Discussion:
what happens to the travelling twin while is going away?
beda pietanza
2021-05-30 10:25:26 UTC
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
there are three possibility:

a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower

b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster

c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind

this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.

if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,

it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.

SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.

cheers
beda
Paparios
2021-05-30 13:11:08 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
cheers
beda
beda pietanza
2021-05-30 14:53:05 UTC
Post by Paparios
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
cheers
beda
beda
ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin

can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
cheers
beda
Sylvia Else
2021-06-04 12:11:53 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Paparios
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
cheers
beda
beda
ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
cheers
beda
The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.

Sylvia
beda pietanza
2021-06-04 12:19:48 UTC
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Paparios
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
cheers
beda
beda
ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
cheers
beda
The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.
Sylvia
yes, sylvia, it is impossible to "compare" the ageing rate, but it is possible to
"know" what is happenins to their rate of ageing, by a correct intuition
can you??
cheers
beda
Sylvia Else
2021-06-04 12:36:46 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Paparios
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
cheers
beda
beda
ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
cheers
beda
The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.
Sylvia
yes, sylvia, it is impossible to "compare" the ageing rate, but it is possible to
"know" what is happenins to their rate of ageing, by a correct intuition
can you??
cheers
beda
If you cannot compare them, then all you can do is consider the rate a
twin ages in his own frame - which is just his normal rate.

Sylvia.
Ken Seto
2021-06-04 15:00:10 UTC
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Paparios
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
cheers
beda
beda
ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
cheers
beda
The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.
Sylvia
yes, sylvia, it is impossible to "compare" the ageing rate, but it is possible to
"know" what is happenins to their rate of ageing, by a correct intuition
can you??
cheers measure the rate of a moving clock?
beda m
If you cannot compare them, then all you can do is consider the rate a
twin ages in his own frame - which is just his normal rate.
Then how come all your SR brothers assert that they can MEASURE the rate of a moving clock?
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
How could Beda Pietanza's "science" benefit someone ?!

It doesn't matter to us humans how incredibly slow a guy dies
if he's billions of light-years away, falling into a black hole.

Hollywood "scientists" care because it fills their pockets.
Sylvia Else
2021-06-05 00:33:23 UTC
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Paparios
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
cheers
beda
beda
ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
cheers
beda
The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.
Sylvia
yes, sylvia, it is impossible to "compare" the ageing rate, but it is possible to
"know" what is happenins to their rate of ageing, by a correct intuition
can you??
cheers
beda
If you cannot compare them, then all you can do is consider the rate a
twin ages in his own frame - which is just his normal rate.
Sylvia.
beda
ok let's do it, to make it easy we substitute twins with two clocks,
you say they keep their normal rate locally, (which is false)
so the going away clock B (zeroed and send away) say at .5c (vs the left behind clock A)
after a while B encounter another clock C coming in the opposite direction say at .6c
C assume the reading of clock B and keeps going towards clock A
when finally the clock C encounter clock A if the two traveling clocks kept their normal rate
as you say, they should read the same elapsed time.
Your argument doesn't work. You are assuming, falsely, that clocks
running at their normal rate in their own frames are also running at
their normal rate in some global frame.

Sylvia.
beda pietanza
2021-06-05 12:52:42 UTC
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Paparios
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
cheers
beda
beda
ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
cheers
beda
The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.
Sylvia
yes, sylvia, it is impossible to "compare" the ageing rate, but it is possible to
"know" what is happenins to their rate of ageing, by a correct intuition
can you??
cheers
beda
If you cannot compare them, then all you can do is consider the rate a
twin ages in his own frame - which is just his normal rate.
Sylvia.
beda
ok let's do it, to make it easy we substitute twins with two clocks,
you say they keep their normal rate locally, (which is false)
so the going away clock B (zeroed and send away) say at .5c (vs the left behind clock A)
after a while B encounter another clock C coming in the opposite direction say at .6c
C assume the reading of clock B and keeps going towards clock A
when finally the clock C encounter clock A if the two traveling clocks kept their normal rate
as you say, they should read the same elapsed time.
Your argument doesn't work. You are assuming, falsely, that clocks
running at their normal rate in their own frames are also running at
their normal rate in some global frame.
Sylvia.
beda,
schizophrenic thinking apply to people, people may say the different thing at same time,
schizophrenic time rate don't apply to a single clock
a single clock traveling in space has a unique time rate for all observers.
of course you can manipulate frames to transform anything as you want
but that is just manipulation.
a clock is unique and unique is its time rate

you may mean that in SR you distinguish the local time rate of a single clock
from the time rate measured on that clock by a relatively moving observer.
be careful that is not a comparison between the single clocks belonging to the
two frames, but it is a "surreptitious" measurement that result on an artifacted apparent
time rate generated by comparing a rate of the observed clock against a row of clocks
passing by, this row of clocks are Esynched to be absolutely asynchronized
so that a fictitious elapsed time is added to the measurement, you should know this.

important is to point out that, a single clock in each single frame, has a unique time rate
determined by the absolute movement of the clock/frame, all the rest about SR measurements
are manipulations, useful or senseless we don't care for now, but surely a manipulation

sylvia, manipulating if not awarely done brings to self manupulated logic and to a conceptual mess:
the local clock is not running at normal rate: in the SR arrangement it is fictiously assumed
in running at such normal rate, to fit into the artifacted procedure resulting in a inexistent time rate
associated to an inexistent relative speed.
now this SR procedure is well known in its mechanism, and if you think it is useful to the your purposes,
fine, but please don't cheat: single clocks in each single SR frames do run at different rate accordingly to their absolute speeds, you may want to add that neither the rate of the clock is known nor its absolute speed, you may say so (it is a white lie) but if you insist in claiming that the single local clock runs at its normal rate, you are
lying or you are deceited by your own deceitful and messy way to profess your SR believe.

cheers
beda
Maciej Wozniak
2021-06-04 12:21:58 UTC
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Paparios
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
cheers
beda
beda
ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
cheers
beda
The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.
That's why this idiocies Giant Guru has written about it
can't be beaten; as they're limited to inertial frames
only (i.e. apply nowhere) they're truly invincible.
Cliff Hallston
2021-05-30 18:20:20 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
Insufficient information. Since you define "absolute speed" as the speed in terms of the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel is at rest, you need to specify the original state of motion of the twins in terms of the rest frame of your breakfast bagel. But that will be pointless, because you could also define "absolute speed" to be the speed in terms of the Sun's inertial rest coordinates, or in terms of Andromeda's inertial rest coordinates, or any of infinitely many other inertial coordinate systems. So understanding the phenomena really has nothing in particular to do with your breakfast bagel, and writing the word "absolute" on your bagel doesn't change anything. Understand?
Post by beda pietanza
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes
behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is
successful in doing so,
Your misconception is due to your failure to grasp the distinction between the logical concepts of necessity and sufficiency. You think that since events can be described in terms of a particular inertial coordinate system S5 that therefore S5 must have some special conceptual significance, but you admit that the events can be described just as well (with exactly the same laws of physics) in terms of S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, and infinitely many others. Thus there is no rational basis for your belief that S5 has any *particular* significance. Understand?
Post by beda pietanza
Can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going
away twin while he is keeping traveling away?
A "rate" is a ratio of two things, so you have to specify the two things. Asking for the rate of something without specifying the system of reference coordinates is like tying to clap with one hand. In terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates x,t the rate of proper time for an object moving at speed v is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Understand?
beda pietanza
2021-05-30 21:38:08 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
Insufficient information. Since you define "absolute speed" as the speed in terms of the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel is at rest, you need to specify the original state of motion of the twins in terms of the rest frame of your breakfast bagel. But that will be pointless, because you could also define "absolute speed" to be the speed in terms of the Sun's inertial rest coordinates, or in terms of Andromeda's inertial rest coordinates, or any of infinitely many other inertial coordinate systems. So understanding the phenomena really has nothing in particular to do with your breakfast bagel, and writing the word "absolute" on your bagel doesn't change anything. Understand?
beda
the reference is, obviously, the left behind twin!!!!
Post by beda pietanza
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes
behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is
successful in doing so,
Your misconception is due to your failure to grasp the distinction between the logical concepts of necessity and sufficiency. You think that since events can be described in terms of a particular inertial coordinate system S5 that therefore S5 must have some special conceptual significance, but you admit that the events can be described just as well (with exactly the same laws of physics) in terms of S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, and infinitely many others. Thus there is no rational basis for your belief that S5 has any *particular* significance. Understand?
beda
there is a particular significance in being at rest in space away from near masses, where light is emitted and received isotropically, you in reckoning it you would not loose anything, instead your SR would gain more physical plausibility, but you are so keen to an hard core attitude that you logical ability is compromised
Post by beda pietanza
Can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going
away twin while he is keeping traveling away?
A "rate" is a ratio of two things, so you have to specify the two things. Asking for the rate of something without specifying the system of reference coordinates is like tying to clap with one hand. In terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates x,t the rate of proper time for an object moving at speed v is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Understand?
beda
you see, you have lost lucidity: obviously the comparison is with the twin left behind, and obviously your SR trickery
doesn't help you, not to even imagine what happens to a single clock/twin while he is going away:

a sane logic requires an answer: what happens to the rate of the going away twin, goes it slower, faster or the same??
you cannot answer not even conceptually, by denying the absolute you are logically crippled, admitting the role of the absolute, it wouldn't cost you a penny, but you would gain a lot: that is, a useless, genuine SR bigotry of you and of your pals

cheers
beda
Cliff Hallston
2021-05-30 22:17:29 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
the reference is, obviously, the left behind twin!!!!
So, now you are defining "absolute" speed to be the speed in terms of the inertial coordinates in which Steve (one of the twins) is at rest. But this contradicts your previous insistence that "absolute" speeds are the speeds in which the CMBR is maximally isotropic. Steve is not at rest in that system, so you are contradicting yourself. Sheesh.
Post by beda pietanza
there is a particular significance in being at rest in space ...
No, space does not provide any reference state for position or velocity. Remember?
Post by beda pietanza
In terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates x,t the rate of proper time for an object moving at speed v is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Understand?
Obviously the comparison is with the twin left behind...
Your brain malfunctioned again. There are two twins in uniform motion. Each twin is leaving the other twin behind. It is entirely possible that the twin in the rocket is going slower in terms of the CMBR isotropic coordinates than the twin he "left behind". The objects being compared are not the same as the system of coordinates in terms of which the comparison is made. The rates of proper time of two objects are compared based on a mapping of the events at equal t based on a specified system of coordinates. In general, neither of the objects need be at rest in this system.

Now that you understand this, I say again: In terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates x,t the rate of proper time for an object moving at speed v is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). This provides the unambiguous answer to all your questions.
Post by beda pietanza
What happens to the rate of the going away twin, goes it slower, faster or the same??
Already answered multiple times. See above. Once you specify that you are defining absolute speed to be the speed in terms of inertial coordinates in which Steve is at rest, the answers are all trivial. But this contradicts your previous assertion that absolute speeds are those in which the CMBR is isotropic. The answers are also trivial in terms of that system, just as they are trivial in terms of any specified system. That's why it is idiotic to label Steve as "absolute". Now do you understand?
beda pietanza
2021-05-31 12:45:44 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
the reference is, obviously, the left behind twin!!!!
So, now you are defining "absolute" speed to be the speed in terms of the inertial coordinates in which Steve (one of the twins) is at rest. But this contradicts your previous insistence that "absolute" speeds are the speeds in which the CMBR is maximally isotropic. Steve is not at rest in that system, so you are contradicting yourself. Sheesh.
beda
absolute is anything whatsoever in any whatsoever condition in any instant of time,
if a object is in a stable condition, for long enough for our purposes, it can be used as a reference
the comparison we obtain is relative to the reference we choose, the comparison tells us a ratio between their
absolute values.
so Steve is left at his stable inertial absolute speed, while his twin John goes inertialy away, the result is that John while inertially traveling (and stably) may age less, more or the same, depend on his new absolute inertial speed being more, less or the same (in the opposite direction vs the CMBR)
this happens to john independently if john is in a SR frame or not.
you don't realize that your SR arrangement cannot compare a single clock in the frame K to a single clock in the frame
K', nor this can be done using the SR doppler reciprocity were also the absolute single clock rate is not known
that is the price you pay for your blind acceptance of the SR procedure as a given black box, without looking inside the box at its hidden absolute mechanism.
Post by beda pietanza
there is a particular significance in being at rest in space ...
No, space does not provide any reference state for position or velocity. Remember?
beda
you must be kidding, the CMBR in association with the universe local appearance,
does provide a reference that allow us to tell our absolute movement versus them.
moreover the inertia gives us the immediate knowledge of the our state of rest: the same impulse results in the maximum change of speed of an object when the propulsive platform is at absolute rest
you may not follow, but I give you a chance:
two identical guns pointing in the same direction when they meet they shoot two bullets;
gun A is at rest versus the CMBR, the other gun B is passing by by inertially,
after an arbitrary elapsed time after the shootings, the resultant position in space of the bullet A versus the gun A, is at a greater of the distance than bullet B versus the gun B!!
A is at absolute rest!, B is at an absolute inertial speed different from absolute rest (versus the CMBR and the universe)

a little addendum: A or B, gun or bullet, cannot even be considered at rest versus themself, because absolute movement produces effects on them, so when they are absolutely moving, they are absolutely different from when at rest, (of course in our case, except the gun A that we have put at absolute rest on purpose).

the description above is, of course, conceptual, when you operatively want to do concrete measurements, you can arrange them in a frame based on the inertia, then you will obtain SR results , with an arrangement using absolute movement versus the CMBR the results are as I described.
both descriptions have to be compatible done the transposition from a scheme to the other correctly,
notwithstanding that the SR pretences of extend the "invariance, symmetries and reciprocity" to all speeds is illusory:
it works only abstractly in math, in reality there is, only, a low range of speeds where it may apply approximately
Post by beda pietanza
In terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates x,t the rate of proper time for an object moving at speed v is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Understand?
Obviously the comparison is with the twin left behind...
Your brain malfunctioned again. There are two twins in uniform motion. Each twin is leaving the other twin behind. It is entirely possible that the twin in the rocket is going slower in terms of the CMBR isotropic coordinates than the twin he "left behind". The objects being compared are not the same as the system of coordinates in terms of which the comparison is made. The rates of proper time of two objects are compared based on a mapping of the events at equal t based on a specified system of coordinates. In general, neither of the objects need be at rest in this system.
Now that you understand this, I say again: In terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates x,t the rate of proper time for an object moving at speed v is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). This provides the unambiguous answer to all your questions.
Post by beda pietanza
What happens to the rate of the going away twin, goes it slower, faster or the same??
Already answered multiple times. See above. Once you specify that you are defining absolute speed to be the speed in terms of inertial coordinates in which Steve is at rest, the answers are all trivial. But this contradicts your previous assertion that absolute speeds are those in which the CMBR is isotropic. The answers are also trivial in terms of that system, just as they are trivial in terms of any specified system. That's why it is idiotic to label Steve as "absolute". Now do you understand?
beda
absolute rest, and absolute movement versus the absolute rest, you must distinguish them
steve is not, or may not be, at absolute rest versus the CMBR,
so the comparison between Steve and John is between their different ageing absolute rates,
locally, as they perceive it, they are ageing the same: as long as they keep their speed unchanged, they age just the same.
the difference is that their local "duration" corresponds to two different absolute universal times, and while traveling the appearance of the surrounding universe is different for them,
Steve and John can compare their universe appearance and find it being different, by exchanging photos, among themselves and with their father that stays at rest in the CMBR.

but unfortunately you are shut into a windowless SR cage, so you are missing the whole realistic picture
cheers
beda
Cliff Hallston
2021-05-31 15:20:52 UTC
Absolute is anything whatsoever in any whatsoever condition...
Then it's a meaningless concept.
If a object is in a stable condition, for long enough for our purposes, it can
be used as a reference
Then you are not describing an "absolute" thing, you are describing a purely relational thing. Sheesh.
Your SR arrangement cannot compare a single clock in the frame K to a single clock
in the frame K'
Any such comparison entails a mapping between the events of one clock and the events of the other. There are infinitely many such mappings. You can choose one particular mapping, such as the one given by the time coordinate of the system in which your breakfast bagel is at rest, and grandly declare it to be the absolute mapping, but that's pointless and does not enhance your understanding.
the box at its hidden absolute mechanism.
You are not describing any hidden mechanism. You are just naively saying that you gain understanding by describing things in terms of the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel is at rest. Your beliefs are absurd.
Space does not provide any reference state for position or velocity. Remember?
You must be kidding, the CMBR in association with the universe local appearance,
does provide a reference...
But that is not *space* providing a reference, that is the radiation and the distant galaxies providing a reference. Just like your breakfast bagel provides a reference, and Steve provides a reference. Not space. Remember?
Two identical guns pointing in the same direction when they meet they shoot two bullets;
gun A is at rest versus the CMBR, the other gun B is passing by by inertially, after an
arbitrary elapsed time after the shootings, the resultant position in space of the bullet
A versus the gun A, is at a greater of the distance than bullet B versus the gun B!!
In accord with the principle of relativity, each bullet has the same velocity u (reaching the same distance in the same time) in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the respective gun is at rest. Now, if a gun is moving at speed v in terms of inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel is at rest, then the bullet has speed (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) in terms of the bagel coordinates. This is all perfectly consistent with (and predicted by) local Lorentz invariance.
beda pietanza
2021-06-04 12:04:24 UTC
Post by Cliff Hallston
Absolute is anything whatsoever in any whatsoever condition...
Then it's a meaningless concept.
beda
that is to be ruminated
Post by Cliff Hallston
If a object is in a stable condition, for long enough for our purposes, it can
be used as a reference
Then you are not describing an "absolute" thing, you are describing a purely relational thing. Sheesh.
beda
yes, the relative comparison takes place between two objects or more, and the comparison implies that each
single objects is absolute and absolute are the characteristics compared
Post by Cliff Hallston
Your SR arrangement cannot compare a single clock in the frame K to a single clock
in the frame K'
Any such comparison entails a mapping between the events of one clock and the events of the other. There are infinitely many such mappings. You can choose one particular mapping, such as the one given by the time coordinate of the system in which your breakfast bagel is at rest, and grandly declare it to be the absolute mapping, but that's pointless and does not enhance your understanding.
beda
no mapping is required when all the objects, that are compared, are considered in their absoluteness:
nature doesn't map anything, doesn't use math, doesn't know any law, you have to guess or use your intuition to have a mental representation of what nature does mindlessly and purposelessly.
once you have that mental representation, hopefully at best guess or intuition, then you can play with nature behavior
and make out a lot of meaningful tricks and mapping
if you don't have the correct intuition you can only make a conceptual mess, and let me repeat this: the correct experimental results of a theory or of a procedure don't mend the conceptual errors,
those conceptual errors become extremely deceitful being supported by factual evidences
Post by Cliff Hallston
the box at its hidden absolute mechanism.
You are not describing any hidden mechanism. You are just naively saying that you gain understanding by describing things in terms of the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel is at rest. Your beliefs are absurd.
Space does not provide any reference state for position or velocity. Remember?
You must be kidding, the CMBR in association with the universe local appearance,
does provide a reference...
But that is not *space* providing a reference, that is the radiation and the distant galaxies providing a reference. Just like your breakfast bagel provides a reference, and Steve provides a reference. Not space. Remember?
beda
what provides a reference are the physical characteristics of the local space that are determined by the effects of the totality of the masses and of the total energy of the universe plus the gravitational effects of nearer local masses,
a object that receives and emit light isotropicaly in such local space, can be used as an absolute reference
Post by Cliff Hallston
Two identical guns pointing in the same direction when they meet they shoot two bullets;
gun A is at rest versus the CMBR, the other gun B is passing by by inertially, after an
arbitrary elapsed time after the shootings, the resultant position in space of the bullet
A versus the gun A, is at a greater of the distance than bullet B versus the gun B!!
In accord with the principle of relativity, each bullet has the same velocity u (reaching the same distance in the same time) in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the respective gun is at rest. Now, if a gun is moving at speed v in terms of inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel is at rest, then the bullet has speed (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) in terms of the bagel coordinates. This is all perfectly consistent with (and predicted by) local Lorentz invariance.
beda
translated in raw physical facts: the same impulse results in different change of absolute speed depending on the
absolute speed the object had before the impulse was applied:
e.i. if the object of unitary mass under the effect of a impulse "jumps" from 0 to .5c
the same impulse applied to the same object traveling at .5c the jumps of the speed is only from .5c to .8c

there is a reflection needed here (for me): how the thrust given by the same impulse decreases its efficacy on the thrusted object, as the object increases its absolute speed ???? any hint??

cheers
beda
beda pietanza
2021-06-04 22:14:23 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Cliff Hallston
Absolute is anything whatsoever in any whatsoever condition...
Then it's a meaningless concept.
that is to be ruminated
No, it is self-evidently a meaningless concept. If you say everything is blamange, you have not given a meaningful definition of blamange.
beda
there are not any definition of any concept used, the sense of the discourse is on the context, for any goodwilling person, when anyone asks for definition it is a way to swindler around in vain.
Post by beda pietanza
The relative comparison takes place between two objects or more...
Right.
Post by beda pietanza
and the comparison implies that each single objects is absolute and absolute
are the characteristics compared
Your brain malfunctioned again. Please try to concentrate: In each frame we can construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks at rest and synchronized inertially in terms of that frame, and we can then describe the spatio-temporal relations between entities in terms of those coordinates. There is no blamange here. The concept of blamangeness does not enter into this process at all.
beda
you are guiltily wrong comparison don't need any of such, it can be made immediately using our senses:
we can see the difference in height or distance, we can hear the difference in sound pitch, we can feel microscopic grain dust clued on a surface by tact...
and any of the detected difference is an absolute difference, quantified or not is irrelevant
Post by beda pietanza
What provides a reference are ... the totality of the masses and of the total energy
of the universe
That is not absolute reference, it is a relative reference to quantities of matter and energy, and it is perfectly consistent with local Lorentz invariance. You are just vaguely groping towards what Einstein called Mach's Principle, but that principle is hypothesized as the origin of inertia (i.e., the absoluteness of acceleration), not for the absoluteness of position or velocity. As a reference for velocity, it is purely relational, the opposite of absoluteness. We covered this before.
beda
you are wrong, you should know better, you are ignoring that light travel at c versus the local space where an object
is at rest versus the incoming isotropic light; this object is at rest for the appearence of the universe unchanging and this can be checked by the unchanging of its position through time.
the absoluteness of the condition of the object at absolute rest rely on many indicators that are coexistent at same time, the same many indicators tell the eventual absolute movement of an object.

you are thwarting by omission or pretenses a trivial fact that the local speed of light and its counterpart local space
where light happen to travel are perfect absolute references
Post by beda pietanza
A object that receives and emit light isotropicaly in such local space, can be used as
an absolute reference
The speed of light is isotropic in terms of the rest inertial coordinates of every object. What you might be trying to say is that there is a unique state of motion for an object in between two identical sources of light (at rest in some frame) for which the *frequencies* of the impinging light are equal. But this is just defining a state of motion relative to the sources of light, so it is a relational definition, not absolute.
beda
no, you keep bringing in inertial coordinates, that cannot be brought in, I am talking only of a unique local reference for light and for moving objects, your SR frames are manipolation of fact upon which we don't agree.
so we must talk about facts, and we must, because we still disagree
or,, talk about manipulated procedures, we can do this later,
try to be constructive on this very edge cutting point
Post by beda pietanza
Translated in raw physical facts: the same impulse results in different change
of absolute speed depending on the absolute speed the object had before the
impulse was applied...
Your brain malfunctioned again. All you are doing is insisting that semantically we should always use one particular system of inertial coordinates,
beda
not a inertial system of coordinates, but an absolute unique one, this one accidentally is coincident with one of the set of your inertially coordinates systems,
inertially coordinates systems of which use I disagree, especially on conceptual basis,
you should not have anything against the use of such unique absolute reference having it all the requirements of the rest of your inertial frames,
so that should be a reference that we can use in our analysis.

and not any of the others, even though no one ever actually uses the one you suggest (including you), and the laws of physics take exactly the same form in terms of all of them, and the one you hypocritically suggest is based purely on relational considerations, not absolute considerations, and any other would serve just as well.
Post by beda pietanza
e.i. if the object of unitary mass under the effect of a impulse "jumps" from 0 to .5c
the same impulse applied to the same object traveling at .5c the jumps of the speed
is only from .5c to .8c
beda
it is not a mystery to me, only I refuse to consider that coordinate systems inertially synchronized are showing
the properties that you assign them, instead the search of the nature behavior and its description must be based on the absolute space and absolute time, and due to the emergent novelty of the Lorentz contraction, no other frames are possible beside the unique absolute reference.
said this, of course I cannot force anyone to change his approach to facts, but on the conceptual basis, your inertial
bullet uses the change of absolute movement to synchro the distant clock, as I told you before, after the Esynchro, the absolute movement of the SR frame is transferred to the span of the "asynchrony" of the frame clocks, this should tell you a lot.
did you check this, reread below:
a frame at .5c sees its unitary ruler traversed in the direction of the movement in a time
sqrt(1-.5^2)/ (1-.5^)= 1.73; local time 1.5
the clock at end of the ruler should by set at 1.5, instead is set at 1
so the clock is retsarded of exactly .5 () the value of the absolute speed of the SR frame.
do you really think that this has not meaning??
for any SR frame the "asynvhrony" of the two clock is exactly, the value of the absolute speed of the SR frame,
how do you explain this, please don't ignore this crucial point.
Post by beda pietanza
How the thrust given by the same impulse decreases its efficacy on the thrusted
object, as the object increases its absolute speed ???? any hint??
Sure, your question, as always, is based on false premises. The efficacy is not reduced, because the application of a given force through a given distance (the definition of work/energy) is always the same. That's why the kinetic energy of mass m moving at speed v is not (1/2)mv^2, it is mc^2[1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1]. This amount of energy can be confirmed by measuring the energy released by slowing the object back down. So there is no reduction in efficacy of the force. The explanation is that energy E has inertia E/c^2. Everything follows from this. We covered this before.
beda
I agree that all the energy that is transferred to the object can be given back, I still wonder how the thrusting object can transfer the energy without loosing efficacy as the thrusted object reaches very high speed,
I mean kind of: 10 of energy is spent while only 1 is tranferred to the object.
cheers
beda
beda pietanza
2021-06-05 15:15:09 UTC
There are not any definition of any concept used...
That is not true. I've given operational definitions of every term, using standard rulers and clocks, and referring to the established equations of physics. You, on the other hand, do nothing but repeat the word "absolute" with no coherent definition at all. You've given a dozen different vague attempts at definitions, and each one has been a relational one, not absolute at all.
beda
that is right, it is impossible to define what is obvious,
at same time the absolutness can be met in many different ways.
Sorry to say, but you are lying. If someone offered you a million dollars right now, based on your own senses, to point in the direction of your motion relative to the CMBR isotropic frame, you could not answer. You have no sense of your motion relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. Likewise you have no sense of your motion in the rest frame of the Andromeda galaxy. And so on. And in any case, all these things are relational speeds, not absolute speeds, so even if you could sense them (which you can't), they would not support your position. Anything that can be sensed is relational, so to support your case you need to be able to sense something that cannot be sensed.
beda
look cliff, as I said the absolute is obvious, and I von't spend a word in the attempt of prove it, because I would fail against your lack of reckoning it by your self
You are ignoring that light travel at c versus the local space where an object
is at rest versus the incoming isotropic light;
The speed of light is isotropically c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates (standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in terms of any given frame). We've covered this before.
beda
your manipulated SR frame are appositely constructed to show an apparent isotropic speed of light
I am talking only of a unique local reference for light and for moving objects...
And I keep reminding you that there is no such thing. There are various relational references such as the Sun's rest frame or Andromeda's rest frame, your your breakfast bagel's rest frame, or the CMBR isotropic rest frame, etc., but these are not absolute frames and they are all Lorentz invariant.
beda
be sure, the sun, Andromeda, the CMBR, don't need any of your crooked SR frames, to show what they are,
and I want to know what they are and what they do, without any manipulated preconstructed human device.
only when, extablished at best of the possible our knowledge, have we given to each of them the proper physical explanation, and agreeing on that, only then, we can construct a common shared global scheme that put everything together.
till then, in presence of disagreement, we are forced to limit our confrontation on one single raw physical fact.
I refuse to consider that coordinate systems inertially synchronized are showing
the properties that you assign them...
Well, you can live your life denying the objective facts, but that just leads you to solipism. The objective fact is that the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates (standard rulers and clocks at rest an inertially synchronized in the given frame).
beda
that is surely true in the math SR use, if that is true factually in the real world is at stake.
but I invite you to limit our analisys using a common ground, that is the preferred frame at rest versus the CMBR.
that can help us out of a only apparent disagreement, because once extablished that the SR math rend invariant all your apposite constructed SR frame, you can live happily with you illusions and I can live happily with my opinion that math is not transferable to reality so easily.
few other conceptual minor expects are left to elaborate, and they would emerge clearly with an approach using the preferred frame anchored the the CMBR, like the SR arrangement to be strictly embedded on the absolutness of the speeds involved in the peculiar synchro SR uses
A frame at .5c ...
In terms of what coordinate system? You cannot talk meaningfully about lengths, distances, time intervals, speeds, etc., without specifying a system of coordinates.
beda
you are swindling!, any speed even whatever one, with the SR synchro procedure, you will find that, whatever one value of the speed of the frame is, this value is transferred to the Esynchro retarded span time between successive clocks of the SR frame along the x axis,
you will refuse to go into this because it will show that all your pretence of ignoring the absolutness of the basis of your SR synchro procedure is one amongst many ways the "hidden" absolutes keeps peeping out to your face all the time.
just to add a more argument, each SR frame has a different shrewd Esynchro that distinguish one SR frame from the others, so this, is one way of assigning to any of the SR frames an absolute characteristic, specifically distinguished by the absolute of its speed value indicated by the Esynchro spanned clocks.

please don't swindle on the issue of the information of the absolute inertial speeds of each SR frames transferred
to the Esynchro clocks span, it is crucial for your understanding you SR !!!!

cheers
beda
I agree that all the energy that is transferred to the object can be given back, I still
wonder how the thrusting object can transfer the energy without loosing efficacy as
the thrusted object reaches very high speed...
Practical difficulties of applying a given amount of force are just incidental factors, not relevant to this discussion. The laws of physics enable us to determine the amount of force actually applied to an object (such as to a charged particle in an electrostatic field), and this results in the acceleration and gain of kinetic energy as expected.
Cliff Hallston
2021-06-05 17:46:25 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
I've given operational definitions of every term, using standard rulers and clocks, and referring to the established equations of physics. You, on the other hand, do nothing but repeat the word "absolute" with no coherent definition at all. You've given a dozen different vague attempts at definitions, and each one has been a relational one, not absolute at all.
that is right, it is impossible to define what is obvious,
With that, you admit that you admit that I've provided full justification for the scientific acount, and that your beliefs cannot be defended.
Post by beda pietanza
absolutness can be met in many different ways.
Then it is not absolute.
Post by beda pietanza
absolute is obvious, and I won't spend a word in the attempt of prove it, because I would fail
Again, you admit that your beliefs are indefensible and have no rational basis.
Post by beda pietanza
your manipulated SR frame are constructed to show isotropic speed of light
You are a liar. How many times has it been explained to you how inertial coordinate systems are constructed?
Post by beda pietanza
Well, you can live your life denying the objective facts, but that just leads you to solipism. The objective fact is that the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates (standard rulers and clocks at rest an inertially synchronized in the given frame).
that is surely true...
Correct.
Post by beda pietanza
I invite you to limit our analysis using the preferred frame at rest versus the CMBR.
You do not. Each time you start to describe a scenario with various speeds, I ask you to tell me what system of coordinates you are using, and you refuse. Then later you talk about a preferred frame and I explain that distinguished does not mean preferred, and that no one (including beda) uses the CMBR isotropic frequency frame, so it clearly is not "preferred", and yet you insanely continue to use the word, and then even more insanely continue to refuse to define your coordinates when I ask. Now suddenly you are willing to define your relational (not absolute) coordinates. Your behavior is totally incoherent.

The point is that, once you have stopped lying and admitted that you are working in terms of a relationally distinguished inertial coordinate system, you must face the fact that whatever analysis you produce can be exactly replicated in terms of any other system of inertial coordinates, and so your beliefs are refuted and indefensible, as you yourself have admitted.
Cliff Hallston
2021-06-05 17:48:48 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
I've given operational definitions of every term, using standard rulers and clocks, and referring to the established equations of physics. You, on the other hand, do nothing but repeat the word "absolute" with no coherent definition at all. You've given a dozen different vague attempts at definitions, and each one has been a relational one, not absolute at all.
that is right, it is impossible to define what is obvious,
With that, you admit that I've provided full justification for the scientific acount, and that your beliefs cannot be defended.
Post by beda pietanza
absolutness can be met in many different ways.
Then it's not absolute.
Post by beda pietanza
absolute is obvious, and I won't spend a word in the attempt of prove it, because I would fail
Again, you admit your beliefs are indefensible and have no rational basis.
Post by beda pietanza
your manipulated SR frame are constructed to show isotropic speed of light
You're a liar. How many times has it been explained to you how inertial coordinate systems are constructed?
Post by beda pietanza
Well, you can live your life denying the objective facts, but that just leads you to solipism. The objective fact is that the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates (standard rulers and clocks at rest an inertially synchronized in the given frame).
that is surely true...
That's correct.
Post by beda pietanza
I invite you to limit our analysis using the preferred frame at rest versus the CMBR.
You don't. Each time you start to describe a scenario with various speeds, I ask you to tell me what system of coordinates you are using, and you refuse. Then later you talk about a preferred frame and I explain that distinguished does not mean preferred, and that no one (including beda) uses the CMBR isotropic frequency frame, so it clearly is not "preferred", and yet you insanely continue to use the word, and then even more insanely continue to refuse to define your coordinates when I ask. Now suddenly you are willing to define your relational (not absolute) coordinates. Your behavior is totally incoherent.

The point is, once you have stopped lying and admitted that you are working in terms of a relationally distinguished inertial coordinate system, you must face the fact that whatever analysis you produce can be exactly replicated in terms of any other system of inertial coordinates, and so your beliefs are refuted and indefensible, as you yourself have admitted.
beda pietanza
2021-06-05 20:40:03 UTC
Post by Cliff Hallston
Post by beda pietanza
I've given operational definitions of every term, using standard rulers and clocks, and referring to the established equations of physics. You, on the other hand, do nothing but repeat the word "absolute" with no coherent definition at all. You've given a dozen different vague attempts at definitions, and each one has been a relational one, not absolute at all.
that is right, it is impossible to define what is obvious,
With that, you admit that I've provided full justification for the scientific acount, and that your beliefs cannot be defended.
Post by beda pietanza
absolutness can be met in many different ways.
Then it's not absolute.
Post by beda pietanza
absolute is obvious, and I won't spend a word in the attempt of prove it, because I would fail
Again, you admit your beliefs are indefensible and have no rational basis.
beda
you are cheating, cuttimg sentences out of their context
Post by Cliff Hallston
Post by beda pietanza
your manipulated SR frame are constructed to show isotropic speed of light
You're a liar. How many times has it been explained to you how inertial coordinate systems are constructed?
Post by beda pietanza
Well, you can live your life denying the objective facts, but that just leads you to solipism. The objective fact is that the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates (standard rulers and clocks at rest an inertially synchronized in the given frame).
that is surely true...
That's correct.
beda
cutting context
Post by Cliff Hallston
Post by beda pietanza
I invite you to limit our analysis using the preferred frame at rest versus the CMBR.
You don't. Each time you start to describe a scenario with various speeds, I ask you to tell me what system of coordinates you are using, and you refuse. Then later you talk about a preferred frame and I explain that distinguished does not mean preferred, and that no one (including beda) uses the CMBR isotropic frequency frame, so it clearly is not "preferred", and yet you insanely continue to use the word, and then even more insanely continue to refuse to define your coordinates when I ask. Now suddenly you are willing to define your relational (not absolute) coordinates. Your behavior is totally incoherent.
beda
after the introduction of the Lorentz contraction no frames are possible out of the preferred frame at rest vs the CMBR, or any approx to it of which we accept its approximation, (this frame has an absolute synchro)

this preferred frame is unique, all the possible objects movement and other object characteristics are referred to it.

your the entire set of SR inertial coordinates systems are living within that preferred frame, each SR frame has its absolute speed.

and as I repeatedly told you, each of those SR frames are Esynched in such a way that automatically the absolute speed of the SR frame is tranferred to the retarded span of two successive clocks.

you keep ignoring this crucial passage, which relate, strictly, your SR Esynchro to the value of the absolute speed of your SR frame, this proves my claim that the SR arrangement is a procedure to rend the absolute "superflous", but uses it to set the SR frame synchro. *****I asked you repeatedly to adress this crucial point!!!!****

So your SR is embedded into the absolutness of the speed of each SR frame.

I may add that, if the speed of the SR frame are absolute, then absolute are all the values of the each single ruler lenght and the each single clock rate in those frames.

the speed of the SR frames, the length of the single ruler, the rate of the single clock are absolute, the rest results of the measurements done with your SR frames are artifacts generated, intentionally, through a man made setting, to extract what you wanted, meaningful for you, needless for me for the following reason:

we can extract the same alleged invariance just processing the data accordingly, referring all object and values to the preferred frame,

of course all the doubts about the validity of the "invariance" are still there
Post by Cliff Hallston
The point is, once you have stopped lying and admitted that you are working in terms of a relationally distinguished inertial coordinate system, you must face the fact that whatever analysis you produce can be exactly replicated in terms of any other system of inertial coordinates, and so your beliefs are refuted and indefensible, as you yourself have admitted.
beda
you are childishly trivial: any relative relation between objects is a relative relation between absolute objects.
you are so self brainwashed not to grasp this triviality.
cheers
beda
Cliff Hallston
2021-06-05 23:10:52 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
you are cheating, cuttimg sentences out of their context
I'm extracting the admittedly small amount of cognitive content of your posts, and responding to it. The omitted parts are just willful gibberish.
Post by beda pietanza
after the introduction of the Lorentz contraction...
There is no such thing as "Lorentz contraction". There is length contraction. It's pointless for you to make up pet terms for things.
Post by beda pietanza
no frames are possible...
False. We can and do routinely establish inertial coordinate systems in every state of motion, and you know this full well, so you are intentionally lying.
Post by beda pietanza
this preferred frame is unique
Nope, every relationally defined frame is just a relationally defined frame. There are infinitely many different relationally defined frames, including the frame of your breakfast bagel, the frame of isotropic CMBR frequency, the frame of your car, the frame of Saturn, the frame of Andromeda, and so on.
Post by beda pietanza
and as I repeatedly told you... *****I asked you repeatedly to adress this crucial point!!!!****
As I've repeatedly explained, the same analysis applies to *any* of those relationally defined frames, so your idiocy signifies nothing. Try it for yourself: Take the frame in which the CMBR frequency is non-isotropic by a certain amount in a certain direction, and declare this to be the absolute frame. Then repeat your entire analysis. You get exactly the same thing, and by your reasoning this proves that *this* frame is the absolute frame. Do you see the problem with your mental functioning?
Post by beda pietanza
the speed of the SR frames, the length of the single ruler, the rate of the single clock are absolute
Invisible pink elephants. Your verbiage is meaningless. What you should have said is that every object has a certain speed and characteristics in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the CMBR frequency is isotropic. That is a true statement, but it is an equally true statement if you replace the CMBR isotropic coordinates with any other system of inertial coordinates. Understand?
Post by beda pietanza
We can extract the same alleged invariance just processing the data accordingly,
referring all object and values to the preferred frame,
We can extract all the information purely in terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates, so there is nothing unique about the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel or the CMBR frequencies are isotropic. Do you deny this?
Post by beda pietanza
Any relative relation between objects is a relative relation between absolute objects.
That is meaningless, because every time you try to define "absolute", you describe a relative measure. Furthermore, you are not talking about physics, you are talking about (bad) metaphysics. You admit that there are no physical manifestations of any of your assertions, since you admit that the same analysis applies in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, not just the one in which Andromeda is at rest. This remarkable symmetry of nature -- the principle of relativity, on which both Newtonian and modern physics were based -- is somehow offensive to beda's brain, but this is just a problem for beda, not for science.
beda pietanza
2021-06-06 09:27:55 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
you are cheating, cuttimg sentences out of their context
I'm extracting the admittedly small amount of cognitive content of your posts, and responding to it. The omitted parts are just willful gibberish.
Post by beda pietanza
after the introduction of the Lorentz contraction...
There is no such thing as "Lorentz contraction". There is length contraction. It's pointless for you to make up pet terms for things.
Post by beda pietanza
no frames are possible...
False. We can and do routinely establish inertial coordinate systems in every state of motion, and you know this full well, so you are intentionally lying.
Post by beda pietanza
this preferred frame is unique
Nope, every relationally defined frame is just a relationally defined frame. There are infinitely many different relationally defined frames, including the frame of your breakfast bagel, the frame of isotropic CMBR frequency, the frame of your car, the frame of Saturn, the frame of Andromeda, and so on.
Post by beda pietanza
and as I repeatedly told you... *****I asked you repeatedly to adress this crucial point!!!!****
As I've repeatedly explained, the same analysis applies to *any* of those relationally defined frames, so your idiocy signifies nothing. Try it for yourself: Take the frame in which the CMBR frequency is non-isotropic by a certain amount in a certain direction, and declare this to be the absolute frame. Then repeat your entire analysis. You get exactly the same thing, and by your reasoning this proves that *this* frame is the absolute frame. Do you see the problem with your mental functioning?
Post by beda pietanza
the speed of the SR frames, the length of the single ruler, the rate of the single clock are absolute
Invisible pink elephants. Your verbiage is meaningless. What you should have said is that every object has a certain speed and characteristics in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the CMBR frequency is isotropic. That is a true statement, but it is an equally true statement if you replace the CMBR isotropic coordinates with any other system of inertial coordinates. Understand?
beda
yes that is true, but why that is true?
the reason is that your peculiar class of frames have been constructed in such a way to rend them
equivalent to the real preferred frame anchored to an object an rest vs the CMBR
using such class of coordinate systems as an heuristic approach, to solve measurement procedures, is OK,
the problem rises on theoretical conceptual level: behind all that well tuned construction there are: the absolute speed of the light, the absolute speed of the frames, the absolute speed of the rulers, the absolute lenght of the rulers, the absolute speed of the clocks, the absolute time rate of the clocks,
while all the your construction is the result of a human made procedure to extract from physical raw facts, only some of the meaningful possible data, the total picture is incomplete
the tital picture is reachable only using the preferred frame prospective.

you are under a heuristic successful dizziness, there is something more behind it, I will not tell you no more about it, ignoring may be a self saving strategy of a job tenure.
cheers
beda
Post by beda pietanza
We can extract the same alleged invariance just processing the data accordingly,
referring all object and values to the preferred frame,
We can extract all the information purely in terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates, so there is nothing unique about the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel or the CMBR frequencies are isotropic. Do you deny this?
Post by beda pietanza
Any relative relation between objects is a relative relation between absolute objects.
That is meaningless, because every time you try to define "absolute", you describe a relative measure. Furthermore, you are not talking about physics, you are talking about (bad) metaphysics. You admit that there are no physical manifestations of any of your assertions, since you admit that the same analysis applies in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, not just the one in which Andromeda is at rest. This remarkable symmetry of nature -- the principle of relativity, on which both Newtonian and modern physics were based -- is somehow offensive to beda's brain, but this is just a problem for beda, not for science.
Cliff Hallston
2021-06-07 16:50:12 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
Every object has a certain speed and characteristics in terms of the inertial coordinates
in which the CMBR frequency is isotropic. That is a true statement, but it is an equally
true statement if you replace the CMBR isotropic coordinates with any other system of
inertial coordinates. Understand?
yes that is true, but why that is true?
It is a fundamental symmetry of nature. The laws of physics have the mathematical property that they take the same form when expressed in terms of any system of inertia-based coordinates. This was explicitly recognized to be true by Galileo and Newton, and implicitly for all of human history. For most of history it was thought that those special coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations, but it was discovered about 100 years ago that they are actually related by Lorentz transformations.
Post by beda pietanza
the reason is that your peculiar class of frames have been constructed...
Again, inertia-based coordinate systems are, by definition, systems in terms of which the simple equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good in the low speed limit. Hence these are the coordinates that match the readings on a grid of standard rulers and ideal clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in any given frame. Calling these coordinates "peculiar" is just one symptom of your crackpotism.
Post by beda pietanza
there is something more behind it...
That depends on what "it" you are talking about. The principle of relativity goes back to Galileo and Newton, and it is more or less equivalent to the principle of inertia and conservation of momentum. Your rejection of that principle, based on your belief in ether drag, is simply absurd denial of the facts. The principle of relativity is recognized to be a local principle about a symmetry of the local laws of physics, not making any cosmological claims about the distribution of mass-energy in the universe. In view of constants of integration, there is nothing "behind it" at your level of thinking. (There is at higher levels, but that isn't relevant for discussions with you.) The other "it" you deny is Lorentz invariance, and there is indeed something behind it, namely, the inertia of energy, which you don't grasp at all.
Post by beda pietanza
We can extract the same alleged invariance just processing the data accordingly,
referring all object and values to the preferred frame,
We can extract all the information purely in terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates, so there is nothing unique about the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel or the CMBR frequencies are isotropic. We covered this before.
Post by beda pietanza
Any relative relation between objects is a relative relation between absolute objects.
Nope, you need to learn about constants of integration, and the difference between velocity and acceleration.
beda pietanza
2021-06-07 21:45:41 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
Every object has a certain speed and characteristics in terms of the inertial coordinates
in which the CMBR frequency is isotropic. That is a true statement, but it is an equally
true statement if you replace the CMBR isotropic coordinates with any other system of
inertial coordinates. Understand?
yes that is true, but why that is true?
It is a fundamental symmetry of nature. The laws of physics have the mathematical property that they take the same form when expressed in terms of any system of inertia-based coordinates. This was explicitly recognized to be true by Galileo and Newton, and implicitly for all of human history. For most of history it was thought that those special coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations, but it was discovered about 100 years ago that they are actually related by Lorentz transformations.
Post by beda pietanza
the reason is that your peculiar class of frames have been constructed...
Again, inertia-based coordinate systems are, by definition, systems in terms of which the simple equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good in the low speed limit. Hence these are the coordinates that match the readings on a grid of standard rulers and ideal clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in any given frame. Calling these coordinates "peculiar" is just one symptom of your crackpotism.
Post by beda pietanza
there is something more behind it...
That depends on what "it" you are talking about. The principle of relativity goes back to Galileo and Newton, and it is more or less equivalent to the principle of inertia and conservation of momentum. Your rejection of that principle, based on your belief in ether drag, is simply absurd denial of the facts. The principle of relativity is recognized to be a local principle about a symmetry of the local laws of physics, not making any cosmological claims about the distribution of mass-energy in the universe. In view of constants of integration, there is nothing "behind it" at your level of thinking. (There is at higher levels, but that isn't relevant for discussions with you.) The other "it" you deny is Lorentz invariance, and there is indeed something behind it, namely, the inertia of energy, which you don't grasp at all.
Post by beda pietanza
We can extract the same alleged invariance just processing the data accordingly,
referring all object and values to the preferred frame,
We can extract all the information purely in terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates, so there is nothing unique about the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel or the CMBR frequencies are isotropic. We covered this before.
Post by beda pietanza
Any relative relation between objects is a relative relation between absolute objects.
Nope, you need to learn about constants of integration, and the difference between velocity and acceleration.
beda
I didn't count the number of time you have repeated the same mantra.
my objections are the same:
the LT invariance is an emergent property of nature, we arrive at it after we observe the behavior of many phenomenon,
a single law of nature is deducted by observing a single phenomenon and transferred in a math formula
at basis there is a physical phenomenon: the raw fact
now, reverse:
we barely grasp the raw facts,
we write approx laws
we very hazardously extend an invariance to all laws and for all speed,

we, instead, with much less risks, can use a unique preferred frame, and stay safe, at least conceptually.
in this prospective, I concede you, the possibility to use your heuristic procedure, with an advice: take into account my objections.

so we are both happy.
cheers
beda
Cliff Hallston
2021-06-08 00:57:36 UTC
My objections are the same: The LT invariance is an emergent property...
No, you play a mental shell game on yourself, alternately claiming that special relativity is illogical and claiming that special relativity is empirically false. When I explain to you that your objections to the logic of special relativity are unfounded, you say, well, okay, but it is empirically false, and when I explain to you that your objections to the empirical basis of special relativity are unfounded, you say, well, okay, but it is illogical. And so it goes.
we, instead, with much less risks, can use a unique preferred frame, and stay safe, at least conceptually.
But "we" (including you) never do, we use whatever inertial coordinate system is most convenient in any situation, and the reason this works is that the very same laws of physics hold good in terms of every one of these systems, but only because special relativity has taught us the exact form of those laws, which your beliefs would never have revealed and can't explain.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-05-30 18:23:24 UTC
Move toward each other and there is a fast doppler rate appearance.
Move away and there is a slow doppler rate appearance.
There is a rate that is not a doppler appearance.

Mitchell Raemsch
beda pietanza
2021-05-30 21:39:36 UTC
Post by ***@gmail.com
Move toward each other and there is a fast doppler rate appearance.
Move away and there is a slow doppler rate appearance.
There is a rate that is not a doppler appearance.
Mitchell Raemsch
beda
doppler is not the issue here
cheers
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-05-31 18:54:11 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
cheers
beda
How are twins in relative motion to one another?
If that is the same they should share the same
slow clock.

Mitchell Raemsch
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-06-01 19:49:49 UTC
Coming back is also a slow clock if both sides
were fast in speed...
Ken Seto
2021-06-03 14:01:00 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
Here ’s the full story:
The only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity.potentials. This means that in terms of absolute time both twin aged at the same rate. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. This means that in terms of clock time, the twin are aged at different rates.
The designers of the GPS knew this: in terms of clock time the GPS ages at a faster rate. To correct this, they redefine the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This correction is made before the launch.of the GPS. At the GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and this makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
beda pietanza
2021-06-04 12:15:10 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
The only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity.potentials. This means that in terms of absolute time both twin aged at the same rate. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. This means that in terms of clock time, the twin are aged at different rates.
beda
you got it reversed: the differently moving twins are ageing (and their local clocks run) at the different rate, in accord to their inertial speeds, while the absolute time is unique and same for both of them.
cheers
The designers of the GPS knew this: in terms of clock time the GPS ages at a faster rate. To correct this, they redefine the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This correction is made before the launch.of the GPS. At the GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and this makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
Ken Seto
2021-06-05 17:34:41 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
The only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity.potentials. This means that in terms of absolute time both twin aged at the same rate. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. This means that in terms of clock time, the twin are aged at different rates.
beda
you got it reversed: the differently moving twins are ageing (and their local clocks run) at the different rate, in >accord to their inertial speeds,
Their clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. But both clocks are experienced the same amount of absolute time. For example:
According to the LT when clock A accumulated 1 second and clock B accumulated gamma seconds when they are compared directly....this means that according to clock time clock B is running at a faster rate. But a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time. It represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s the reasons clock time and absolute time are running at different rates.
while the absolute time is unique and same for both of them.
e reason cheers
The designers of the GPS knew this: in terms of clock time the GPS ages at a faster rate. To correct this, they redefine the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This correction is made before the launch.of the GPS. At the GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and this makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
Chuck Longino
2021-06-05 18:44:50 UTC
Post by Ken Seto
beda you got it reversed: the differently moving twins are ageing (and
their local clocks run) at the different rate, in >accord to their
inertial speeds,
Their clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. But both
clocks are not "accumulating" anything, thief, but periodically output
changes of a given state. The changes may, or may not, be registered
forming a historic.
beda pietanza
2021-06-05 19:51:35 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
The only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity.potentials. This means that in terms of absolute time both twin aged at the same rate. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. This means that in terms of clock time, the twin are aged at different rates.
beda
you got it reversed: the differently moving twins are ageing (and their local clocks run) at the different rate, in >accord to their inertial speeds,
According to the LT when clock A accumulated 1 second and clock B accumulated gamma seconds when they are compared directly....this means that according to clock time clock B is running at a faster rate. But a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time. It represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s the reasons clock time and absolute time are running at different rates.
while the absolute time is unique and same for both of them.
e reason cheers
The designers of the GPS knew this: in terms of clock time the GPS ages at a faster rate. To correct this, they redefine the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This correction is made before the launch.of the GPS. At the GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and this makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
beda
faster moving clock runs slower, absolute time is an abstract concept, we can associate it to any ciclical stable phenomenon
cheers
Ken Seto
2021-06-07 15:21:54 UTC
Post by beda pietanza
Post by beda pietanza
starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
The only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity.potentials. This means that in terms of absolute time both twin aged at the same rate. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. This means that in terms of clock time, the twin are aged at different rates.
beda
you got it reversed: the differently moving twins are ageing (and their local clocks run) at the different rate, in >accord to their inertial speeds,
According to the LT when clock A accumulated 1 second and clock B accumulated gamma seconds when they are compared directly....this means that according to clock time clock B is running at a faster rate. But a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time. It represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s the reasons clock time and absolute time are running at different rates.
while the absolute time is unique and same for both of them.
e reason cheers
The designers of the GPS knew this: in terms of clock time the GPS ages at a faster rate. To correct this, they redefine the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This correction is made before the launch.of the GPS. At the GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and this makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
beda
faster moving clock runs slower, absolute time is an abstract concept,
Between two clocks which is the faster clock? The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock.
Post by beda pietanza
we can associate it to any ciclical stable phenomenon
cheers
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-06-08 01:16:17 UTC