is important
Thanks Krump but if you'd read it you'd agree w/me, it ain't anymore...

Quote:
...what your hypothesis includes nor...
'Cause you ain't read (pron. red) it. I usta provide links but it got so hard I quit. Try like 'dale relative,' 'dalehileman relative relativity,' 'hileman alternative relativity,' etc etc etc

Quote:
Is the velocity of light arbitrary?
Yes yes K, you're catching on

In RR it's not necessarily c but it too is relative just like all the other motion

Be happy to elucidate...

Quote:
... with two observer's and motion are the results of the same parameters arbitrary?
Two observer's what ?? Which parameters??

??

Quote:
What does relative relativity even mean?
Not only is regular motion relative but so is the velocity of light 'c'

Now c itself isn't relative but 'c' is; so please note use of " '...' "

Thus
What does relative relativity even mean?
What does 'relative' relativity even mean?
What does 'relative relativity' even mean?
What does 'relative relativity even' mean?
etc etc

Just sorta kiddin', Trump, hope you're not TAT

Oops... that's w/ 'K', ain't it... ???

See how I now use " '??' 's " ? Either way, makes 'em so mad

Dale are you aware of the consequences stating C is relative?

E=mc^2 would mean C is a variant. That means you couldnt use this equation at all to determine the conversion if mass into energy. It would become arbitrary.

RR also means as a consequence you can conduct the exact same experiment changing nothing (all parameter are unchanged) and you would never get the same result unless by arbitrary chance.

RR = -0

So far. Please express how the theory works.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

E=mc^2 would mean C is a variant. That means you couldnt use this equation at all to determine the conversion if mass into energy. It would become arbitrary.

What are you trying to say here, exactly, Krumps?

C is a speed.

Speed is determined by dividing the distance traveled by the time elapsed while it traversed that distance.

So, if time changes, the speed, as measured, changes.

Likewise, if distance changes, the measured speed changes.

We "know" (believe) that time (clocks) and lengths vary with an object's speed.

Like many people, you can't seem to make a distinction what a quantity is measured to be, and what it is.

Put another way, it is quite possible for every observer to MEASURE the speed of light to be the same while, in reality, the speed of light varies with motion.

When I say it is "possible," I mean that it is completely consistent with every experiment ever done regarding relativity.

It is, for that matter, the very concept upon which the Lorentz transforms are based.

1 Reply

Twin paradox chancy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know